Vikings Message Board.Com

Most all of your posts seem pretty level headed for a pack fan, but that's some strong subtle #### talk.

They might have the best player at the most important position in the game.
We have an average player at the most important position.

sneaxsneax wrote:
I think having the Vikings below the pack is reasonable given you have the best qb in the nfl. But you went further than us because we shanked a field goal and had to play one of the scariest teams in the NFL, you played the default winner of the nfc east. You blew us out one game, and then lost in prime time when the division. Was on the line, in your own home where you've had a significant advantage over us for years. The Packers are relevant because of 1 guy it's not like you are world beaters, and I don't think getting Jordy Nelson back makes you that.

Most all of your posts seem pretty level headed for a pack fan, but that's some strong subtle #### talk.

If you want to get into the "We lost because.." then I might as well rattle off several alternate scenarios where the Packers beat the Cards (An even scarier team then the Sqwauks), it would be just as easy, I dont think missing the game winning field goal is much of an excuse.

Yes, you are right, the Packers lost to the Lions and Bears (Oh my) in Lambeau as well, and it didnt look signifigantly different then the Vikings game, on the contrary, and as I said, I remain skeptical that any of those teams can start doing so on a consistant basis. Its not that im trying to talk ####, im just trying to give my opinion, the Packers have a pedigree that they have maintained for a long time, and in the last 11 contests against the Vikes are nine and one with a tie, their record against the other divisional opponents arent much worse, I think a 7 point Victory is hardly indicative of a changing of the guard, I knew all throughout last year that the Vikings would compete for the division title and have a chance to win it, they did, and it wasn't greatly surprising, though a bit irratating, I still have a certain level that I think both of these teams are on.

Its just hard for me to believe that our O will continue to cost us so many games, pinning our lackluster O performance all on losing Jordy is quite the display of willful ignorance, just as saying "You are relevant because of one guy." I mean, dude, I cant think of a more unapplicable statement in regards to last year then that one. Rodgers must play real good D, because thats what put the Packers in the Divisional round. I dont even know how you could say that really, I mean, you saw the season finale im sure, that certainly wasn't a game lost on the defensive side of the ball.

Jordysghost wrote: If you want to get into the "We lost because.." then I might as well rattle off several alternate scenarios where the Packers beat the Cards (An even scarier team then the Sqwauks), it would be just as easy, I dont think missing the game winning field goal is much of an excuse.

Yes, you are right, the Packers lost to the Lions and Bears (Oh my) in Lambeau as well, and it didnt look signifigantly different then the Vikings game, on the contrary, and as I said, I remain skeptical that any of those teams can start doing so on a consistant basis. Its not that im trying to talk ####, im just trying to give my opinion, the Packers have a pedigree that they have maintained for a long time, and in the last 11 contests against the Vikes are nine and one with a tie, their record against the other divisional opponents arent much worse, I think a 7 point Victory is hardly indicative of a changing of the guard, I knew all throughout last year that the Vikings would compete for the division title and have a chance to win it, they did, and it wasn't greatly surprising, though a bit irratating, I still have a certain level that I think both of these teams are on.

Its just hard for me to believe that our O will continue to cost us so many games, pinning our lackluster O performance all on losing Jordy is quite the display of willful ignorance, just as saying "You are relevant because of one guy." I mean, dude, I cant think of a more unapplicable statement in regards to last year then that one. Rodgers must play real good D, because thats what put the Packers in the Divisional round. I dont even know how you could say that really, I mean, you saw the season finale im sure, that certainly wasn't a game lost on the defensive side of the ball.

Missing a 27 yard field goal is the alternate scenario. You realize that right? We had the game wrapped and it came down to a field goal that's shorter than an extra point. And yes your team is really only relevant because of Rodgers, your defense seems to always keep it together somewhat but you seem to think you have this great roster field with tons of players, you really dont. If you put Rodgers on the Vikings right now we would more or less be a lock to be in the superbowl every year. The Packers have made it 1 year while having probably the best qb over the last 6-7 years.


As for us winning the division and the final game by a small margin, we play low scoring football we run the ball and play great defense we didn't blow out many people. We play a certain style of football and we used it to beat you, that's all that matters. I mean most every team in the NFL shut down our offense we were last ranked in passing, it's not really indicative of the Packers having a good defense.


And hey just because you guys have been great for a while doesn't mean you can take a step back, the NFL has ebs and flows. Go hop on NFL reddit and see how many people would take the Packers roster sans QB over the vikings.

