Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Mike Vanderjagt article

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mike Vanderjagt article

    http://www.thepostgame.com/features/...ll-kicking-nfl

    Why Isn't Mike Vanderjagt Still Kicking In The NFL?
    Sunday, January 30 2011 10:57 PMWritten by: Eric Adelson\0020Share803 488DiggBuzz up!ShareThis\0020EmailPrint\0020\0020.


    In the entryway of a small Italian restaurant in the back of a shopping plaza, the leading scorer in Colts history paces. He looks out through the front door and checks his BlackBerry. It’s 7 p.m. on a fall Monday. He came here tonight, to the restaurant he’s owned for five years, to teach some football to the locals. He wants to talk about everything he learned in nine years in the league. “Bring a mate!” say the flyers on the door. “First drink free!” His name is known by millions. He played with some of the best ever, and some of the best ever looked to him to win games for them. More often than not, he did. But tonight, nobody wants to learn football from him. Nobody’s coming.

    So Mike Vanderjagt heads to the back of the restaurant.

    When he left football, three years ago, he was the most accurate professional kicker to ever play his position. Jan Stenerud, now in the Hall of Fame, made 66.8 percent of his tries. Vanderjagt made 86.5. Stenerud missed 47 kicks from 50 yards or longer; Vanderjagt missed 36 field goals in his entire career. He’s 40 now, and although that’s old for pretty much any athlete, it’s not old for a kicker. John Carney is still active at 46. Morten Anderson kicked until 47. And here’s Vanderjagt, in game shape, planning to go out to a high school field the next day to boot a few. “I should be the kicker for the New Orleans Saints,” he says, sipping a Pepsi. Vanderjagt was always blustery, but usually he was right. And let’s face it: lots of NFL teams have kickers worse than Vanderjagt.

    So why is this man sitting here alone in a pizza place?


    ***

    Some might think the answer comes down to two phrases: “idiot kicker” and “liquored up.”

    These four words were famously uttered in one sentence at the Pro Bowl in 2003 by Colts quarterback Peyton Manning. You remember: Vanderjagt had gone on Canadian TV and said he was down on his Colts team because Manning and the head coach at the time, Tony Dungy, weren’t fiery leaders. “I’m not a real big Colts fan right now, unfortunately,” Vanderjagt said. “I just don’t see us getting better.”

    In the NFL, nobody rips on a teammate -- especially if the teammate is Peyton Manning. The quarterback became quite fiery indeed when ABC reporter and NFL Hall of Famer Lynn Swann asked him about Vanderjagt in Honolulu. “I’m out at my third Pro Bowl,” he told Swann. “I’m about to go in and throw a touchdown to Jerry Rice, we’re honoring the Hall of Fame, and we’re talking about our idiot kicker who got liquored up and ran his mouth off.”

    Did that comment seal Vanderjagt’s fate in Indy? Did it seal his fate in the NFL? “When I get home, I’ll deal with it,” Manning told Swann. “If he is still a teammate, we’ll deal with it. That remains to be seen.” But Vanderjagt remained a teammate for four more seasons after that.

    So no, Vanderjagt is not out of the league for being an idiot kicker.

    Some could point to Vanderjagt’s playoff miss in 2006 against Pittsburgh. The Colts were down 21-18 and Vanderjagt missed a 46-yarder wide right to doom his team’s best-ever shot at a Super Bowl (at that point). Once again, Manning’s words were damning, as TV cameras clearly caught him spitting, “He missed it,” as he watched from the sideline.


    The Colts replaced him with the famously clutch Adam Vinatieri, who went on to win a Super Bowl with Indianapolis. Vanderjagt went to Dallas and missed five kicks – three off uprights -- but made more than 72 percent of his attempts that season. Bill Parcells still cut him.

    And that was it. Vanderjagt hasn’t attempted a kick in the NFL since.

    So if it’s not the comments in Canada, or the push against Pittsburgh, then what?

    “My wife says I’ve been blackballed,” Vanderjagt says. “I tell her that’s not how the NFL works.”

    He’s right. That’s not how the NFL works. Mike Vick murdered dogs and he’s now an NFL MVP candidate. Ben Roethlisberger was accused of sexual assault -- twice -- and he’s getting ready for another Super Bowl. The list goes on and on. The shining truth is this: If you are great at your job -- and even if you’re only better-than-average -- you will get chance after chance in the NFL.

    Unless you’re Mike Vanderjagt.


