2 Tackles And Half A Sack

[Packnut]

That is what the great Mr J Allen accomplished in 60 minutes of football on HIS field against the Green Bay Packers one Sunday afternoon last season. :shock:

Yet all I read about in this very dull off-season is how this guy is the next coming of Reggie White. Best DE in football. The missing piece of the puzzle up in Minnesota. According to the great and powerful Oz (Dr Z), why Allen is gonna get them that SB trophy.

And now the fools at ESPN are tripping over each other to sing the praises of Mr Allen. Why Allen to the Vikes is the biggest heist since one Brett Favre was swiped by Ron Wolf. He's all the Vikings needed. Yep, the same Vikings who came very close to getting blown out by GB in Minny and did get SMOKED in GB. Hey, I'm not the brightest coin in the fountain, but I just don't see how that big 2 tackle and a half sack game of Allen would have made a difference in EITHER game.

Would'nt it be refreshing to just have ONE FREAKIN writer remind everyone how Allen made NO DIFFERENCE against the Packers last season? Why are these guys so GOD DAMN BLIND????????????

Must they ALWAYS take the easy way out when writing a story. Yeah, I know. Writing a story of how in-effective Allen was against the Pack does'nt make for a good story-well not as good as how great Allen is and how he's just what the Vikes need. That makes for better copy. Well what about a thing called:

PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM

[MJZiggy]

Professional journalism died with the advent of 24-hour news/24-hour sports programming. Did you miss the wake? The flowers were lovely.

[Packnut]

Professional journalism died with the advent of 24-hour news/24-hour sports programming. Did you miss the wake? The flowers were lovely.

It's just a damn shame that writing a fluff article is more important than the facts. I mean, in order for Minny to make this huge leap forward, they will have to do it over the Packers so is it just me, or would'nt it make sense to include what Allen did against us last season? That is the barometer to use when assesing his impact this season against us.

[Sef0r]

Who did KC have on the line with Allen?
He now has 2 of the best "most offensively planned against" DTs in the league in the middle, that alone is enough for most DEs to be somewhat productive.

Jared Allen is a great DE, in the mould of AK but with a bad attitude. If anything, I am hoping for some distractions on his part on games where we play them otherwise it will be a problem.

Lets not kid ourselves the Vikings now have a freakishly great Dline on paper and if last year's play is any indication from all the starters on that line they will be the best with run and pass play.

[Packnut]

Who did KC have on the line with Allen?
He now has 2 of the best "most offensively planned against" DTs in the league in the middle, that alone is enough for most DEs to be somewhat productive.

Jared Allen is a great DE, in the mould of AK but with a bad attitude. If anything, I am hoping for some distractions on his part on games where we play them otherwise it will be a problem.

Lets not kid ourselves the Vikings now have a freakishly great Dline on paper and if last year's play is any indication from all the starters on that line they will be the best with run and pass play.

Point taken. However, while the DT duo the Vikes have can stop the inside run, they are very poor at pass rushing. I doubt very much if anyone doubled either of them last season on passing downs so the Packer blocking scheme will remain the same.

[Sef0r]

Who did KC have on the line with Allen?
He now has 2 of the best "most offensively planned against" DTs in the league in the middle, that alone is enough for most DEs to be somewhat productive.

Jared Allen is a great DE, in the mould of AK but with a bad attitude. If anything, I am hoping for some distractions on his part on games where we play them otherwise it will be a problem.

Lets not kid ourselves the Vikings now have a freakishly great Dline on paper and if last year's play is any indication from all the starters on that line they will be the best with run and pass play.

Point taken. However, while the DT duo the Vikes have can stop the inside run, they are very poor at pass rushing. I doubt very much if anyone doubled either of them last season on passing downs so the Packer blocking scheme will remain the same.

Kevin Williams was doubled a lot. Pat Williams was not, but they don't expect him to get to the passer in 3 seconds. Of course, this is all a wait a see approach. We have all seen what "great on paper" ends up looking like during the season - *cough* 49ers Defense *couch*.

[mraynrand]

Professional journalism died with the advent of 24-hour news/24-hour sports programming. Did you miss the wake? The flowers were lovely.

LOL. That's good copy. You could be an ESPN reporter.

[PackFan#1]

Dr. Z is too old. When you're old, you don't have much logic cells left in your brain. Bob Harlan is another example.

Tom Pelissero of Packersnews.com is an ass but at least he's young.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Kevin Williams was doubled a lot. Pat Williams was not, but they don't expect him to get to the passer in 3 seconds. Of course, this is all a wait a see approach. We have all seen what "great on paper" ends up looking like during the season - *cough* 49ers Defense *couch*.

Pat Williams doesn't even play much on passing downs, so he won't help out Allen much. Kevin does get doubled, but you can double two guys on the DL. Allen will still get doubled (he'll be chipped by TEs and blocked by RBs). If they had one other good pass rusher, then they would be trouble. That means Ray Edwards is going to have to be very good for them to be as dominant as some think they'll be. Kind of like the Giants. They had a good pass rush with Osi and Strahan, but they didn't become dominant until Justin Tuck become a stud also. I don't see Ray Edwards becoming another Justin Tuck.

[Zool]

Who did KC have on the line with Allen?
He now has 2 of the best "most offensively planned against" DTs in the league in the middle, that alone is enough for most DEs to be somewhat productive.

Jared Allen is a great DE, in the mould of AK but with a bad attitude. If anything, I am hoping for some distractions on his part on games where we play them otherwise it will be a problem.

Lets not kid ourselves the Vikings now have a freakishly great Dline on paper and if last year's play is any indication from all the starters on that line they will be the best with run and pass play.

Unless someone proves otherwise, the other DE spot is hardly outstanding. If they get above average play from that side though, I might with you.

Didn't Taucher lock down Allen 1 on 1 for pretty much every play though? Does it really matter who else is on the line if the supposed top pass rusher is taken mostly out of the game without doubles or chips?

[Tony Oday]

The Pack was also supposed to be a 500 team last year. New England was EASILY going to win the Super Bowl. Green Bay Was going to be in the Super Bowl since Dallas lost.

IT doesnt mean anything thats why they play the games. The Vikings seem to always get one side of the ball to work and the other side is a mess. About week 8 you will hear a lound crash in Minnesota and that will be everyone jumping off the band wagon.

[StPaulPackFan]

The Pack was also supposed to be a 500 team last year. New England was EASILY going to win the Super Bowl. Green Bay Was going to be in the Super Bowl since Dallas lost.

IT doesnt mean anything thats why they play the games. The Vikings seem to always get one side of the ball to work and the other side is a mess. About week 8 you will hear a lound crash in Minnesota and that will be everyone jumping off the band wagon.

