For all of you Rackers lovers

[40yearfan]

I did in another thread. Go find it.

Great attitude. I'm glad our coach isn't like some of the fans on here. Whis looks at all the facts and doesn't let hate color his decisions.

My question to you is why are you giving all the rest of the Cardinal players who screwed up in NO a pass? Rakers makes one mistake this year while playing with a groin injury and you want him gone. What about Wilson letting Shockey score a TD when he was basically running on one leg? Do we get rid of Wilson because he isn't very good at coverage? What about Dockett and Dansby who basically disappeared in this game or for that matter, our whole front 7. When our secondary went out and we were playing 3rd and 4th stringers, it was up to the front seven to make some plays and help them out. No sacks, no forced fumbles, no interceptions. What happened to our big play guys? Using your logic, we should get rid of the whole lot. Very hypocritical if you ask me.

 

[Zeno]

Great attitude. I'm glad our coach isn't like some of the fans on here. Whis looks at all the facts and doesn't let hate color his decisions.

My question to you is why are you giving all the rest of the Cardinal players who screwed up in NO a pass? Rakers makes one mistake this year while playing with a groin injury and you want him gone. What about Wilson letting Shockey score a TD when he was basically running on one leg? Do we get rid of Wilson because he isn't very good at coverage? What about Dockett and Dansby who basically disappeared in this game or for that matter, our whole front 7. When our secondary went out and we were playing 3rd and 4th stringers, it was up to the front seven to make some plays and help them out. No sacks, no forced fumbles, no interceptions. What happened to our big play guys? Using your logic, we should get rid of the whole lot. Very hypocritical if you ask me.

How more plain can I make it...Rackers missing against GB wasn't an aberration, he misses consistently in the clutch...2 kicks to win or tie out of his last 7...thats TERRIBLE, I don't care how you paint it. The Colts cut their Pro Bowl kicker for missing 1 kick in the playoffs against the Steelers--after only missing 2 during the regular season, they made the right decision. If Rackers was even 50% in the clutch I'd give him the benefit of the doubt but he isn't.

Keep making excuses or making ridiculous comparisons--Rackers is one of the least clutch kickers in the NFL and will cost us more games if he remains on the roster.

You otherwise are wasting your words bringing up Dockett, Dansby & Wilson who have done more in the clutch for this team than not.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

if nothing else, it should any talk of the Cards using a franchise tag on Rackers. I don't know if they've cut him yet, but Kris Brown's lousy kicking probably kept Houston from making the playoffs. It's hard to find a guy that is clutch but it's easy to see who's not. Rackers, Kaeding, Graham, Brown are all guys that i would not want kicking a big FG. If i had to chose one it would be Rob Bironas.

 

[TheHopToad]

The Colts cut their Pro Bowl kicker for missing 1 kick in the playoffs against the Steelers--after only missing 2 during the regular season, they made the right decision.

Only because they had the most clutch kicker in the history of the league lined up to be his replacement in Adam Vinatieri.

You can bet that if the Suishams, Nugents, and Folks of the world were the only alternatives, they would have thought twice about getting rid of Vanderjagt.

 

[Zeno]

Only because they had the most clutch kicker in the history of the league lined up to be his replacement in Adam Vinatieri.

You can bet that if the Suishams, Nugents, and Folks of the world were the only alternatives, they would have thought twice about getting rid of Vanderjagt.

At the very least there needs to be serious competition, not sure how you can replicate clutch situations in practice & training camp but something has to be done. Does the team employ a sports psychologist? Do they need to bring in a motivational speaker? Maybe this guy can help...

You must be registered for see images

 

[seesred]

I want Rackers to get an extension. He is a solid Kicker with the ability to do tricks with the ball. Onside, short kicks, long kicks etc; There are plenty of places to fix up, Kicker is not one of them IMO.

GBR
40

 

[TheHopToad]

Maybe this guy can help...

