Vikings Message Board.Com

sneaxsneax wrote:Christmas almighty. You ignore my relevant arguments and either go straight to counter pointing the sarcastic joke thrown in there, like maybe they have more heart. Or completely misunderstanding me and then ignoring me when I call you out. You say you have the better team, but a bad Rodgers led offense was still leaps and bounds better than ours. So how did we beat you? How did we win more games? You seem to think your team is better at every level but you have an elite QB and are essentially no better than the Bengals these last 4 years.

You keep brining up going further in the playoffs when we had a freak occurrence stop us from progressing and you got to play a team that wouldn't be in the playoffs if it were in a division other than the nfc east. You don't seem to say anything to prove your point, sure your defense was alright this year, the Browns have had an all right defense at times in the past 5 years. We are building an elite defensive unit and to compare yours to ours is like us saying teddy is as good as Rodgers I mean, there passers ratings are close so they muuuuust be comparable right? 92 vs and 88 that's basically the same. So I guess teddy is on Rodgers level /sarcasm off. See how that works, your doing that.

You beat us the same way the Lions and Bears beat us, your Ds all forced our O into a make or break situation that they couldn't get it done in the clutch. You didnt win more games, we both won 11 games. Um no, we actually have been far better then the Bengals these last 4 years, sure we dont have any more SB wins in that span of time, but I hardly think you see the 70s Vikings, Marinos Dolphins, or Kellys Bills as being 'No better then the Bengals" either. You keep saying things that dont bear out statistically, it doesnt take much to see the discrepancy between the Packers recent success and the Bengals. (Not that I understand the disfavorable comparison, as the Bengals are one of the most consistan teams in the league, despite their lack playoff success) I think the Packers roster has been very, very solid, especially for having to retain one of the largest cap eating contracts in the league.

As to the playoffs, idk man, you apparently take a fair bit of pride in 'almost' in being a missed FG away from the Divisional round, idk why me pointing out the Packers were a dropped pick away from the NFCCG is any different. The Skins only had one more loss on the season the the Sqwuaks did my dude.

You D had a points ranking of 18.9, the Packers were a full point lower at 20, but you are obviously embellishing to a quite magnificent level. (Especially when you consider that that is by and large the largest discrepancy between our two Ds from any point in last season) Slow your roll my man, I think the Vikes have a very talented young D as well, but you arent quite the 85 Bears just yet, the Packers O still managed to have quite the game against you last year, and we were in the absolute #### as far as Packers Os go. (25th in the league)

There is still quite a difference between 92 and 88 as far as Passer ratings go, but Rodgers was 31-8 TD INT ratio while Bridge was 14-9, any discrepancy between our Ds obviously isnt even anywhere close to the discrepancy between Rodgers and Bridgewater. There also wasnt any point last year where Bridge was anywhere near being statistically ranked higher then Rodgers, and the same cannot be said the Packers D in relation to the Vikings, it seems like you are getting way, way ahead of yourself, which is fine, I dont fault optimism in the slightest, but you shouldnt be so heavy handed expecting opposing fans to feel the same way that you do.

There you go again with the subtle trash talk. That was a game we had won, I do take some pride in it after the initial awfulness of it. It was something to build on, we are a really young team and we will be there again. But did you honestly just compare the Seahawks to the redskins thinking that was tough. Do you literally not see how ridiculous the things you say are?

We beat you with our defense you didn't beat us with your supposedly superior defense so I fail to see how you can argue that and also say you have a better overall team. Take Rodgers off that team and play us and lose 10 of 10 times. Mind you our offensive line was horrendous and beating our front 5 is like swiping a metro card for the subway, super easy.