    ***

    So he’s here, at a pizza place he owns with his brothers. He’s not a recluse, but he’s pretty hard to find. Vandy’s Five Brothers restaurant is in one of the more remote places in the continental U.S. – at the far southwest tip of Florida. To get here, you have to drive two hours west from Miami, then 15 miles past signs warning of “Panther Traffic,” then over a bridge to Marco Island, whose population is a quarter of that of LucasOil Stadium on a home Sunday. And even then, Vanderjagt’s restaurant is tucked behind a grocery store, facing a little-used road and an alley. For snowbirds, Marco Island is paradise. For Vanderjagt, this is Elba.

    “Am I in hiding?” he says. “In a way, yes.”

    He wants no attention, even though he’s still as charismatic and eloquent as any football analyst. He wants no sympathy, even though he probably deserves it. He says over and over again that he’s out of the league because he “went from outstanding to mediocre.” He’s got a nice house and a lovely former cheerleader wife and an 11-year-old son named Jay (who, by the way, recently won a Punt, Pass and Kick competition). Vanderjagt readily confesses, “I was an idiot” for saying those things about his team. He has Manning paraphernalia all over his restaurant, and he says the two are long past their dust-up. He has some powerful things to say, that’s for sure, but “Peyton did me wrong” is not one of them.

    Vanderjagt has moved on.

    Sorta.

    He sits at a high-top away from the bar, in front of two magazine covers. The first features Peyton, and it’s signed in black Sharpie. The second features Vanderjagt himself. “They darkened my eyes to make me look evil,” he says. Of course that charge sounds like paranoid psychobabble. But Vanderjagt’s eyes are light blue. On the magazine cover, they are almost black. The story inside is well-told and sympathetic –- hardly an effort to portray evil – but after sitting with Vanderjagt for two hours, it’s hard not to think of the old joke about how you’re not paranoid if they’re really out to get you.

    Vanderjagt says he has a three-page legal document in his Ontario home, signed by Peyton Manning, testifying that the “liquored up” comment was not truthful. He’s not holding it as leverage. He’s not going to sue. He’s not even going to show it to anyone. He just needs to know, for himself, that Manning realizes he said something false. “People need to know,” he says, making eye contact and keeping it, “first and foremost, I don’t drink. I was 198 percent sober the night I went on TV.”

    Vanderjagt can live with everything else -- the blame for the missed Super Bowl, the “Vanderjerk” comments, and his place in NFL oblivion. But the “liquored up” charge kills him. “There’s no truth to it,” he says. “That’s what drives me nuts. I don’t want to be remembered for that. I was the best in the world at kicking field goals. It’s just so unfair. Nobody’s life is perfect, but I just wish the first thought would be, ‘Vanderjagt, he was spot-on.’”


    He was spot-on. But now, seven years later, he still has people yelling his name and then forming a cylinder with their right hand -– Wanna drink? Type in his name on some search engines and by the time you hit the “j” in his last name, you’ll see “Mike Vanderjagt drunk.”

    What if Manning publicly apologized? Or at least said, “Mike’s not a drunk. Lay off.” Would that help? “What does that do for Peyton’s image?” Vanderjagt says. “But … it would let me put this chapter to rest.”

    The Colts offered no comment.

    For now, Vanderjagt still feels he has to prove himself as a person. He motions to his phone and says he just hung out with Edgerrin James the other day. “Think Edge is gonna hang out with a jerk?” he says. He points out that he’s never been in trouble with the law, and he’s been happily married for years. “How come I haven’t gotten a DUI?” he says. “How come I haven’t hit my wife? Because I’m not that guy.”

    James agrees. “He has a cool, laid-back personality,” says the former Colts All-Pro running back. “He was one of my closest friends on the team.”

    That might come as a surprise to many who think Vanderjagt is, well, a punk. He always carried himself like a skill player, strutting around with his dyed hair and his trademark earring (which he still has). Vanderjagt is blunt -- maybe to a fault. He says his career percentage from 50-plus yards is “ridiculous.” He admits that, about halfway through his career, he figured his current pace would get him a good shot at the Hall of Fame. “Yes I do deserve it,” he says. “If it’s the best players at your position, my name will be in the conversation.” All good athletes think these things. And some of them actually say them. That’s somewhat acceptable if you’re Jay Cutler comparing yourself to John Elway, or if you’re Chad Ochocinco challenging the league’s DBs. But it doesn’t go over well if you’re a placekicker. Kickers are supposed to make every field goal and shut up. Sure, the kicker may score more points than anyone else on the field, but the perception within football is that everyone else gets their jerseys dirty -- and risks injury -- to put the kicker in the position to score those points. It’s like a marathon runner enduring the pain of 26 miles only to let someone else run 0.2 miles and break the tape. So even though Vanderjagt’s comments about Dungy and Manning were not without merit --nobody can say Dungy is Rex Ryan or Manning is Brett Favre -- the real problem is that a kicker felt entitled to judge.

