Ok dude, again, statistics, ill get to that in a second.sneaxsneax wrote:My god this guy is going full...something. did you just argue we couldn't have Rodgers because of the cap. You aren't understanding the argument. You think you have a better or as good roster to us, you think you have a better defense. You have neither of those things, my point was that Rodgers level play on our team would be a couple of sb appearances. Aaron Rodgers on your team has been 1. Don't get me wrong I'd love 1, but my point is for such a strong roster you seem to have you really only managed to get there 1 time. Rodgers had a down year last year but he still was more productive than our qb. You can rank your team however you want, again ask a non biased person and there taking the Vikings roster.
Glad the rest of the forum is backing me up here.
I mean holy #### Aaron Rodgers hit 2 hail Marrys for you this season. He literally stole a game you lost, much like Walsh lost a game we won.
You clearly have very little knowledge of the cap, if you had Aaron Rodgers, the ENTIRE makeup of your roster would be different, completely, and utterly, different. The cap runs the team, you wouldnt have your current cast just added with Aaron Rodgers.
As to Rodgers getting a couyple of SB rings if he had been with the Vikes? Well, that is incorrect, and hey guess what? I can prove it.
2010: 2
2011:19
2012:11
2013:24
2014:13
2015:12
Vikings D
2010:18
2011:31
2012:14
2013:32
2014:11
2015: 5
So, please enlighten me as to what about those statistics seem to imply that the Vikings would have done vastly better with Rodgers then the Packers, please im absolutely enthralled. Unless, you think the Vikes have fielded a vastly better offensive cast then the Packers these last 5 years, which you seemingly must, according to the table above.
Amazingly enough you still seem to want to pin last year on Rodgers, no matter how many time I point out that the Packers D was top 5 for the majority of the year and the Packers O was 25th in the league, is no amount of tangible on field production enough to sway you? At this point your just willfully ignorant to the facts.
You point out two hail marys (The first which was set up by a great second half defensive effort, the second of which was set up by an great 60 minutes of defense) and act like it means something, bruh I could just as easilly point to double that of victories that were spearheaded by the defense.
As to the Vikes D vs the Packers D, well hey! Thats your opinion and I respect it, but your D finished 5th in the league which was the spot the Packers straddles for most of the year so I dont at all find it unlikely that the Packers continue to challenge for the mantle of one of the best Ds in the league next year.