Already mentioned this but I want to repeat it. You just tried to argue that the redskins were as good as the Seahawks because of their record. Even though they played different schedules, like how the redskins played the Giants eagles and cowboys twice last year. Outside of the fact that the Seahawks were one of the hottest teams in the NFL going into the playoffs. But I digress you've really exposed yourself as a giant packer homer.

sneaxsneax wrote:There you go again with the subtle trash talk. That was a game we had won, I do take some pride in it after the initial awfulness of it. It was something to build on, we are a really young team and we will be there again. But did you honestly just compare the Seahawks to the redskins thinking that was tough. Do you literally not see how ridiculous the things you say are?

We beat you with our defense you didn't beat us with your supposedly superior defense so I fail to see how you can argue that and also say you have a better overall team. Take Rodgers off that team and play us and lose 10 of 10 times. Mind you our offensive line was horrendous and beating our front 5 is like swiping a metro card for the subway, super easy.


Already mentioned this but I want to repeat it. You just tried to argue that the redskins were as good as the Seahawks because of their record. Even though they played different schedules, like how the redskins played the Giants eagles and cowboys twice last year. Outside of the fact that the Seahawks were one of the hottest teams in the NFL going into the playoffs. But I digress you've really exposed yourself as a giant packer homer.

Right, ol ridiculous me and actually posting statistics to support my opinions, how silly huh?

You almost beat a 10-6 Seahawks tea, the Packers almost beat a 12-4 Cards team, what does it matter?
No, you didnt "Have that game won", you would have, had Walsh made the FG attempt, but he didnt, he struggled from that hash mark most of the year, correct?

Our O line was absolutely fantastic until 3 of our four starters when down, and even then they were a solid enough unit, what is with you and saying things that are completely contrary actual statistical reality? Do you not understand that that tangible on field production means infinitely more then your numerous unsubstantiated claims?

The Packers didnt beat the Vikes with D? Uhhh, you do realize we held you to 13 points that game right?, just as you went on to do later in the season, the only difference is that the Packers O also took the opportunity to dominate the Vikings D. Speaking of our front 7s, one of them had a game last year where they compeltely dominated the other side and physically imposed there will all game long in a lop sided blowout, I really think with that in mind that it seems a bit silly to accuse the Packers front 7 of being easy to beat, like most other premeir RBs from last year (Charles, Lynch, etc.) AP was absolutely shut down by the Packers front 7.

Ok, you can keep making your asinine declarations that have no tangible on field production to back them up, but once again, the statistics take precedent over baseless claims, the Packers D was slightly over a point ranked lower then the Vikes last year, in what #### world does that imply that "You would beat us 10 times out of 10 with Rodgers"?

Nvm the fact that you obviously have very little knowledge of the NFL cap, I will once again point out, if you had Aaron Rodgers, the ENTIRE make up of your roster would be ENTIRELY different. You keep implying that you arent aware of this, and I keep trying to point it out.

Right, im a homer because I think that a 7 point victory in one of the last 10 matchups against the Packers doesnt change the status qou of this division, as I said, should I also find it extremely likely that the Lions and Bears consistantly start winning against the Packers as well?

You aren't posting facts you are posting nonsense where are these facts? Do you watch football? I've seen you talk about your 6th ranked passing offense and 21st ranked run defense, which makes you seem pretty average and you probably over achieved there to begin wtih.
I've seen you bring up irrelevant facts about the Vikings from previous years before our rebuild. I haven't seen anything to dispute the fact that you are a mediocre team with an elite qb. You compared yourselves to the Patriots at one point when trying to bash us and compare us to the jets. You are not the patriots, not close that's a dynasty. That's a good team with a good coach and an elite qb. You have one of those things and he's carried your franchise for years now, if you had the whole package I imagine you'd have at least made it to more than 1 super bowl in the time. Your talking about a qb as good as manning and Brady yet you can't make it to the big show more than once? Why is that? Oh that's right you have had a pretty average roster. But continue to ignore that fact. You lost Raji this year a key piece to your defense, I guess he wasn't that important. Julius peppers is a year older and running on empty. I guess that's not important.