    And even though Vanderjagt was truly the best at his position, there’s a perception that all kickers are the same. (Just ask a fantasy football owner.) So why endure a player who says a lot and makes 86.5 percent of his field goals when you can get a less flamboyant guy (Adam Vinatieri) who makes almost the same percentage?

    Vanderjagt knows this. He realizes the “idiot” move was not only to criticize, but to go on television in the first place. But the irony here -- and the real reason Vanderjagt is out of football -- is that he’s not a study in swagger.

    Not even close.

    “I’m not smooth,” he says. “I always approached every kick with the thought that if I miss, I’m out of the league.”

    That’s because he lived that existence. Vanderjagt didn’t make it at Michigan State and went to a California community college before landing a spot at West Virginia. He was cut by four different CFL teams in the '90s and went to the Arena League before coming back to Toronto. There, he beat out an American for the kicking job and found a groove. Colts president Bill Polian looked like a genius for plucking him from the north, as Vanderjagt led the NFL in scoring in 1999. He’d be the perfect example of the American dream -- except he’s Canadian. Yet Vanderjagt still fretted about his career, and he bragged in part to convince everyone -- and himself -- that he was as right as rain.


    But when he got to camp in ’05, he started spraying his kicks all over the place. The mojo he built up over years with the Colts started to evaporate, and he felt like he was on the brink of losing his livelihood. He pored over his routine, but that only made it worse, as he became as preoccupied as the golfer who tries too hard to fix his swing. “I feel like I was David Duval,” he says. Vanderjagt fought through the season, and kicked well, but he got the sense he was on borrowed time. Eventually, he feared, he’d shank a big one. He was right. And although he was still an elite kicker -- the miss against Pittsburgh was only the second of his season -- the technical difficulties nagged him until the end of his career. In fact, they likely caused the end of his career.


    ***

    So that’s Vanderjagt’s theory. It wasn’t Manning. It wasn’t Pittsburgh. It was a leak in confidence that triggered a lapse in fundamentals. That’s it. And maybe that’s simply the control-freak-tendency of a kicker to shoo away outside influences.

    But if that’s really the reason he retired, Vanderjagt no longer has that reason.

    That’s because in 2008, when he was goofing around on a Marco Island high school field, Vanderjagt tried lifting his shoulders more and keeping his head down. It was a small tweak, but immediately his kicks went exactly where he intended. The David Duval curse was lifted. He was back. Only one problem: He was out of football.

    That posed a dilemma that lives to this day: Vanderjagt now truly thinks he belongs in the NFL. And on the one hand, he’s still hurt by the past: “The negative perception is so widespread,” he says. “I’d rather not fight the battle.” But on the other hand: “I could kick five more years.”

    Vanderjagt’s wife, Janalyn, wants him to give it one more try. “Your son’s 11 now,” she tells him. “Do you know how cool that would be for him?” James seconds it. “Yeah, I think he should come back,” he says. “He has what it takes.”

    But Vanderjagt’s also got his pride, and the realization that a return to the big stage will mean countless jokes about booze and the possibility that he’ll screw up again. His son has no recollection of the Pittsburgh kick and the Manning episode, but Jay Vanderjagt will surely remember anything and everything that happens if his dad goes back to the NFL now. Vanderjagt is still so conflicted about his public persona that he didn’t want to
    pose for a photo for this story.

    But time has passed. Vanderjagt’s in a better place. The Colts have won a Super Bowl. And America (and Canada) loves a comeback story. So maybe …

    “I don’t want to,” he says.

    Is he sure?

    “No.”


    ***

    There’s one more thing fans forgot about Vanderjagt. He even forgot it himself. Manning added a coda to his rant to Lynn Swann which got drowned in the media coverage of the famous Pro Bowl proclamation. After the quarterback uttered the famous “idiot kicker” phrase, Manning lowered his voice and said to Swann:

    “The sad thing is, he’s a good kicker. He’s a good kicker. But he’s an idiot.”

    Even at the height of his frustration, Manning paused to give Vanderjagt the credit he deserved and so desperately wanted.

    Years later, during halftime of Monday Night Football, Vanderjagt leaves his mostly empty restaurant and walks out into the darkness of the parking lot. He’s 40 now, still proud and still wounded, still thoughtful and still honest, still caught in the purgatory between the person everyone thinks he is and the kicker only he knows he is.