That's always my favorite time of year in St. Paul. :wink:

[KYPack]

For several seasons now, the Vikings have been the "winner" at FA, but they've failed to improve much, if at all. The Allen acquisition just looks like anojhter in a long lone of failed additions that look good on paper, but fail to add much to the team.

Awhile back, the addition of Sharper was gonna put The Queens in the Super Bowl. Look how that one worked out.

KC might be the winner of the Allen deal.

[SMACKTALKIE]

For several seasons now, the Vikings have been the "winner" at FA, but they've failed to improve much, if at all. The Allen acquisition just looks like anojhter in a long lone of failed additions that look good on paper, but fail to add much to the team.

Awhile back, the addition of Sharper was gonna put The Queens in the Super Bowl. Look how that one worked out.

KC might be the winner of the Allen deal.

Was this thread started with the intent to point out bad journalism, because this might be one of the most uninformed threads I've read.

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?

Comparing Allen with the Chiefs vs. the pack is a stupid comparison, he will be playing with much better players along side him. By the way K. Williams is an excellent pass rusher.

The Vikes have made many good FA moves. The most notible failure was Smoot, but Sharper, Winfield, P. Williams, Hutchinson, and Chester Taylor were all good moves.

Yes pack fans.....Allen is good, and was a great trade for the Vikings. He will make an impact, although probably one you won't like.

[Iron Mike]

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?


One word. Redskins.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?


One word. Redskins.

Because every team adds talent. That's the beauty of the NFL offseason. Most of the time you win because you have young players that become good players--not because you acquired big names. It's so important that you have team chemistry, guys that fit your scheme, and coaching. You also normally need a solid QB.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?


One word. Redskins.

Another bad example.

I'm guessing you are refering to the year they added Dion and Bruce Smith. Any fool could have seen how stupid that was, adddng old has-been talent with huge dead-money signing bonuses. Allen is 26 and has had more sacks in the last 4 years than anybody.

[sharpe1027]

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?


History. Just last year San Fran was everyone's dark horse pick because they made a big splash in free agency. Redskins are that way every year. Have you forgotten how Herschel Walkers was once touted as the Vikings ticket to the superbowl? History is not on your side.

[Packnut]

For several seasons now, the Vikings have been the "winner" at FA, but they've failed to improve much, if at all. The Allen acquisition just looks like anojhter in a long lone of failed additions that look good on paper, but fail to add much to the team.

Awhile back, the addition of Sharper was gonna put The Queens in the Super Bowl. Look how that one worked out.

KC might be the winner of the Allen deal.

Was this thread started with the intent to point out bad journalism, because this might be one of the most uninformed threads I've read.

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?

Comparing Allen with the Chiefs vs. the pack is a stupid comparison, he will be playing with much better players along side him. By the way K. Williams is an excellent pass rusher.

The Vikes have made many good FA moves. The most notible failure was Smoot, but Sharper, Winfield, P. Williams, Hutchinson, and Chester Taylor were all good moves.

Yes pack fans.....Allen is good, and was a great trade for the Vikings. He will make an impact, although probably one you won't like.


WRONG. Good offensive tackles can render ANY DE impotent much like your opinion is on this debate. In fact, chipping or keeping aTE in can also do the same thing IF a tackle is having problems.

Also, since you are confused about my intent, I'll spell it out for you. Since the Vikes and Pack will more than likely be the front-runners in the division, I was pointing out that writing an "Allen is the football messiah" article without the context of how it relates in their rivalry with the Pack is point-less IMO.

Yes, Allen will more than likely feast on the bottom of talent in the NFC. However, Tausher and Clifton are the best tackle pass defending duo in the NFL. THAT cannot be disputed. I also was pointing out, that in the one contest that was played, it is a FACT that Allen had no effect on the game.

I'm not dealing in may-be's and what ifs. Since we have no proof of what Allen will do on the Vikes line, I prefer to deal with what I have already seen rather than what could be and what I have seen leads me to believe that Allen is the least of my concerns when it comes to GB/Minny since Allen can't complete a pass much like Tavaris Jackson........... :lol:

[SMACKTALKIE]

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?


History. Just last year San Fran was everyone's dark horse pick because they made a big splash in free agency. Redskins are that way every year. Have you forgotten how Herschel Walkers was once touted as the Vikings ticket to the superbowl? History is not on your side.

So there was never a time, or a team that added the best pass rushing DE available and reaped the rewards?

Hmmmmmmmmmm :roll:

[SMACKTALKIE]

For several seasons now, the Vikings have been the "winner" at FA, but they've failed to improve much, if at all. The Allen acquisition just looks like anojhter in a long lone of failed additions that look good on paper, but fail to add much to the team.

Awhile back, the addition of Sharper was gonna put The Queens in the Super Bowl. Look how that one worked out.

KC might be the winner of the Allen deal.

Was this thread started with the intent to point out bad journalism, because this might be one of the most uninformed threads I've read.

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?

Comparing Allen with the Chiefs vs. the pack is a stupid comparison, he will be playing with much better players along side him. By the way K. Williams is an excellent pass rusher.

The Vikes have made many good FA moves. The most notible failure was Smoot, but Sharper, Winfield, P. Williams, Hutchinson, and Chester Taylor were all good moves.

Yes pack fans.....Allen is good, and was a great trade for the Vikings. He will make an impact, although probably one you won't like.


WRONG. Good offensive tackles can render ANY DE impotent much like your opinion is on this debate. In fact, chipping or keeping aTE in can also do the same thing IF a tackle is having problems.

Also, since you are confused about my intent, I'll spell it out for you. Since the Vikes and Pack will more than likely be the front-runners in the division, I was pointing out that writing an "Allen is the football messiah" article without the context of how it relates in their rivalry with the Pack is point-less IMO.

Yes, Allen will more than likely feast on the bottom of talent in the NFC. However, Tausher and Clifton are the best tackle pass defending duo in the NFL. THAT cannot be disputed. I also was pointing out, that in the one contest that was played, it is a FACT that Allen had no effect on the game.

I'm not dealing in may-be's and what ifs. Since we have no proof of what Allen will do on the Vikes line, I prefer to deal with what I have already seen rather than what could be and what I have seen leads me to believe that Allen is the least of my concerns when it comes to GB/Minny since Allen can't complete a pass much like Tavaris Jackson........... :lol:

Are you speaking about the same QB that has 8 more wins than Rodgers. That's not a what if.

[sharpe1027]

So there was never a time, or a team that added the best pass rushing DE available and reaped the rewards?

Hmmmmmmmmmm :roll:

Nobody said that. :roll:

I don't buy lottery tickets because I think it is a waste of money even though I know that people have won in the past.