The way we lost to the Seahawks is different than how you lost. We missed a 27 yard field goal, to close out the game, can't stress that enough. You tied a game with your elite qb throwing a hail marry then blowing it. I can't wait for this changing of the guard. I mean you honestly think you have a better roster sans qb, Gluck this year I hope Jordy coming back from a serious injury magically makes you superbowl contenders.

I just have one thing to add in this whole debat......

VIKINGS RULE AND THE PACKERS DROOL !

sneaxsneax wrote:You aren't posting facts you are posting nonsense where are these facts? Do you watch football? I've seen you talk about your 6th ranked passing offense and 21st ranked run defense, which makes you seem pretty average and you probably over achieved there to begin wtih.
I've seen you bring up irrelevant facts about the Vikings from previous years before our rebuild. I haven't seen anything to dispute the fact that you are a mediocre team with an elite qb. You compared yourselves to the Patriots at one point when trying to bash us and compare us to the jets. You are not the patriots, not close that's a dynasty. That's a good team with a good coach and an elite qb. You have one of those things and he's carried your franchise for years now, if you had the whole package I imagine you'd have at least made it to more than 1 super bowl in the time. Your talking about a qb as good as manning and Brady yet you can't make it to the big show more than once? Why is that? Oh that's right you have had a pretty average roster. But continue to ignore that fact. You lost Raji this year a key piece to your defense, I guess he wasn't that important. Julius peppers is a year older and running on empty. I guess that's not important.

The way we lost to the Seahawks is different than how you lost. We missed a 27 yard field goal, to close out the game, can't stress that enough. You tied a game with your elite qb throwing a hail marry then blowing it. I can't wait for this changing of the guard. I mean you honestly think you have a better roster sans qb, Gluck this year I hope Jordy coming back from a serious injury magically makes you superbowl contenders.

My lord, what does 25th ranked O last year in comparison to our 12th ranked D last year are you not grasping? The Packers D completely carried the Packers to the playoffs last year, as the statistics indicate. Our run D was simply a product of teams giving up on passing against us, there litterally wasnt ONE game where our run D cost us a game (Except for MAYBE the thanksgiving game, but that is a stretch) it was a top 10 unit for the first half of the season and finished the year with complete dominations against AP (twice) Charles, and Lynch. But even with the run D being ranked where it was, the overall D numbers and TOP didnt suffer greatly, and was still good for a D that finished a little bit over a point behind the Vikes in points.

Once again, you keep implying that our surrounding cast is so much worse then the Vikes, and yet I keep pointing out how the Packers were only slightly over a point worse on the Defensive side of the ball then the Vikes, my goodness man, how many times does someone need to prove you wrong using on field production until you decide to come out of fantasy land and join us in reality?

You can say Rodgers has carried our franchise and while I dont entirely agree with that perception (Neither do the Packers D rankings over the course of this decade), it is rather irrelevant to the Packers most current squad, dont you think? Oh yea, and once again, for having been carried completely and utterly by Aaron Rodgers, it seems mighty odd that the Packers only SB winning team in that time span had a vastly higher ranked D then O, doesnt it?

The Pats are (Save for maybe the Giants) The only team that has been even debateably as good as the Packers since McCarthy took over, surely you dont think that the post 2004 Pats have been a dissapointment on account of only having one SB over that span of time? Surely you dont think the Bud Grant was a crappy coahc for not winning a SB with Tark, or that Shula was a crappy coach for not getting Marino a SB win? The only team that has dominated their division even close to as muuch as the Packers in the McCarthy era have been the Pats, they are the AFC pinnacle of consistancy as the Packers are to the NFC, a comparison to the post spygate Pats seems pretty apt given the numbers.

We could go all day getting into the would shoulda couldas of the game, and why there have been so many great teams and players (as my above mentioned examples) that have won only 1 or less SBs, but it would be quite tedious dont you think? The Packers 'Only" have won SB for the same reason as alot of great teams who have that or less do, because winning the SB is hard and takes a lot of combining factors, there have been alot of great teams in the NFL over the years, there have only been 5 or 6 NFL dynasties though. I could wager that the Packers would probably have won by now had Rodgers not gotten injured at the end of 2014, but again, woulda, shoulda, coulda.