  • #2
    Re: Mike Vanderjagt article

    It drives me insane when people say he's the most accurate kicker. I like to call him the most inaccurate accurate kicker in history. He's not kicking in the NFL because he's not good enough.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Mike Vanderjagt article

      good article, but sad

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Mike Vanderjagt article

        Originally posted by grace View Post
        It drives me insane when people say he's the most accurate kicker. I like to call him the most inaccurate accurate kicker in history. He's not kicking in the NFL because he's not good enough.
        Eh? Why is it that you like to call him the most inaccurate kicker in history?
        Twitter: @redfoster
        Proud member of the PTO.
        Smits Happens: Totally Biased NBA News and Opinion

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Mike Vanderjagt article

          Originally posted by grace View Post
          It drives me insane when people say he's the most accurate kicker. I like to call him the most inaccurate accurate kicker in history. He's not kicking in the NFL because he's not good enough.

          When he left football, three years ago, he was the most accurate professional kicker to ever play his position. Jan Stenerud, now in the Hall of Fame, made 66.8 percent of his tries. Vanderjagt made 86.

          ^ did you not see that in the article ?

          The guy was good at what he did. I respect him for that, but yeah he's still an idiot with a big ego that ended up causing him to lose his job...missing clutch kicks in the end didnt help either.
          If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
          [/center]
          @thatguyjoe84

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Mike Vanderjagt article

            He might have made 86% of his kicks and only missed 14%, but man did he ever have bad timing on the 14%!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Mike Vanderjagt article

              yeah he sure did. Still to this day i cant watch the one he missed Vs Pittsburgh
              If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
              [/center]
              @thatguyjoe84

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Mike Vanderjagt article

                He also missed that kick against Miami in 2000. (2001 Playoffs).


                I don't care about percentages, bringing in Vinatieri was a HUGE upgrade over Vandershank.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Mike Vanderjagt article

                  I'll never forget that clutch field goal he nailed in the snow in Denver to win the game for the Colts.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Mike Vanderjagt article

                    I can never wish anything bad for somebody, but I won't shed too many tears for Michael.

                    For as self assured the article tries to make him out to be I'll give you a couple of stories that say just the opposite. Also the loving family thing is hopefully true now, because he wasn't too devoted back then.

                    You know, to each his own and what happens in someone's personal life is not my business. However, IMHO actions do say something about a person. During training camp Mr. devoted would take a sharpie and write his telephone number on the bottom of a gatorade cup. Then take cup, place on ground, point to hotchick setting in the stands and then point back to cup. Take his hand, put it to his head, and then make a pretend telephone and mouth, "call me". Said female would leave the bleachers, pick up the cup, and then giggle away. I know there are many folks (not just pro athletes) who are not faithful, but this just seems to be something that really bothers me because of families being hurt.

                    Ok, now to the real story, and I believe I told it before but oh well. During camp (can't remember the year) the Colts brought in 6 kickers to test their strength on just kickoffs because both Hunter and Vandershank could only get it to the 10 yard line. This was in between practices. Hunter the punter grabbed a golf cart after team meetings and wanted to check out the competition. He asked Michael Shankenstein if he wanted to go along and like a little kid he said, " F@#$ those guys". Hunter said, "whatever I'm going down". So, Hunter had the balls to watch these guys who were possibly gunning for his job, and not only that, he goes down and gives some of them pointers and actually claps encouragement on some of the better booming kicks. So while Hunter may not have been the best punter in the world he was absolutely a class act. I never witnessed Edge hanging out with Mickey V, but I guess it is possible. Edge was well liked by everyone.
                    Last edited by RWB; 02-03-2011, 12:05 PM.
                    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Mike Vanderjagt article

                      The 14% that he did miss were almost all clutch field goals. Man he made me so mad.
                      GO PACERS!!!

                      Twitter: @Circlecity3318

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Mike Vanderjagt article

                        Originally posted by aero View Post
                        When he left football, three years ago, he was the most accurate professional kicker to ever play his position. Jan Stenerud, now in the Hall of Fame, made 66.8 percent of his tries. Vanderjagt made 86.

                        ^ did you not see that in the article ?

                        The guy was good at what he did. I respect him for that, but yeah he's still an idiot with a big ego that ended up causing him to lose his job...missing clutch kicks in the end didnt help either.
                        Yes I read the article. Maybe I should start calling "most accurate unless it's a cluth situation kicker."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Mike Vanderjagt article

                          Originally posted by aero View Post
                          yeah he sure did. Still to this day i cant watch the one he missed Vs Pittsburgh
                          Him slamming that helmet after that miss was priceless.
                          Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X