[sharpe1027]

Are you speaking about the same QB that has 8 more wins than Rodgers. That's not a what if.

He also has a bunch more losses than ARod. We all know Arod is unproven, we'll have to see how he does. T.J., however, has been proven, so far, to be average at best.

[Packnut]

For several seasons now, the Vikings have been the "winner" at FA, but they've failed to improve much, if at all. The Allen acquisition just looks like anojhter in a long lone of failed additions that look good on paper, but fail to add much to the team.

Awhile back, the addition of Sharper was gonna put The Queens in the Super Bowl. Look how that one worked out.

KC might be the winner of the Allen deal.

Was this thread started with the intent to point out bad journalism, because this might be one of the most uninformed threads I've read.

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?

Comparing Allen with the Chiefs vs. the pack is a stupid comparison, he will be playing with much better players along side him. By the way K. Williams is an excellent pass rusher.

The Vikes have made many good FA moves. The most notible failure was Smoot, but Sharper, Winfield, P. Williams, Hutchinson, and Chester Taylor were all good moves.

Yes pack fans.....Allen is good, and was a great trade for the Vikings. He will make an impact, although probably one you won't like.


WRONG. Good offensive tackles can render ANY DE impotent much like your opinion is on this debate. In fact, chipping or keeping aTE in can also do the same thing IF a tackle is having problems.

Also, since you are confused about my intent, I'll spell it out for you. Since the Vikes and Pack will more than likely be the front-runners in the division, I was pointing out that writing an "Allen is the football messiah" article without the context of how it relates in their rivalry with the Pack is point-less IMO.

Yes, Allen will more than likely feast on the bottom of talent in the NFC. However, Tausher and Clifton are the best tackle pass defending duo in the NFL. THAT cannot be disputed. I also was pointing out, that in the one contest that was played, it is a FACT that Allen had no effect on the game.

I'm not dealing in may-be's and what ifs. Since we have no proof of what Allen will do on the Vikes line, I prefer to deal with what I have already seen rather than what could be and what I have seen leads me to believe that Allen is the least of my concerns when it comes to GB/Minny since Allen can't complete a pass much like Tavaris Jackson........... :lol:

Are you speaking about the same QB that has 8 more wins than Rodgers. That's not a what if.


Like the immortal Hawk Harrelson (White Sox announcer) likes to say, "don't tell me how much you hit, tell me when you hit em".

Don't just look at his 15.5 sacks but examine who they cam against. He had his best game of the season against guess who? Yep, those same Vikings that signed him. He also had multi-sack games against Cincy, Oakland, Detroit and the Jets. Oooohhhh, yeah that's real IMPRESSIVE!

As for Jackson, even any football challenged mind would tell you he

SUCKS!

Using the Rodgers comparison is quite feeble since in their only common opponent:

Jackson was a whopping eye popping 6-19 at Dallas for a mind-numbing 72 yds and ZERO td's.

Against the same opponent in less playing time, A-Rod was 18-26 for 201 yds and 1 td.

Nough said....................... 8-)

[Lurker64]

Well, Jared Allen is certainly not going to help the Vikings run defense. As a Chief, he got so many sacks because he would frequently (and selfishly) gamble for them by giving up outside contain. A few games last year demonstrated that you can run outside against the Vikings, and Allen certainly isn't going to help with that.

[SMACKTALKIE]

For several seasons now, the Vikings have been the "winner" at FA, but they've failed to improve much, if at all. The Allen acquisition just looks like anojhter in a long lone of failed additions that look good on paper, but fail to add much to the team.

Awhile back, the addition of Sharper was gonna put The Queens in the Super Bowl. Look how that one worked out.

KC might be the winner of the Allen deal.

Was this thread started with the intent to point out bad journalism, because this might be one of the most uninformed threads I've read.

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?

Comparing Allen with the Chiefs vs. the pack is a stupid comparison, he will be playing with much better players along side him. By the way K. Williams is an excellent pass rusher.

The Vikes have made many good FA moves. The most notible failure was Smoot, but Sharper, Winfield, P. Williams, Hutchinson, and Chester Taylor were all good moves.

Yes pack fans.....Allen is good, and was a great trade for the Vikings. He will make an impact, although probably one you won't like.


WRONG. Good offensive tackles can render ANY DE impotent much like your opinion is on this debate. In fact, chipping or keeping aTE in can also do the same thing IF a tackle is having problems.

Also, since you are confused about my intent, I'll spell it out for you. Since the Vikes and Pack will more than likely be the front-runners in the division, I was pointing out that writing an "Allen is the football messiah" article without the context of how it relates in their rivalry with the Pack is point-less IMO.

Yes, Allen will more than likely feast on the bottom of talent in the NFC. However, Tausher and Clifton are the best tackle pass defending duo in the NFL. THAT cannot be disputed. I also was pointing out, that in the one contest that was played, it is a FACT that Allen had no effect on the game.

I'm not dealing in may-be's and what ifs. Since we have no proof of what Allen will do on the Vikes line, I prefer to deal with what I have already seen rather than what could be and what I have seen leads me to believe that Allen is the least of my concerns when it comes to GB/Minny since Allen can't complete a pass much like Tavaris Jackson........... :lol:

Are you speaking about the same QB that has 8 more wins than Rodgers. That's not a what if.


Like the immortal Hawk Harrelson (White Sox announcer) likes to say, "don't tell me how much you hit, tell me when you hit em".

Don't just look at his 15.5 sacks but examine who they cam against. He had his best game of the season against guess who? Yep, those same Vikings that signed him. He also had multi-sack games against Cincy, Oakland, Detroit and the Jets. Oooohhhh, yeah that's real IMPRESSIVE!

As for Jackson, even any football challenged mind would tell you he

SUCKS!

Using the Rodgers comparison is quite feeble since in their only common opponent:

Jackson was a whopping eye popping 6-19 at Dallas for a mind-numbing 72 yds and ZERO td's.

Against the same opponent in less playing time, A-Rod was 18-26 for 201 yds and 1 td.

Nough said....................... 8-)

Another poor example.

That would be the same game Favre started correct? So you are drawing your conclusion from a game where the opposing D planned to play against a QB who has seen everyting? Once defenses start doing their homework on Rodgers the pack is going to see some different looks from opposing D's than they have seen in some time.

[Tony Oday]

But we already know what jump pass looks like so I dont think you can get much worse. face it Jump pass Jackson is an also ran QB that will be replaced after this year to save chili's kick ass offense.

[Zool]

That would be the same game Favre started correct? So you are drawing your conclusion from a game where the opposing D planned to play against a QB who has seen everyting? Once defenses start doing their homework on Rodgers the pack is going to see some different looks from opposing D's than they have seen in some time.