Raji wasn't even the best NT on our team bruh, he had largely taken a back seat to Letroy Guion, he had a decent enough year last year but nothing special, its not like we took a first round NT or anything.. (Which honestly, probably wasn't a nessecity, as I mentioned, Guion was every bit the player Raji was last year) Right, Pep is a year older, you know who is also a year older? AP, except Pep isnt even remotely as important to the Packers as AP is to the Vikes. Peppers is typically just a specialist for us these days, regardless.

We lost on a dropped pick by Sheilds, see? This excuse making thing is easy.

As I said earlier in the thread, pinning the offensive issues on the loss of Jordy Nelson and nothing else is just being willfully ignorant at this point, but regardless, his return neednt elevate the Packers in the stratosphere of SB contender, becauyse they never really left, the Packers are always a SB contender, as long as we have Rodgers this is likely the way it will remain, but the idea of last years D with a more typical iteration of the Packers O really is quiote encouraging, and really that is what it all comes down to, do you find it likely that an Aaron Rodgers has two down years in a row and the Packers O continues to cost them games? If so, I definitely cant blame you for liking the Vikes to repeat as Division Champs, but personally I find that concept to be quite, quite the stretch, I mean its Aaron Rodgers, he wont have two bad years in a row, imo.

As to whether there is going to be any changing of the guard? Well, hey, that is your opinion and I respect it, but this is nothing that hasnt been claimed by everyone of our Divsion Rivals at certain points in time over the last 20 years or so, that isnt smack or hostility on my part, its just the truth. Personally, I think for a team that you seem to be so confident is so much more talented then the Packers, you had an awfuly hard time winning the one on ones as far as last year went, Im also skeptical that Bridgewater ( whos I intially was very high on, and still am to a certain point) Will ever be the type of guy to be able to consistantly put in you in position for Division titles, but I guess we will find out wont we?

Serious question...what's your explanation for the Packer's offensive struggles?

I get it that we all feel like the ignored middle child, and constantly get tired of hearing about the Packers. BUT.....You cannot ignore the fact that they have one of the best QBs in the League, and thats been true for over a decade. We , on the other hand, may not even have a real NFL QB. The jury is still out on Teddy. So, its kinda crazy ( or just being a homer) to realistically expect the rest of the league to see us as even with the Pack.....its simply not true yet.

I cant wail till it is tho

chicagopurple wrote:I get it that we all feel like the ignored middle child, and constantly get tired of hearing about the Packers. BUT.....You cannot ignore the fact that they have one of the best QBs in the League, and thats been true for over a decade. We , on the other hand, may not even have a real NFL QB. The jury is still out on Teddy. So, its kinda crazy ( or just being a homer) to realistically expect the rest of the league to see us as even with the Pack.....its simply not true yet.

I cant wail till it is tho

Good post. I really think this season will open the eyes of skeptics and so called "experts".

Or, maybe it wont.... but I can't wait for football to start !

I'm sorry, I'm still chuckling at the idea that the GB defense is somehow close to as talented as the Vikings because they put up decent stats. Or that the rosters are nearly equal on that side of the ball. BJ Raji = Linval Joseph? Any of your DE = EG? Who exactly on your team plays DT better than Floyd or Tom Johnson? I will give you Clay Mathews as being better than Barr based on history, but Barr isn't that far off. Who do you have that can compete with Kendricks? Your ILB have been so bad that you had to move Mathews inside to compensate. That does not speak of talent or depth at the LB position. in the secondary one might argue at the depth positions, but there is no one on your roster that is the equal of Rhodes or Smith.

