Vikings Message Board.Com

Bowhunting Viking wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:26 am

CharVike wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:29 pm
This is nothing new. The Packers have been a media darling since the day's of Farve. I remember they had this QB called magic or magic man or something along those lines and they got big time ink then also. That PI stat is incredible. Only 2? Dallas is the same thing. Ton of media coverage. NFL media people think they are great. Dak gets all this ink. And yes he has great stats. How about wins against 500 or above teams? He might be one of the biggest losers ever. He couldn't beat the loser Rodgers. Or our guy who is also considered a loser. And he's considered one of the top dogs. That's just the way it is.

The Magic Man was Majkowski.. spelling may be a little off. He was the darling of the lg then. Then he got injured, and that's when the Reign of Favre started. Then as we know the love affair with Erin and the media started.
As stated it's been that way for as long as I remember.
Like PHP it drives me nuts listening to the analysts and all the talking heads always gushing over Erin and the Pukers.
In the NFL network I like James Jones, until the Packers are brought up. I understand his loyalty for the team but man he just goes overboard sometimes. Every once in a while Terrell Davis or Michael Robinson will laugh at him saying What's this We stuff. You ain't out on the field with them anymore. I get a kick out of that.
Always loved Madden... until it came time for him to call a GB game and his Favre live fests.
The Packers are one of the media and NFL darlings. They want them to succeed and win. It gets sickening but it's the way it is.
Best revenge is to beat them Monday night and hope they get knocked out of the playoffs in the first game they play.
Like said, I don't want to have to play them in Lambeau at all. Not only do you have to deal with the refs giving them every benefit, but the weather can be brutal and be a huge factor.
Let's hope we only have to hear about them for their 1st playoff game, then see the sadness on the medias faces if they get knocked out right away.
My final thoughts ... I HATE THE PACKERS

mansquatch wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2019 3:55 pm If 49ers beat the Rams on Sunday we are in regardless. At that point the only reason to beat the Bears is if we think GB will lose vs. the Lions. (Doubtful.) It might be worth using the Chicago game as something of a bye week and resting players.

cstelter wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 5:27 pm

mansquatch wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2019 3:55 pm If 49ers beat the Rams on Sunday we are in regardless. At that point the only reason to beat the Bears is if we think GB will lose vs. the Lions. (Doubtful.) It might be worth using the Chicago game as something of a bye week and resting players.

I thought I heard the announcers mention during the 49er's/Rams game that if SFO loses next wee and we win out they could end up the 6 seed becuase we beat Atlanta and they did not and we'd win a tie breaker because of that. That's not entirely out of the question-- both those teams will have a lot to play for with the winner getting a 1 seed and the loser getting a 5/6 seed.

This could be the difference between playing @DAL/@PHI the first game and playing @GB/@NO. Might be worth playing for. Of course if GB implodes in that same scenario we get GB at home instead. Then SFO gets to go to DAL/PHI.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:52 pm

cstelter wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 5:27 pm

I thought I heard the announcers mention during the 49er's/Rams game that if SFO loses next wee and we win out they could end up the 6 seed becuase we beat Atlanta and they did not and we'd win a tie breaker because of that. That's not entirely out of the question-- both those teams will have a lot to play for with the winner getting a 1 seed and the loser getting a 5/6 seed.

This could be the difference between playing @DAL/@PHI the first game and playing @GB/@NO. Might be worth playing for. Of course if GB implodes in that same scenario we get GB at home instead. Then SFO gets to go to DAL/PHI.

Seattle lost to Arizona.

If we win out and SF beats Seattle, the worst we can finish is 5.

There’s always something to play for.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:35 pm I think the odds of Cook not being healthy in the playoffs because he plays against the Packers and Bears are better than the odds of the Lions beating the Packers in week 17 with David Blough.

I am all for trying to beat the Packers and Bears, and it would say a lot about this team if they did. I just don't want to do that at the expense of having a healthy Cook in the playoffs. If he is good to go and playing won't make the injury worse, play him. If he needs a couple of weeks to heal...

VikingLord wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:50 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:35 pm I think the odds of Cook not being healthy in the playoffs because he plays against the Packers and Bears are better than the odds of the Lions beating the Packers in week 17 with David Blough.

I am all for trying to beat the Packers and Bears, and it would say a lot about this team if they did. I just don't want to do that at the expense of having a healthy Cook in the playoffs. If he is good to go and playing won't make the injury worse, play him. If he needs a couple of weeks to heal...

I don't know if Cook can actually get healthy for the remainder of this season, and I say that because both he and the Vikings are being tight-lipped about what is actually wrong with him. If it was a clear injury, like, say, a hamstring or a high ankle sprain, they'd come right out with it. So it almost has to be something that is more low-grade, the type of injury that is more bothersome than acute, but an injury that nonethless isn't necessary going to heal on it's own with rest.