First, are you comparing Allen to Reggie White? On a Packers board no less? Even if you're trolling, thats just dumb. Thats like saying the Vikes traded for Brooks Bollinger just like the Packers traded for Favre.

If a tackle can eliminate your brand new DE by himself the entire game, then its hardly a season changing trade. That's the point. Young guys on the Vikes improving will be the difference, not 1 new player.

[Patler]

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?

Comparing Allen with the Chiefs vs. the pack is a stupid comparison, he will be playing with much better players along side him. By the way K. Williams is an excellent pass rusher.

The Vikes have made many good FA moves. The most notible failure was Smoot, but Sharper, Winfield, P. Williams, Hutchinson, and Chester Taylor were all good moves.

Yes pack fans.....Allen is good, and was a great trade for the Vikings. He will make an impact, although probably one you won't like.

Hasn't the signing of big name free agents by the Vikings been an annual even since at least 2004 when they first signed Winfield? Over that time we have seen them sign reasonably big name FAs at vitually every position. Just off the top of my head I can think of:

Defense - Winfield, Smoot, Sharper, Tank Williams, Leber, Pat Williams, Doss

Offense - Wiggins, Marcus Robinson, Hutchinson, Longwell, Travis Taylor, Chester Taylor, Tony Richardson, Dez White, Bethel Johnson.

Some more than others, but all were considered very good signings, and where has it really gotten the Vikings.

Now this year its Allen, Williams, Berrian, etc. who are supposed to make the difference.

That's a lot of signings in just the last 5 years, and where has it really gotten the Vikings? How many FA receivers and DBs have they signed, "to make the difference?"

Sometimes collecting players and building a team are not the same thing. So far the Vikings have only collected players.

[SMACKTALKIE]

That would be the same game Favre started correct? So you are drawing your conclusion from a game where the opposing D planned to play against a QB who has seen everyting? Once defenses start doing their homework on Rodgers the pack is going to see some different looks from opposing D's than they have seen in some time.

First, are you comparing Allen to Reggie White? On a Packers board no less? Even if you're trolling, thats just dumb. Thats like saying the Vikes traded for Brooks Bollinger just like the Packers traded for Favre.

If a tackle can eliminate your brand new DE by himself the entire game, then its hardly a season changing trade. That's the point. Young guys on the Vikes improving will be the difference, not 1 new player.

I was just referring to history, and the potential a good DE provides for a team.......not trying to ruffle feathers.

The excitement stems from the fact that a pass rush will help the secondary in a number of ways. With an improved pass rush and solid run D things look good for the Vikings D.

[Zool]

That would be the same game Favre started correct? So you are drawing your conclusion from a game where the opposing D planned to play against a QB who has seen everyting? Once defenses start doing their homework on Rodgers the pack is going to see some different looks from opposing D's than they have seen in some time.

First, are you comparing Allen to Reggie White? On a Packers board no less? Even if you're trolling, thats just dumb. Thats like saying the Vikes traded for Brooks Bollinger just like the Packers traded for Favre.

If a tackle can eliminate your brand new DE by himself the entire game, then its hardly a season changing trade. That's the point. Young guys on the Vikes improving will be the difference, not 1 new player.

I was just referring to history, and the potential a good DE provides for a team.......not trying to ruffle feathers.

The excitement stems from the fact that a pass rush will help the secondary in a number of ways. With an improved pass rush and solid run D things look good for the Vikings D.

Again if he can be taken out by a single tackle without help, how is that an improvement? That is the counterpoint. Even with the half sack, he was barely heard from the entire game.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?

Comparing Allen with the Chiefs vs. the pack is a stupid comparison, he will be playing with much better players along side him. By the way K. Williams is an excellent pass rusher.

The Vikes have made many good FA moves. The most notible failure was Smoot, but Sharper, Winfield, P. Williams, Hutchinson, and Chester Taylor were all good moves.

Yes pack fans.....Allen is good, and was a great trade for the Vikings. He will make an impact, although probably one you won't like.

Hasn't the signing of big name free agents by the Vikings been an annual even since at least 2004 when they first signed Winfield? Over that time we have seen them sign reasonably big name FAs at vitually every position. Just off the top of my head I can think of:

Defense - Winfield, Smoot, Sharper, Tank Williams, Leber, Pat Williams, Doss

Offense - Wiggins, Marcus Robinson, Hutchinson, Longwell, Travis Taylor, Chester Taylor, Tony Richardson, Dez White, Bethel Johnson.

Some more than others, but all were considered very good signings, and where has it really gotten the Vikings.

Now this year its Allen, Williams, Berrian, etc. who are supposed to make the difference.

That's a lot of signings in just the last 5 years, and where has it really gotten the Vikings? How many FA receivers and DBs have they signed, "to make the difference?"

Sometimes collecting players and building a team are not the same thing. So far the Vikings have only collected players.

Hmmmm...Chicken, egg.

You have to start somewhere. I guess the Vikings are collecting players to build a team.

[SMACKTALKIE]

That would be the same game Favre started correct? So you are drawing your conclusion from a game where the opposing D planned to play against a QB who has seen everyting? Once defenses start doing their homework on Rodgers the pack is going to see some different looks from opposing D's than they have seen in some time.

First, are you comparing Allen to Reggie White? On a Packers board no less? Even if you're trolling, thats just dumb. Thats like saying the Vikes traded for Brooks Bollinger just like the Packers traded for Favre.

If a tackle can eliminate your brand new DE by himself the entire game, then its hardly a season changing trade. That's the point. Young guys on the Vikes improving will be the difference, not 1 new player.

I was just referring to history, and the potential a good DE provides for a team.......not trying to ruffle feathers.

The excitement stems from the fact that a pass rush will help the secondary in a number of ways. With an improved pass rush and solid run D things look good for the Vikings D.

Again if he can be taken out by a single tackle without help, how is that an improvement? That is the counterpoint. Even with the half sack, he was barely heard from the entire game.

Stunts and zone blitzs. It's not like a DE has to rush off the edge the entire game to make an impact. D schemes work better with better players.

[Patler]

Sometimes collecting players and building a team are not the same thing. So far the Vikings have only collected players.

Hmmmm...Chicken, egg.

You have to start somewhere. I guess the Vikings are collecting players to build a team.

But they have been collecting for 5 years. When does the building start?

[SMACKTALKIE]

Sometimes collecting players and building a team are not the same thing. So far the Vikings have only collected players.

Hmmmm...Chicken, egg.

You have to start somewhere. I guess the Vikings are collecting players to build a team.

But they have been collecting for 5 years. When does the building start?

3 years ago when Zigy bought the team.

[Patler]

Sometimes collecting players and building a team are not the same thing. So far the Vikings have only collected players.

Hmmmm...Chicken, egg.