Missing a 27 yard field goal is the alternate scenario. You realize that right? We had the game wrapped and it came down to a field goal that's shorter than an extra point. And yes your team is really only relevant because of Rodgers, your defense seems to always keep it together somewhat but you seem to think you have this great roster field with tons of players, you really dont. If you put Rodgers on the Vikings right now we would more or less be a lock to be in the superbowl every year. The Packers have made it 1 year while having probably the best qb over the last 6-7 years.


As for us winning the division and the final game by a small margin, we play low scoring football we run the ball and play great defense we didn't blow out many people. We play a certain style of football and we used it to beat you, that's all that matters. If you want to use they to rationalize you still being the better team go ahead.

And hey just because you guys have been great for a while doesn't mean you can take a step back, the NFL has ebs and flows. Go hop on NFL reddit and see how many people would take the Packers roster sans QB over the vikings.

Great post.. The really great thing about the Vikings is they are very young team and drafting great every minus a few picks.. this team should only improve
over the next few years IMO.

sneaxsneax wrote:
Missing a 27 yard field goal is the alternate scenario. You realize that right? We had the game wrapped and it came down to a field goal that's shorter than an extra point. And yes your team is really only relevant because of Rodgers, your defense seems to always keep it together somewhat but you seem to think you have this great roster field with tons of players, you really dont. If you put Rodgers on the Vikings right now we would more or less be a lock to be in the superbowl every year. The Packers have made it 1 year while having probably the best qb over the last 6-7 years.


As for us winning the division and the final game by a small margin, we play low scoring football we run the ball and play great defense we didn't blow out many people. We play a certain style of football and we used it to beat you, that's all that matters. I mean most every team in the NFL shut down our offense we were last ranked in passing, it's not really indicative of the Packers having a good defense.


And hey just because you guys have been great for a while doesn't mean you can take a step back, the NFL has ebs and flows. Go hop on NFL reddit and see how many people would take the Packers roster sans QB over the vikings.

Ok, you know what is indicative of something? Statistics. Do you have any? I do. For most of the year the Packers were ranked higher then the Vikings on the Defensive side of the ball, the Packers finished the league with a top 5 secondary and a rushing D that led the league in YPG, only our poor performance against Arizona in leua of our top two cornersw knocked them out of the top 7 to 12th in overall D in the league, but the above statistics still remain.

If you put Rodgers on the Vikings, you would have nearly an entirely different roster, you arent super familiar with the cap huh? Not that it matters much, I really dont see the Vikings current roster as being much more talented then the Packers, at all. Which position group do you think vastly outranks the Packers? Im quite curious, it seems like YOU are the one who seems to think you have a roster loaded from top to bottom with talent. Your comment about the Vikings being a lock for the SB every year with Rodgers is asinine and ridiculous, and would love for you to post any bit of statistical production that would even remotely point to that being any where even close to true, Oh BTW, back to that whole statistics thing, when Rodgers won the SB, the Packers D was ranked HIGHER, then the Packers O, substantially. In fact, being that 4 of the last 5 games they Packers played that year (All either playoff games or a season depending finale to clinch the last playoff spot) came down to the D forcing a game ending stop with a one score lead, one would get the idea that that reality is quite far from your bold statement. I guess what im saying is, you dont have anything factual to support your claims in above post.

Yes, you beat the Packers the same way the Lions and Bears did, defensively, Our O was constantly put into positions where it was make or break, and unfortuantley fror the Packers they usually broke, as I said, I dont anticipate such a thing becoming commonplace for the Lions or Bears either. The Vikings didnt dominate the Packers physically at any point last season, the Packers did do so to the Vikes however, and I think that is very indicative of the one on ones, I dont think that means that such a thing should be considered a likely occurance or anything like that btw, I just find myself skeptical that the Vikings D is going to be able to impose their will on the Packers like they want to, because last year, they really didnt. And honestly, I dont think the Vikings D is all that much better then the Packers D, and for a good portion of last season I thought the Packers were the best defensive football team in the division.

As to the missed FG, how is that an excuse? What is your point? If Sheilds doesnt drop the gamewinning pick in the Div round the Packers are back in the NFCCG, too bad so sad for us. I dont see how "One of our players sucked it up in the clutch" is any sort of excuse or justification.

Bwaha, Reddit? Seriously?

Prima donna (from Italian, feminine noun): 1) "first lady" / chief female singer in an opera. 2) a temperamental person with an inflated view of his/her importance or talent.

The Pack's "prima donna-ness" proves to be an intoxicating delusion for their fans, such that they cherry pick statistics, ironically unable to see that in so doing they lose all credibility of presenting an "objective" measure of reality.

