Vikings Message Board.Com

Jordysghost wrote:
Oh but dont you know PHP, the Packers only lost the division last year because of our injuries.

Your O line has been your weakness all of this year and last, I don't think one playoff gane has much of an effect on that. Literally all of those guys you named have had vast stretches of ineptitude in their career.

Injuries happen, but I dont think a bunch of middling, struggling lineman were going to save you from only winning two of your last eight.

Dude we had to modify our whole offense when these guys went down and went into a short passing approach because these guys couldn't hold up, no less we lose AP so we have no running threat to open anything up. But you're saying that if we had all our OL we'd still win around 2 out of the last 8? That's laughable given we had to change our entire offense around because of it plus didn't have the best player on our offense in AP. We were starting the worst tackle of the decade on Sams blindside. Worst tackle of the decade man. To sit there and try to act like the injuries to this OL didn't matter, is beyond ridiculous if you ask me.

It's not just "injuries". It's injuries to the 2 most important positions on the OL, then lost Long, lost Mike Harris who was a top 20 guard last year, lost a HOF RB and then lost a QB that's been in the system for 3 years now. Do that to any other team in the NFL and tell me what happens. There aren't many, if any at all that overcome that. Simple as that

Pondering Her Percy wrote:
Not sure why that can't be a similar comparison. The team flopped worse than we did, lost less than we did and there isn't a soul calling for Kubiaks head. And the original post was to make some realize how ridiculous some of this actually sounds.

Yeah it was a disappointing season. But we should have beat the Loins twice....we was a fumble away from beating the Cowboys and if we can beat the Bears we could have been 11-5.
With all injuries and not playing as a team, add a few breaks we could have been looking at a good season.


Hopefully next season we can be a stronger team.

halfgiz wrote: Yeah it was a disappointing season. But we should have beat the Loins twice....we was a fumble away from beating the Cowboys and if we can beat the Bears we could have been 11-5.
With all injuries and not playing as a team, add a few breaks we could have been looking at a good season.


Hopefully next season we can be a stronger team.

Exactly but somehow if those injuries didnt happen, a Packers fan believes we still would have lost around 2 out of our last 8 still. Makes total sense

And as for the whole defense ignoring Zim, if you watch either Zims, Newmans or Munnerlyns presser, it was completely blown out of proportion. Much like some other stuff on here.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Dude we had to modify our whole offense when these guys went down and went into a short passing approach because these guys couldn't hold up, no less we lose AP so we have no running threat to open anything up. But you're saying that if we had all our OL we'd still win around 2 out of the last 8? That's laughable given we had to change our entire offense around because of it plus didn't have the best player on our offense in AP. We were starting the worst tackle of the decade on Sams blindside. Worst tackle of the decade man. To sit there and try to act like the injuries to this OL didn't matter, is beyond ridiculous if you ask me.

It's not just "injuries". It's injuries to the 2 most important positions on the OL, then lost Long, lost Mike Harris who was a top 20 guard last year, lost a HOF RB and then lost a QB that's been in the system for 3 years now. Do that to any other team in the NFL and tell me what happens. There aren't many, if any at all that overcome that. Simple as that

Your QB being injured cant be considered, you literally just found someone better. (And your staff deserves credit for doing so, Bradford has been a good QB)

Bruh Im not trying to talk your ear off so I wont elaborate unless you really feel it nessecary, but im no stranger to losing all your top linemen, my team has lost 3 (4 one year) of their starters on o line for the majority of the season 2 of the last 4 seasons. But again, im not apt to believe that three struggling, middling O lineman were going to elevate you to a playoff contender, not to mention signing injury prone free agent linemen seemed to the teams answer to the O line.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Exactly but somehow if those injuries didnt happen, a Packers fan believes we still would have lost around 2 out of our last 8 still. Makes total sense

Your O line didnt need injuries to suck. That sounds harsh but really dude.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Well let's see, they did win the super bowl last year and failed to make the playoffs. A lot worse than what we did. And they have what? One more win than we do?

As for the bottom post, I'm pretty sure I've been called arrogant and so on on here the past few days. So please refrain from trying to call me out personally because there has been a fair share that have came after me.

Also, an opinion is an opinion. Am I suppose to sit there and agree with an opinion that is the complete opposite of mine?? Of course not, that's why I sit here and defend it. It's a big part of a message board.