You have to start somewhere. I guess the Vikings are collecting players to build a team.

But they have been collecting for 5 years. When does the building start?

3 years ago when Zigy bought the team.

Could be. Certainly was a change. I'm not convinced that a team will be built with Childress as the head coach, or with Jackson as the QB. Without those two spots being filled, it is tough. We should know by November if the Vikings are on their way or will be starting all over again.

I think the Packers are in good shape in the front office and with their HC. Time will tell with QB.

[Packnut]

For several seasons now, the Vikings have been the "winner" at FA, but they've failed to improve much, if at all. The Allen acquisition just looks like anojhter in a long lone of failed additions that look good on paper, but fail to add much to the team.

Awhile back, the addition of Sharper was gonna put The Queens in the Super Bowl. Look how that one worked out.

KC might be the winner of the Allen deal.

Was this thread started with the intent to point out bad journalism, because this might be one of the most uninformed threads I've read.

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?

Comparing Allen with the Chiefs vs. the pack is a stupid comparison, he will be playing with much better players along side him. By the way K. Williams is an excellent pass rusher.

The Vikes have made many good FA moves. The most notible failure was Smoot, but Sharper, Winfield, P. Williams, Hutchinson, and Chester Taylor were all good moves.

Yes pack fans.....Allen is good, and was a great trade for the Vikings. He will make an impact, although probably one you won't like.


WRONG. Good offensive tackles can render ANY DE impotent much like your opinion is on this debate. In fact, chipping or keeping aTE in can also do the same thing IF a tackle is having problems.

Also, since you are confused about my intent, I'll spell it out for you. Since the Vikes and Pack will more than likely be the front-runners in the division, I was pointing out that writing an "Allen is the football messiah" article without the context of how it relates in their rivalry with the Pack is point-less IMO.

Yes, Allen will more than likely feast on the bottom of talent in the NFC. However, Tausher and Clifton are the best tackle pass defending duo in the NFL. THAT cannot be disputed. I also was pointing out, that in the one contest that was played, it is a FACT that Allen had no effect on the game.

I'm not dealing in may-be's and what ifs. Since we have no proof of what Allen will do on the Vikes line, I prefer to deal with what I have already seen rather than what could be and what I have seen leads me to believe that Allen is the least of my concerns when it comes to GB/Minny since Allen can't complete a pass much like Tavaris Jackson........... :lol:

Are you speaking about the same QB that has 8 more wins than Rodgers. That's not a what if.


Like the immortal Hawk Harrelson (White Sox announcer) likes to say, "don't tell me how much you hit, tell me when you hit em".

Don't just look at his 15.5 sacks but examine who they cam against. He had his best game of the season against guess who? Yep, those same Vikings that signed him. He also had multi-sack games against Cincy, Oakland, Detroit and the Jets. Oooohhhh, yeah that's real IMPRESSIVE!

As for Jackson, even any football challenged mind would tell you he

SUCKS!

Using the Rodgers comparison is quite feeble since in their only common opponent:

Jackson was a whopping eye popping 6-19 at Dallas for a mind-numbing 72 yds and ZERO td's.

Against the same opponent in less playing time, A-Rod was 18-26 for 201 yds and 1 td.

Nough said....................... 8-)

Another poor example.

That would be the same game Favre started correct? So you are drawing your conclusion from a game where the opposing D planned to play against a QB who has seen everyting? Once defenses start doing their homework on Rodgers the pack is going to see some different looks from opposing D's than they have seen in some time.


Thanks for the back and forth banter today. You have once again reminded me how much I dislike the Vikings and their fans.


BRING IT ON!

[SMACKTALKIE]

For several seasons now, the Vikings have been the "winner" at FA, but they've failed to improve much, if at all. The Allen acquisition just looks like anojhter in a long lone of failed additions that look good on paper, but fail to add much to the team.

Awhile back, the addition of Sharper was gonna put The Queens in the Super Bowl. Look how that one worked out.

KC might be the winner of the Allen deal.

Was this thread started with the intent to point out bad journalism, because this might be one of the most uninformed threads I've read.

Why is it so ridiculous to think the addition of talent will make a football team better?

Comparing Allen with the Chiefs vs. the pack is a stupid comparison, he will be playing with much better players along side him. By the way K. Williams is an excellent pass rusher.

The Vikes have made many good FA moves. The most notible failure was Smoot, but Sharper, Winfield, P. Williams, Hutchinson, and Chester Taylor were all good moves.

Yes pack fans.....Allen is good, and was a great trade for the Vikings. He will make an impact, although probably one you won't like.


WRONG. Good offensive tackles can render ANY DE impotent much like your opinion is on this debate. In fact, chipping or keeping aTE in can also do the same thing IF a tackle is having problems.

Also, since you are confused about my intent, I'll spell it out for you. Since the Vikes and Pack will more than likely be the front-runners in the division, I was pointing out that writing an "Allen is the football messiah" article without the context of how it relates in their rivalry with the Pack is point-less IMO.

Yes, Allen will more than likely feast on the bottom of talent in the NFC. However, Tausher and Clifton are the best tackle pass defending duo in the NFL. THAT cannot be disputed. I also was pointing out, that in the one contest that was played, it is a FACT that Allen had no effect on the game.

I'm not dealing in may-be's and what ifs. Since we have no proof of what Allen will do on the Vikes line, I prefer to deal with what I have already seen rather than what could be and what I have seen leads me to believe that Allen is the least of my concerns when it comes to GB/Minny since Allen can't complete a pass much like Tavaris Jackson........... :lol:

Are you speaking about the same QB that has 8 more wins than Rodgers. That's not a what if.


Like the immortal Hawk Harrelson (White Sox announcer) likes to say, "don't tell me how much you hit, tell me when you hit em".

Don't just look at his 15.5 sacks but examine who they cam against. He had his best game of the season against guess who? Yep, those same Vikings that signed him. He also had multi-sack games against Cincy, Oakland, Detroit and the Jets. Oooohhhh, yeah that's real IMPRESSIVE!

As for Jackson, even any football challenged mind would tell you he

SUCKS!

Using the Rodgers comparison is quite feeble since in their only common opponent:

Jackson was a whopping eye popping 6-19 at Dallas for a mind-numbing 72 yds and ZERO td's.

Against the same opponent in less playing time, A-Rod was 18-26 for 201 yds and 1 td.

Nough said....................... 8-)

Another poor example.

That would be the same game Favre started correct? So you are drawing your conclusion from a game where the opposing D planned to play against a QB who has seen everyting? Once defenses start doing their homework on Rodgers the pack is going to see some different looks from opposing D's than they have seen in some time.


Thanks for the back and forth banter today. You have once again reminded me how much I dislike the Vikings and their fans.