The idea that the Packer defense is equal to the purple is just silly. It is as silly as someone on here saying Teddy Bridgewater is equal to Aaron Rogers. No one insults you with that garbage so don't insult us with the above cheese.

mansquatch wrote:I'm sorry, I'm still chuckling at the idea that the GB defense is somehow close to as talented as the Vikings because they put up decent stats. Or that the rosters are nearly equal on that side of the ball. BJ Raji = Linval Joseph? Any of your DE = EG? Who exactly on your team plays DT better than Floyd or Tom Johnson? I will give you Clay Mathews as being better than Barr based on history, but Barr isn't that far off. Who do you have that can compete with Kendricks? Your ILB have been so bad that you had to move Mathews inside to compensate. That does not speak of talent or depth at the LB position. in the secondary one might argue at the depth positions, but there is no one on your roster that is the equal of Rhodes or Smith.

The idea that the Packer defense is equal to the purple is just silly. It is as silly as someone on here saying Teddy Bridgewater is equal to Aaron Rogers. No one insults you with that garbage so don't insult us with the above cheese.

Bj Raji wasnt our best NT last year, but regardless, a 3-4 NT can hardly be compared to a 4-3 DT, Raji and Guions job at NT is/was to eat blockers and push the pocket against double teams, they did that very well last year, DE is a similar situation, 3-4 DE are meant to hold the point of attack and set the edge, not rush the passer, but despite this, yes, I think the Packers DE Mike Daniels is as good as any lineman you have on your team.

No, Barr is very, very far from being Clay Matthews bruh, I agree he is talented young player, but give me a #### break, "Close to Clay Matthews"? I think not. Clay Matthews is both the best pass rusher and best ILB/MLB in the division, I dont think you should fault us for putting him at ILB (Considering it worked exactly as Capers wanted) outside of him I would tend to agree that Kendricks is better then our ILBs, but Jake Ryan had a decently impressive rookie season, and Sam Barrington was considered an impressive young up and comer before he sustained his season ending injury last year in week one, I think should they not perform to the expectations of the Packers brass, we will simply just move Clay back on the inside and leave it at that. I actually agree to certain point, that the Packers could stand to establish a little bit more depth at ILB, (Which is probably why they drafted the PAC 12 leader in tackles) But I dont think it should be considered a gaping hole or anything, the biggest issue they had there last year was finding someone outside of Clay that could play the pass.

As to the secondary? Um.. no? There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Rhodes is on par with Sam Shields, and Randall and Rollins arent far behind Rhodes (If at all) either, especially not Randall (Who I think is decidedly better). You are aware Randall had more picks in last season then Rhodes had in his career, and that Rollins had as many picks last season and Rhodes had in his career, right? Seriously, im surprised you make such a bold statement. I agree that Smith is a friggen All Pro beast of a player but HaHa is a monster and with a player like Burnett next to him, I think you would have to give them the edge over the Vikes safteys as a whole.

Um, no. Actually, saying Bridgewater is as good as Rodgers is infinitely more ridiculous, not even close. I have stated several times over in this thread, the Packers D was neck and neck with the Vikes D for the majority of the season, and finished the season slightly over a point worse then them. There is literally nothing to suggest that the Vikes D was on such a magnificently higher level then the Packers, this folk tale building in regards to the Vikes D is really quite out there. To even make that comparison, that the Vikes D is to the Packers D, what Rodgers is to Bridgewater, is bordering on delusional. Im not trying to be an #### dude, really. But that is really out there.