Texas Vike wrote:Prima donna (from Italian, feminine noun): 1) "first lady" / chief female singer in an opera. 2) a temperamental person with an inflated view of his/her importance or talent.

The Pack's "prima donna-ness" proves to be an intoxicating delusion for their fans, such that they cherry pick statistics, ironically unable to see that in so doing they lose all credibility of presenting an "objective" measure of reality.

What are you talking about? If im 'cherrypicking' stats, then I suppose you have some statistics of your own to disprove me then, huh?

I see alot of 'The Packers are a one man team" type comments but noone is actually willing to disprove the mountains of statistical support proving that to be false.

Jordysghost wrote:
What are you talking about?

The first paragraph of your previous post.

For most of the year the Packers were ranked higher then the Vikings on the Defensive side of the ball, the Packers finished the league with a top 5 secondary and a rushing D that led the league in YPG, only our poor performance against Arizona in leua of our top two cornersw knocked them out of the top 7 to 12th in overall D in the league, but the above statistics still remain.

You seriously don't see how you are doctoring stats? The delusion runs deeper than I thought!

If you are going to eliminate the worst performance for the Pack's D, but not for anyone else, how is that a fair measure?

Texas Vike wrote:
The first paragraph of your previous post.
You seriously don't see how you are doctoring stats? The delusion runs deeper than I thought!

If you are going to eliminate the worst performance for the Pack's D, but not for anyone else, how is that a fair measure?

How did I 'eliminate' their worst performance? I did mention that they went from top 5-7 down to 12 in overall D didnt I? Literally nothing from that post is incorrect.

Are you not asking us to omit the Packers' worst defensive performance of the year, while not granting that to all other teams?

Texas Vike wrote:Are you not asking us to omit the Packers' worst defensive performance of the year, while not granting that to all other teams?

No.

I think you are really misunderstanding man, my fault, I should be clearer. I mention the AZ game because that was a singular performance that had a major affect on their ranking as a D, I mention the aforementioned statistics of the secondary and rushing D as my point was that even with that performance withstanding, they still were rather impressive.

If you remove the QBs from the equation and conclude that the Packers and Vikings are equal teams, the Packers should certainly be odds on favorites. It might be a fair assumption, based on last year, the Vikings obviously have their areas of deficiency, but I think they have more upside at most other positions.

I also think they have better leadership and actually like one another, whereas GB is a bit hampered by their monster egos. Really, there's no reason that team shouldn't have been and shouldn't be more successful over the last decade. They've had the best QB and the best organization in a weak and poorly run division. They only managed to parlay that into one superbowl, and a bunch of disappointing early exits. I think the McCarthy/Rodgers era is most notably marked by underachievement.

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.

fiestavike wrote:If you remove the QBs from the equation and conclude that the Packers and Vikings are equal teams, the Packers should certainly be odds on favorites. It might be a fair assumption, based on last year, the Vikings obviously have their areas of deficiency, but I think they have more upside at most other positions.

I also think they have better leadership and actually like one another, whereas GB is a bit hampered by their monster egos. Really, there's no reason that team shouldn't have been and shouldn't be more successful over the last decade. They've had the best QB and the best organization in a weak and poorly run division. They only managed to parlay that into one superbowl, and a bunch of disappointing early exits. I think the McCarthy/Rodgers era is most notably marked by underachievement.

Your standards for the Packers are clearly very high, best in the league high in fact, being that since McCarthy took over, the Packers have been as succesful as any team outside of the anomaly like Giants, and maybe the Patriots. If they were to win another SB, there wouldnbt be anyway to debate that they werent the most succesful team in the league since McCarthy took over.

I would think a fan of the team that had BUD GRANT would be a little bit more understanding of how hard it is to win a SB, Don Shula had Dan Marino and how many SB wins did they get together? Rodgers is only 32 regardless.

Jordysghost wrote: Your standards for the Packers are clearly very high, best in the league high in fact, being that since McCarthy took over, the Packers have been as succesful as any team outside of the anomaly like Giants, and maybe the Patriots. If they were to win another SB, there wouldnbt be anyway to debate that they werent the most succesful team in the league since McCarthy took over.

I would think a fan of the team that had BUD GRANT would be a little bit more understanding of how hard it is to win a SB, Don Shula had Dan Marino and how many SB wins did they get together? Rodgers is only 32 regardless.

When you have the best QB in the league, a well run organization, and continuity, I would anticipate standards being pretty high.
They've wasted a lot of great shots at another title. Hopefully this year will be no different!