BRING IT ON!

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

[sharpe1027]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Disillusioned? You might want to look up that defintion, I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Patler]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Interesting comment. I'm not sure it make any sense at all, but interesting nonetheless.

[SMACKTALKIE]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Disillusioned? You might want to look up that defintion, I do not think it means what you think it means.

disillusioned
Adjective
disappointed at finding out reality does not match one's ideals

Your ideals are that great QB play will happen. You may be dissappointed at finding the reality that it is not a given.

[Patler]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Disillusioned? You might want to look up that defintion, I do not think it means what you think it means.

disillusioned
Adjective
disappointed at finding out reality does not match one's ideals

Your ideals are that great QB play will happen. You may be dissappointed at finding the reality that it is not a given.

So 17 years of great QB play did not match our ideals?
We sure must have high standards!

[SMACKTALKIE]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Disillusioned? You might want to look up that defintion, I do not think it means what you think it means.

disillusioned
Adjective
disappointed at finding out reality does not match one's ideals

Your ideals are that great QB play will happen. You may be dissappointed at finding the reality that it is not a given.


So......yeah that was poorly worded. Let me give you a more comprehensive example of what I am trying to say. I will pose a questios and offer facts to factor into your answers. You tell me:

Are your OT's really as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre got rid of the ball quickly and was rarely sacked.

Are your WR's as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre put the ball where it was needed when it was needed.

Is Ryan Grant a good RB or did Favre make him look better?
Fact: Favre's mere presence on the field kept Defenses guessing and on their heels.

This is what I meant when I said disillusioned. Perhaps a poor word choice.

The point is, how will Favre's absense affect the rest of the Offense?

[Packnut]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Disillusioned? You might want to look up that defintion, I do not think it means what you think it means.

disillusioned
Adjective
disappointed at finding out reality does not match one's ideals

Your ideals are that great QB play will happen. You may be dissappointed at finding the reality that it is not a given.


The difference between us and you is very simple. The jury is still out on one Mr Rodgers. However, the verdict on Mr Jackson has been signed, sealed and delivered. He is without a doubt the worst QB in football.

I mean this guy is just plain freakin BRUTAL! AP had better be in top shape cause the whole Queen's offense is gonna be run, run and run and ah then:


PUNT

[sharpe1027]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Disillusioned? You might want to look up that defintion, I do not think it means what you think it means.

disillusioned
Adjective
disappointed at finding out reality does not match one's ideals

Your ideals are that great QB play will happen. You may be dissappointed at finding the reality that it is not a given.

That is not what your original statement said. It said that we were disillusioned by great QB play....now you are saying that we will be disilllusioned by crappy play. I guess I understand what you were origionally trying to say; however, I'm still not sure how the "blind allegiance" fits in. I agree that most Packer fans will support their team when the team struggles, unlike many Viking fans. I don't see how that means that Packer fans are disillusioned. Many of us have been Packer fans before Favre completed his first pass to himself...

[SMACKTALKIE]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Disillusioned? You might want to look up that defintion, I do not think it means what you think it means.

disillusioned
Adjective
disappointed at finding out reality does not match one's ideals

Your ideals are that great QB play will happen. You may be dissappointed at finding the reality that it is not a given.


The difference between us and you is very simple. The jury is still out on one Mr Rodgers. However, the verdict on Mr Jackson has been signed, sealed and delivered. He is without a doubt the worst QB in football.

I mean this guy is just plain freakin BRUTAL! AP had better be in top shape cause the whole Queen's offense is gonna be run, run and run and ah then:


PUNT

"the verdict on Mr Jackson has been signed, sealed and delivered."

What an ignorant statement!!

What makes you think a player can't improve. All QB's experience growing pains and the learning curve is steep. I know you have not seen a new QB under center in GB for a long time but I can tell you for a fact that Jackson can get better and the verdict on him is still out.

P.S. just because you write in big bright letters does not mean you are right.

[Tony Oday]

A player can improve Jump Pass wont.

[Packnut]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Disillusioned? You might want to look up that defintion, I do not think it means what you think it means.

disillusioned
Adjective
disappointed at finding out reality does not match one's ideals

Your ideals are that great QB play will happen. You may be dissappointed at finding the reality that it is not a given.


The difference between us and you is very simple. The jury is still out on one Mr Rodgers. However, the verdict on Mr Jackson has been signed, sealed and delivered. He is without a doubt the worst QB in football.

I mean this guy is just plain freakin BRUTAL! AP had better be in top shape cause the whole Queen's offense is gonna be run, run and run and ah then:


PUNT

"the verdict on Mr Jackson has been signed, sealed and delivered."

What an ignorant statement!!

What makes you think a player can't improve. All QB's experience growing pains and the learning curve is steep. I know you have not seen a new QB under center in GB for a long time but I can tell you for a fact that Jackson can get better and the verdict on him is still out.

P.S. just because you write in big bright letters does not mean you are right.



When analyzing ANY young QB, in order to have some glimmer of hope, you need SOMETHING to base hope on.

For example, when Favre was young we all saw the cannon for an arm and the passion he brought to the table.

Tell me what Jackson brings to the table. I see nothing that he does that you can hang your hat on and point to.

When you make an honest assesment on him, NOTHING stands out.

What's even worse, is he has no help at WR. All Berrian can do is go deep. Those guys are a dime a dozen in the NFL............

[Patler]

Much about the futures of the two teams will be determined by who made the better choice, the Packers with Rodgers or the Vikings with Jackson.

It will be interesting to see who is the better prepared to lead his team, Jackson with 14 starts and 200+ attempts or Rodgers with 0 starts and 35 attempts. Rodgers seemed to catch on in his 3rd season, Jackson could too.

[SMACKTALKIE]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Disillusioned? You might want to look up that defintion, I do not think it means what you think it means.

disillusioned
Adjective
disappointed at finding out reality does not match one's ideals

Your ideals are that great QB play will happen. You may be dissappointed at finding the reality that it is not a given.


The difference between us and you is very simple. The jury is still out on one Mr Rodgers. However, the verdict on Mr Jackson has been signed, sealed and delivered. He is without a doubt the worst QB in football.

I mean this guy is just plain freakin BRUTAL! AP had better be in top shape cause the whole Queen's offense is gonna be run, run and run and ah then:


PUNT

"the verdict on Mr Jackson has been signed, sealed and delivered."

What an ignorant statement!!

What makes you think a player can't improve. All QB's experience growing pains and the learning curve is steep. I know you have not seen a new QB under center in GB for a long time but I can tell you for a fact that Jackson can get better and the verdict on him is still out.

P.S. just because you write in big bright letters does not mean you are right.