PHP,
I think you get a little overzealous with your comments and all the years that I've been married and divorced and a LTR or three, that there may be more than one right answer to almost anything. I'll give you an example. In the Spielman thread I stated that the team is no better than when he took over. Instead of asking why I felt that way or in your mind hang myself , you called me crazy or ignorant. That's what people get put off at. If your opinion is better factually, state it. If it's an opinion that stands on opinion alone, respectively respect others opinions. Don't forget we're your brethren. Be a better diplomat. You can browbeat Jordy anytime and all the time.

Jordysghost wrote: Your O line didnt need injuries to suck. That sounds harsh but really dude.

We split division games this season and we won the title last year.
In fact with our poor line Bradford had better stats than Rodgers.

Jordysghost wrote: Your QB being injured cant be considered, you literally just found someone better. (And your staff deserves credit for doing so, Bradford has been a good QB)

Bruh Im not trying to talk your ear off so I wont elaborate unless you really feel it nessecary, but im no stranger to losing all your top linemen, my team has lost 3 (4 one year) of their starters on o line for the majority of the season 2 of the last 4 seasons. But again, im not apt to believe that three struggling, middling O lineman were going to elevate you to a playoff contender, not to mention signing injury prone free agent linemen seemed to the teams answer to the O line.

We were in the playoffs last year with a bad OL and won the division so what makes you think we couldn't do it again?? No less if we don't lose Harris (who was a top 20 guard according to PFF so that's not middling) and Kalil, we replaced Clemmings with Smith and he's way better than Smith. If anything it might be a little better and I can tell you right now it wouldn't have forced us to modify our offense around the OL.

So yes, that very well could've given us a playoff birth. Especially when you add on the fact that we lost so many close games this year, one being to the cowboys

halfgiz wrote:
In fact with our poor line Bradford had better stats than Rodgers.

Um, no. Unless you are reffering to an extremely remote and short sample size.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: We were in the playoffs last year with a bad OL and won the division so what makes you think we couldn't do it again?? No less if we don't lose Harris (who was a top 20 guard according to PFF so that's not middling) and Kalil, we replaced Clemmings with Smith and he's way better than Smith. If anything it might be a little better and I can tell you right now it wouldn't have forced us to modify our offense around the OL.

So yes, that very well could've given us a playoff birth. Especially when you add on the fact that we lost so many close games this year, one being to the cowboys

Why wouldn't you do it again? Because you clearly have more issues then some linemen getting injured. Thats the point, you seem to think injuries to your already weak O line is the only reason your in the boat your in, I think that is silly an just using injuries as an excuse for losing.

Jordysghost wrote:
Why wouldn't you do it again? Because you clearly have more issues then some linemen getting injured. Thats the point, you seem to think injuries to your already weak O line is the only reason your in the boat your in, I think that is silly an just using injuries as an excuse for losing.

When we had a healthier line in week 2 we beat the Packers. In fact Bradford had better stats than Rodgers in both games this year with one of the worse lines in the NFL, if not tee worse.

If we would have had a decent LT in Saturdays game there is a chance we would have won that game.

halfgiz wrote: When we had a healthier line in week 2 we beat the Packers. In fact Bradford had better stats than Rodgers in both games this year with one of the worse lines in the NFL, if not tee worse.

If we would have had a decent LT in Saturdays game there is a chance we would have won that game.

What is your point? The Packers werent even close to being the team they are now then.

Bradford had a career game in week 2, he was fantastic that night no doubt, and fortuantly for him it was our first game without Shields, but Sunday him and the offense only scored 13 until the game was safely into garbage time and prevent D time. He didnt actually have as good a game as Rodgers, not even close.


No dude, that LT would have had to be seriously good at covering WRs.

According to this Link the "mutiny" was blown out of porportion.

“Miscommunication” was the buzzword Monday as Vikings cornerbacks Xavier Rhodes and Terence Newman sought to downplay their freestyle coverage of Packers receiver Jordy Nelson as defying coach Mike Zimmer.

Zimmer blamed himself for being too vague with Rhodes and Newman about their shifting assignments and too blunt assessing the pass defense in his news conference after Saturday’s 38-25 playoff-squelching loss at Lambeau Field.

More at the Link.

Jordysghost wrote: What is your point? The Packers werent even close to being the team they are now then.

As we're not the team we was in game 2 due to loosing both our tackles to injuries

Bradford had a career game in week 2, he was fantastic that night no doubt, and fortuantly for him it was our first game without Shields, but Sunday him and the offense only scored 13 until the game was safely into garbage time and prevent D time. He didnt actually have as good a game as Rodgers, not even close.

Bradford had his career game Saturday
Look at the Stats is all I can say...cause I disagree with you.


No dude, that LT would have had to be seriously good at covering WRs.

l
LT as in someone other than Clemmings