I prefer to look at this situation (comparing) a little different than most. Not saying it's better or worse etc. Rather than saying if we had this guy or didn't have these guys injured we would have had "this" result.....I prefer to look at who we played regardless of who was available or not available due to injury. Lets look at how each team faired when playing the best the league had to offer. Can only compare against same opponents though so the Panthers game does not count since we did not play them (was a loss for GB anyway). GB lost at Denver 29-10 and Viks lost at Denver 23-20....GB lost at Arizona 38-8 and Viks lost at Arizona 23-20. GB beat the Chiefs 38-28 and the Viks beat the Chiefs 16-10 and lastly the Pack beat the Seahawks 27-17 and the Viks got spanked by the Seahags 38-7. And of course we split with GB but we got it handed to us on the loss. I think we are very close indeed and will be interesting how much improved both teams off season acquisitions may or may not give an edge. One could say Miny played Denver and Arizona much better than GB did despite losses. A loss is a loss but I think we all agree that game 1 against San Fran was an anomaly. Throw that one out and we only got ran over twice all year. GB got ran over twice (Denver and Arizona). GB has perhaps the best QB in the league and Miny has perhaps the best RB in the league.....we all must agree that we could lose AP and still be pretty functional whereas if GB lost A-aron they would be in a world of hurt. I think AR is the X factor for GB and the Miny defense and their depth is our X factor. In the end we are very very close but this is a "prove it" year. If we win the division outright again then we will gain some respect.

autobon7 wrote:I prefer to look at this situation (comparing) a little different than most. Not saying it's better or worse etc. Rather than saying if we had this guy or didn't have these guys injured we would have had "this" result.....I prefer to look at who we played regardless of who was available or not available due to injury. Lets look at how each team faired when playing the best the league had to offer. Can only compare against same opponents though so the Panthers game does not count since we did not play them (was a loss for GB anyway). GB lost at Denver 29-10 and Viks lost at Denver 23-20....GB lost at Arizona 38-8 and Viks lost at Arizona 23-20. GB beat the Chiefs 38-28 and the Viks beat the Chiefs 16-10 and lastly the Pack beat the Seahawks 27-17 and the Viks got spanked by the Seahags 38-7. And of course we split with GB but we got it handed to us on the loss. I think we are very close indeed and will be interesting how much improved both teams off season acquisitions may or may not give an edge. One could say Miny played Denver and Arizona much better than GB did despite losses. A loss is a loss but I think we all agree that game 1 against San Fran was an anomaly. Throw that one out and we only got ran over twice all year. GB got ran over twice (Denver and Arizona). GB has perhaps the best QB in the league and Miny has perhaps the best RB in the league.....we all must agree that we could lose AP and still be pretty functional whereas if GB lost A-aron they would be in a world of hurt. I think AR is the X factor for GB and the Miny defense and their depth is our X factor. In the end we are very evry close but this is a "prove it" year. If we win the division outright again then we will gain some respect.

I think its more fair to go offf the Packers postseason game against AZ, being that they were without there top two corners in the first matchup, also, KC didn't do #### to the Packers until they were facing a prevent D well into garbage time.

I dont agree that losing Rodgers would end the Packers season outright (Just about, but not quite) A couple years ago the Packers managed to go 2-2-1 with Matt Flynn as the starter and our team wasnt even remotely what it is now, not to mention, we have Brett Hundley now, a guy who was the best QB in all of last years preseason, and a guy who I think is going to make the Packers make a very, very tough decision 4 years from now. I could be wrong though, GB O definitely is designed around the talents of a special QB, and part of the problem with losing him is that our playbook would be cut in half, but I do think the Packers O line and Running game is more then good enough to effectively compete with a young QB like Hundley.

I personally think losing Teddy would negatively affect you more then losing AP, AP is great, but you can make do with out a good RB in this league (Not that applicable as I think the Vikes have very good depth at RB) but you cant make do without a QB, I think Bridge while not perfect, would gain some appreciation if Hill or Heinicke ended up having to start.

I think if you win the division again, that will say alot about your organization, consistently winning the division against a HOF QB is never a bad thing in terms of perception.

I agree Jordy that if we lost TB and had to rely heavily on AP all year that would hurt but stand firm in believing that if A-aron was out that the Pack would pack it in.

I would say 45% Packers and 40% Vikings. The Pack have the edge on QBs, run stopping, and secondary (but that gap is filling in REAL fast).