When analyzing ANY young QB, in order to have some glimmer of hope, you need SOMETHING to base hope on.

For example, when Favre was young we all saw the cannon for an arm and the passion he brought to the table.

Tell me what Jackson brings to the table. I see nothing that he does that you can hang your hat on and point to.

When you make an honest assesment on him, NOTHING stands out.

What's even worse, is he has no help at WR. All Berrian can do is go deep. Those guys are a dime a dozen in the NFL............

Huge arm, great release, great work ethic. Go watch his game against Denver......more than a glimmer of hope.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Much about the futures of the two teams will be determined by who made the better choice, the Packers with Rodgers or the Vikings with Jackson.

It will be interesting to see who is the better prepared to lead his team, Jackson with 14 starts and 200+ attempts or Rodgers with 0 starts and 35 attempts. Rodgers seemed to catch on in his 3rd season, Jackson could too.

Agreed.

Thank you Palter. That is all I'm trying to say. Our teams are in very similar situations despite our differences in wins and losses last year.

[SMACKTALKIE]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Disillusioned? You might want to look up that defintion, I do not think it means what you think it means.

disillusioned
Adjective
disappointed at finding out reality does not match one's ideals

Your ideals are that great QB play will happen. You may be dissappointed at finding the reality that it is not a given.


The difference between us and you is very simple. The jury is still out on one Mr Rodgers. However, the verdict on Mr Jackson has been signed, sealed and delivered. He is without a doubt the worst QB in football.

I mean this guy is just plain freakin BRUTAL! AP had better be in top shape cause the whole Queen's offense is gonna be run, run and run and ah then:


PUNT

"the verdict on Mr Jackson has been signed, sealed and delivered."

What an ignorant statement!!

What makes you think a player can't improve. All QB's experience growing pains and the learning curve is steep. I know you have not seen a new QB under center in GB for a long time but I can tell you for a fact that Jackson can get better and the verdict on him is still out.

P.S. just because you write in big bright letters does not mean you are right.



When analyzing ANY young QB, in order to have some glimmer of hope, you need SOMETHING to base hope on.

For example, when Favre was young we all saw the cannon for an arm and the passion he brought to the table.

Tell me what Jackson brings to the table. I see nothing that he does that you can hang your hat on and point to.

When you make an honest assesment on him, NOTHING stands out.

What's even worse, is he has no help at WR. All Berrian can do is go deep. Those guys are a dime a dozen in the NFL............


Again, ignorant blanket statements.

"When analyzing ANY young QB, in order to have some glimmer of hope, you need SOMETHING to base hope on."

-Have you really "analyzied" Jackson? You did'nt see him against GB last year. If you did analyze him show me what resources you used.


"For example, when Favre was young we all saw the cannon for an arm and the passion he brought to the table."

-Yes, true. We also saw him make some poor decisions as he learned the position.


"Tell me what Jackson brings to the table. I see nothing that he does that you can hang your hat on and point to."

-Have you really looked? Again watch the Denver game. Great arm, release and work ethic.


"When you make an honest assesment on him, NOTHING stands out."

-Are you capable of making an honest assesment? Don't you hate the Vikings? Perhaps you have a biased opinion.


"What's even worse, is he has no help at WR. All Berrian can do is go deep. Those guys are a dime a dozen in the NFL............"

-So he can't cut? Are you the only one who knows this? Deep threats are a dime a dozen? Does Randy Moss know this? I suppose Rice, like Jackson can't improve. Berrian has been noted to run great routes by scouts, I read that in a review of FA's BEFORE the Vikings signed him.

Bring some sense and facts to the table next time.

[packers11]

can we put this to rest, the vikings win the superbowl every year on paper ... who gives a fuck... when they win one when during the NFL season gimme a call...

T-Jackson will not lead them to the Super Bowl... And EVEN if he does, just like REXY, he will fail miserably...

[Zool]

So......yeah that was poorly worded. Let me give you a more comprehensive example of what I am trying to say. I will pose a questios and offer facts to factor into your answers. You tell me:

Are your OT's really as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre got rid of the ball quickly and was rarely sacked.

Are your WR's as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre put the ball where it was needed when it was needed.

Is Ryan Grant a good RB or did Favre make him look better?
Fact: Favre's mere presence on the field kept Defenses guessing and on their heels.

This is what I meant when I said disillusioned. Perhaps a poor word choice.

The point is, how will Favre's absense affect the rest of the Offense?

Clear evidence that you watched maybe 2 Packer games per year and are trying to wax philosophical about it.

1) Yes they are. I'm faster than Favre is now. Granted he gets the ball out quick, but the ridiculously low sacks over the last 5 years cant be all him. It is a team sport after all.

2) Ever see Driver using his high jump skills? I have pretty much 2-3 times per week for the last long time. Granted they are no Turd Ferguson or Troy Williamson, but they're pretty good.

3) See Wynn/Jackson weeks 1-6 for the answer.

[SMACKTALKIE]

So......yeah that was poorly worded. Let me give you a more comprehensive example of what I am trying to say. I will pose a questios and offer facts to factor into your answers. You tell me:

Are your OT's really as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre got rid of the ball quickly and was rarely sacked.

Are your WR's as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre put the ball where it was needed when it was needed.

Is Ryan Grant a good RB or did Favre make him look better?
Fact: Favre's mere presence on the field kept Defenses guessing and on their heels.

This is what I meant when I said disillusioned. Perhaps a poor word choice.

The point is, how will Favre's absense affect the rest of the Offense?

Clear evidence that you watched maybe 2 Packer games per year and are trying to wax philosophical about it.

1) Yes they are. I'm faster than Favre is now. Granted he gets the ball out quick, but the ridiculously low sacks over the last 5 years cant be all him. It is a team sport after all.

2) Ever see Driver using his high jump skills? I have pretty much 2-3 times per week for the last long time. Granted they are no Turd Ferguson or Troy Williamson, but they're pretty good.

3) See Wynn/Jackson weeks 1-6 for the answer.

So are you saying Farve's absense will not affect the offense at all?

[sharpe1027]

So......yeah that was poorly worded. Let me give you a more comprehensive example of what I am trying to say. I will pose a questios and offer facts to factor into your answers. You tell me:

Are your OT's really as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre got rid of the ball quickly and was rarely sacked.

Are your WR's as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre put the ball where it was needed when it was needed.

Is Ryan Grant a good RB or did Favre make him look better?
Fact: Favre's mere presence on the field kept Defenses guessing and on their heels.

This is what I meant when I said disillusioned. Perhaps a poor word choice.

The point is, how will Favre's absense affect the rest of the Offense?

Clear evidence that you watched maybe 2 Packer games per year and are trying to wax philosophical about it.