You must be registered for see images

That guy is in Congress. The last thing we need is a politician trying to help us...

 

[40yearfan]

How more plain can I make it...Rackers missing against GB wasn't an aberration, he misses consistently in the clutch...2 kicks to win or tie out of his last 7...thats TERRIBLE, I don't care how you paint it. The Colts cut their Pro Bowl kicker for missing 1 kick in the playoffs against the Steelers--after only missing 2 during the regular season, they made the right decision. If Rackers was even 50% in the clutch I'd give him the benefit of the doubt but he isn't.

Keep making excuses or making ridiculous comparisons--Rackers is one of the least clutch kickers in the NFL and will cost us more games if he remains on the roster.

You otherwise are wasting your words bringing up Dockett, Dansby & Wilson who have done more in the clutch for this team than not.

It depends on your definition of clutch. Every kick a kicker makes is clutch, especially if it affects the outcome of the game. You claim the other team members have performed in the clutch. They have, but they have also failed in the clutch, yet I don't see you screaming for their heads. Same thing for Rakers. He has made clutch kicks, but you refuse to recognize that fact and only want to look at the missed kicks.

Every kicker there has ever been in the NFL have missed clutch kicks at one time or another. It's the nature of the game. You also refuse to recognize that Rakers has been injured this year and is probably not at 100%. And you would get rid of him not having an adequate replacement. You allow your emotions to override your judgement. I'm glad Whis is the one who has to make this decision. He knows the value Rakers brings to this team and won't replace him unless he feels he has someone better.

 

[MrYeahBut]

40year. I'm not going to get into the argument either way, but I would think if you want to make such a strong case for Rackers, you should at least spell his name correctly.

You spelled it 'Rakers', which some would believe is appropriate because he has raked us over the coals

 

[40yearfan]

40year. I'm not going to get into the argument either way, but I would think if you want to make such a strong case for Rackers, you should at least spell his name correctly.

You spelled it 'Rakers', which some would believe is appropriate because he has raked us over the coals

I think it's a mental thing that I can't hit that c.

 

[Red Dawn]

I think it's a mental thing that I can't hit that c.

Whenever you type his name, think "laCes out"

 

[TheHopToad]

It depends on your definition of clutch. Every kick a kicker makes is clutch, especially if it affects the outcome of the game. You claim the other team members have performed in the clutch. They have, but they have also failed in the clutch, yet I don't see you screaming for their heads. Same thing for Rakers. He has made clutch kicks, but you refuse to recognize that fact and only want to look at the missed kicks.

Every kicker there has ever been in the NFL have missed clutch kicks at one time or another. It's the nature of the game. You also refuse to recognize that Rakers has been injured this year and is probably not at 100%. And you would get rid of him not having an adequate replacement. You allow your emotions to override your judgement. I'm glad Whis is the one who has to make this decision. He knows the value Rakers brings to this team and won't replace him unless he feels he has someone better.

Exactly. If you really examine the facts in more detail, you could make a strong case that Rackers has at least heavily influenced if not outright won several games over the past few years and performed in clutch situations. Cases in point:

Opening day game this year against the 49ers: Rackers made the kick in the 4th quarter to give the Cards the lead and then put the kickoff through the endzone for a touchback. Not his fault that the defense blew the game.


Last year at Seattle: Had four field goals in a game we only won by 6.


Last year against the 49ers at home: Three FGs in the game to keep us in a position to win, which we did by 5.


The Dallas game last year: His 41 yd FG gives the Cards a 10 point lead and allows Dallas to only tie the game. We win in OT. If he misses, we lose in regulation.


First week last year @SF: Three FGs, including the one that gave us the lead in the second half for good.


2007, Atlanta: already covered. Tied the game in the 4th quarter and won it in OT.


2007, Cleveland: Our last 6 points in the 4th quarter in a game we won by 6.


2007 @STL: Two game tying FGs in a game we won by 3.