While I love what Cook has done this season, the fact remains he's been far less effective recently. Given how the Vikings use zone blocking and heavy play action, plus the fact they're healthy at WR now, I'm almost inclined to think that having a less heralded, but very fresh and healthy Mike Boone, is going to be surprisingly effective given that I expect the Packers and other defenses to shift their emphasis to stopping the pass, probably believing as it seems most Vikings fans are inclined to do that Boone won't be a big threat.

I fully expect the Packers to do just that tonight. They'll figure that with Cook and Mattison out the Vikings will be forced to pass and they'll come after Cousins and focus on pass defense. This will provide the Vikings and Boone with a great opportunity to run, and based on what I've seen from Boone the times I've seen him, I fully expect him to be able to exploit that. The Packers were already a shaky run defense coming into this game, and if they shift as I expect them to now that Cook won't play, Boone is going to get some favorable looks.

There is always the chance he won't be able to take advantage of it, but if he can and the Vikings emphasize giving him that chance, I expect him to put up some big numbers tonight.

The real key against the Packers, though, isn't how the Vikings offense goes so much as how the defense goes. Can the defense do the two things they need to do to shut the Packers down when the Packers have the ball - stop the run on 1st and 2nd downs and stop Rodgers from going deep?

quiznut1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:59 pm So, I was looking at the NFL standings...

The Vikes have yet to beat a team this year that currently has an over .500 record.
Teams beaten with a .500 record as of this moment are Philly and Dallas (7-7). Everyone else is currently below .500.

I know one cannot control the schedule, and I'm trying not to be a downer. But based on the above, I am tempered in my expectations for the GB game for now.

These are the kind of games you have to win to get to that next level (think KC, Seattle, @ GB), and I've yet to really see with the team this year.

I think the GB game will be interesting, and I'd love to be proven wrong. Just don't want to get too hyped up too soon...

Okay - good replies so far. I'm going to put myself out there with a prediction. 1-1 the rest of the season.

Either we lose against the Packers Monday night - proving we are simply an okay team (better record than meets the eye), but can't beat the winning teams when the chips are down and it's time to put up or shut up. Then respond by beating the Bears at home without issue.

OR...

We'll play out of our mind Monday night, beat the Packers, and be on a similar high as the Minneapolis Miracle against the Saints. But then not be able to regain focus, come out flat against the Bears after all the hype, and lose.

quiznut1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 am

quiznut1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:59 pm So, I was looking at the NFL standings...

The Vikes have yet to beat a team this year that currently has an over .500 record.
Teams beaten with a .500 record as of this moment are Philly and Dallas (7-7). Everyone else is currently below .500.

I know one cannot control the schedule, and I'm trying not to be a downer. But based on the above, I am tempered in my expectations for the GB game for now.

These are the kind of games you have to win to get to that next level (think KC, Seattle, @ GB), and I've yet to really see with the team this year.

I think the GB game will be interesting, and I'd love to be proven wrong. Just don't want to get too hyped up too soon...

Okay - good replies so far. I'm going to put myself out there with a prediction. 1-1 the rest of the season.

Either we lose against the Packers Monday night - proving we are simply an okay team (better record than meets the eye), but can't beat the winning teams when the chips are down and it's time to put up or shut up. Then respond by beating the Bears at home without issue.

OR...

We'll play out of our mind Monday night, beat the Packers, and be on a similar high as the Minneapolis Miracle against the Saints. But then not be able to regain focus, come out flat against the Bears after all the hype, and lose.

Well...looks like we couldn't beat a winning record team - again.

I wasn't able to watch much of the game, but for the few plays at the end of the first half (dropped GB touchdown pass and field goal to make it 10-9).

I thought to myself, "We were so fortunate with that series. That's the kind of stuff we will not get away with in the playoffs."

Had our chances, and time to shine, but couldn't get it done.

Will predict the first part of what I originally stated earlier last week:
We'll beat the Bears at home after the mounting criticism this week, which will get us excited again for a little while, but...

I am also accepting we're simply okay right now. Not bad, but not at that next level "great" in truly contending, as 2017 was.

quiznut1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 am Will predict the first part of what I originally stated earlier last week:
We'll beat the Bears at home after the mounting criticism this week, which will get us excited again for a little while, but...

VikingLord wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:20 am

quiznut1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 am Will predict the first part of what I originally stated earlier last week:
We'll beat the Bears at home after the mounting criticism this week, which will get us excited again for a little while, but...

I wouldn't count on that. The Bears can bring a lot of pressure up front and will and Cousins seems to be very aware of that every time he plays them, so don't be surprised if we see Skittish Kirk in that final game.

I do expect the offensive line to be at least a little better after the show they put on last night. At least a few of them have to have a little pride. They'll likely offer more resistance, but how long that lasts is anybody's guess and I don't expect it to benefit Cousins much because, well, it is Kirk Cousins we're talking about.