2007 @BAL: Tied the game in the 4th quarter, defense blew it, Cards lost. Not his fault.

2007 Seattle, wk 2. Already covered. Tied the game in 4th quarter (52 yd FG); won the game in 4th quarter (42 yd FG)

2006 @SF: Four FGs in a game won by 6. Two in the 4th quarter.

There’s not much value in going back any further, but there are more examples prior to 2006 as well, including a six FG performance against the 49ers in 2005 (four of them over 40 yds).

Not saying he's the best PK in the league, but I think he deserves a little more fairness and consideration than a knee-jerk reaction to missing a kick in a game that he may not have been at 100% and that we won anyway.

If we can get an elite, proven clutch kicker, then great....but I don't think that person is going to be available or the team wont pay what is required to get him.

 

[Pariah]

Last year at Seattle: Had four field goals in a game we only won by 6.

Last year against the 49ers at home: Three FGs in the game to keep us in a position to win, which we did by 5.

The Dallas game last year: His 41 yd FG gives the Cards a 10 point lead and allows Dallas to only tie the game. We win in OT. If he misses, we lose in regulation.

First week last year @SF: Three FGs, including the one that gave us the lead in the second half for good.

2007, Atlanta: already covered. Tied the game in the 4th quarter and won it in OT.

2007, Cleveland: Our last 6 points in the 4th quarter in a game we won by 6.

2007 @STL: Two game tying FGs in a game we won by 3.

2007 @BAL: Tied the game in the 4th quarter, defense blew it, Cards lost. Not his fault.

2007 Seattle, wk 2. Already covered. Tied the game in 4th quarter (52 yd FG); won the game in 4th quarter (42 yd FG)

2006 @SF: Four FGs in a game won by 6. Two in the 4th quarter.

I don't think those kicks would be considered clutch by his detractors...because he made them.

All joking aside, I don't really consider those clutch, either (though it seems Cardsfanmd should, since he defined it earlier...I guess he's going to have to change the "Rackers always misses in the clutch" bumper sticker he has). Fact is, when the game is on the line (he makes it and the cards walk off winners) he's hard to count on--he HAS missed an inordinate number of those. But he also does a TON of good for the team.

 

[Zeno]

There is a difference between making kicks and making kicks when the game is on the line. Score tied or we are trailing and there are under 5 minutes to go I have zero confidence in Rackers hitting the kick....I have full confidence in him in the 55 minutes or so preceding that, those aren't exactly pressure kicks.

 

[Shane]

There is a difference between making kicks and making kicks when the game is on the line. Score tied or we are trailing and there are under 5 minutes to go I have zero confidence in Rackers hitting the kick....I have full confidence in him in the 55 minutes or so preceding that, those aren't exactly pressure kicks.

In the NFL they are all pressure kicks. JMO.

 

[TheHopToad]

There is a difference between making kicks and making kicks when the game is on the line. Score tied or we are trailing and there are under 5 minutes to go I have zero confidence in Rackers hitting the kick....I have full confidence in him in the 55 minutes or so preceding that, those aren't exactly pressure kicks.

Tell that to Nate Kaeding this weekend....or Sean Suisham.

The points all count the same, no matter when they occur.

 

[PACardsFan]

Plain & Simple - RACKERS SUCKS - cut the bum & let's move on!

 

[Zeno]

Tell that to Nate Kaeding this weekend....or Sean Suisham.

The points all count the same, no matter when they occur.

You can keep telling yourself that but when the pressure on the guy doesn't come through. Just like an NBA player making a free throw in the first 3 quarters faces different pressure when at the line with the chance to tie/win...or a soccer player with a chance to kick the winning penalty or the NHL player in a shootout or the baseball player with the tying run on base in the last inning...some guys seize up other guys seize the moment.

 

[Pariah]

The points all count the same, no matter when they occur.

But pressure is different in different situations. It just is.