1) Yes they are. I'm faster than Favre is now. Granted he gets the ball out quick, but the ridiculously low sacks over the last 5 years cant be all him. It is a team sport after all.

2) Ever see Driver using his high jump skills? I have pretty much 2-3 times per week for the last long time. Granted they are no Turd Ferguson or Troy Williamson, but they're pretty good.

3) See Wynn/Jackson weeks 1-6 for the answer.

So are you saying Favre's absense will not affect the offense at all?

So are you saying Favre's absence will mean the offense won't even take the field?

[Patler]

Thank you Palter. That is all I'm trying to say. Our teams are in very similar situations despite our differences in wins and losses last year.

Not sure I agree with that. While both have uncertainties at QB, I look at the Vikings as being older and potentially having players who will decline in performance. The Packers have more who could ascend.

Besides, the Vikings have three Packer rejects projected as potential starters! :lol: :lol:

[sharpe1027]

Thank you Palter. That is all I'm trying to say. Our teams are in very similar situations despite our differences in wins and losses last year.

Not sure I agree with that. While both have uncertainties at QB, I look at the Vikings as being older and potentially having players who will decline in performance. The Packers have more who could ascend.

Besides, the Vikings have three Packer rejects projected as potential starters! :lol: :lol:

Let's not forget about coaching.

[SMACKTALKIE]

So......yeah that was poorly worded. Let me give you a more comprehensive example of what I am trying to say. I will pose a questios and offer facts to factor into your answers. You tell me:

Are your OT's really as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre got rid of the ball quickly and was rarely sacked.

Are your WR's as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre put the ball where it was needed when it was needed.

Is Ryan Grant a good RB or did Favre make him look better?
Fact: Favre's mere presence on the field kept Defenses guessing and on their heels.

This is what I meant when I said disillusioned. Perhaps a poor word choice.

The point is, how will Favre's absense affect the rest of the Offense?

Clear evidence that you watched maybe 2 Packer games per year and are trying to wax philosophical about it.

1) Yes they are. I'm faster than Favre is now. Granted he gets the ball out quick, but the ridiculously low sacks over the last 5 years cant be all him. It is a team sport after all.

2) Ever see Driver using his high jump skills? I have pretty much 2-3 times per week for the last long time. Granted they are no Turd Ferguson or Troy Williamson, but they're pretty good.

3) See Wynn/Jackson weeks 1-6 for the answer.

So are you saying Favre's absense will not affect the offense at all?

So are you saying Favre's absence will mean the offense won't even take the field?

When did I say that?

[SMACKTALKIE]

Thank you Palter. That is all I'm trying to say. Our teams are in very similar situations despite our differences in wins and losses last year.

Not sure I agree with that. While both have uncertainties at QB, I look at the Vikings as being older and potentially having players who will decline in performance. The Packers have more who could ascend.

Besides, the Vikings have three Packer rejects projected as potential starters! :lol: :lol:

Let's not forget about coaching.

Your O tackles, D ends, and CB's are old, and you offered Daunte Culpepper a contract.

[Iron Mike]

Our teams are in very similar situations despite our differences in wins and losses last year.

Care to elaborate???

[SMACKTALKIE]

Our teams are in very similar situations despite our differences in wins and losses last year.

Care to elaborate???

From Palter:

"Much about the futures of the two teams will be determined by who made the better choice, the Packers with Rodgers or the Vikings with Jackson.

It will be interesting to see who is the better prepared to lead his team, Jackson with 14 starts and 200+ attempts or Rodgers with 0 starts and 35 attempts. Rodgers seemed to catch on in his 3rd season, Jackson could too."

[packers11]

Yea maybe Wrex with another season under his belt can improve too... :wink:

The Vikings should have taken Brady Quinn instead of AP... Just like the Dolphins they will be looking for a franchise quaterback for awhile...

As packer fans we take it for granted that we never had to worry about that problem in 17 years. Hopefully Rodgers is the answer, because its a long road ahead with a bad qb... But on that note, i still say Rodgers turns out better the T-Jacks... I wish they had a little vegas line on it, but that would be like giving out free money...

[SMACKTALKIE]

Yea maybe Wrex with another season under his belt can improve too... :wink:

The Vikings should have taken Brady Quinn instead of AP... Just like the Dolphins they will be looking for a franchise quaterback for awhile...

As packer fans we take it for granted that we never had to worry about that problem in 17 years. Hopefully Rodgers is the answer, because its a long road ahead with a bad qb... But on that note, i still say Rodgers turns out better the T-Jacks... I wish they had a little vegas line on it, but that would be like giving out free money...

You could be correct on all points you make, or you could be wrong. I guess that is what makes it an opinion.

[MJZiggy]

Just a quick note here: first off, it drives me NUTS when a Viking fan can't spell Zygi. I am Ziggy, HE is Zygi. You'd think you'd be able to get that down. Yeesh.

Secondly, Favre is a very good QB. He has good receivers. Rodgers while inexperienced, nearly took out the Dallas Cowboys last season. If he'd have had more time, he might have done it too. The receivers can catch his balls, Grant can run and last I looked Rodgers is more mobile than Favre was last season. I watched him run off a sack or two in that game. Dallas thought catching him would be easy. It was not. Don't discount the dude yet. There will likely be growing pains, but there is also the potential for a very good year.

[Bretsky]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Disillusioned? You might want to look up that defintion, I do not think it means what you think it means.

disillusioned
Adjective
disappointed at finding out reality does not match one's ideals

Your ideals are that great QB play will happen. You may be dissappointed at finding the reality that it is not a given.


So......yeah that was poorly worded. Let me give you a more comprehensive example of what I am trying to say. I will pose a questios and offer facts to factor into your answers. You tell me:

Are your OT's really as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre got rid of the ball quickly and was rarely sacked.

Are your WR's as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre put the ball where it was needed when it was needed.

Is Ryan Grant a good RB or did Favre make him look better?
Fact: Favre's mere presence on the field kept Defenses guessing and on their heels.

This is what I meant when I said disillusioned. Perhaps a poor word choice.

The point is, how will Favre's absense affect the rest of the Offense?

I actually see your views as being much more accurate than most do in here. I'm not a Jackson fan, but he's still young. If it was up to me, I'd take Rodgers over Jackson. But this year will go a ways in showing their development.

1 Regarding the above, YES, the OT's are just as good as advertised. They are two of the more consistent OT's in the game. You are focusing on the wrong OL position. The OG's play was subpar in too many performances. They can be exposed, and Favre's ability to get rid of the ball may have made them look better at times.

2. We don't have one of the top 5 WR's in the game, but as a unit there probably are not five teams that have a better group of #1-#4 WR's either. So I would say they are as good as advertised.

3. Some of Both. Ryan Grant is a very capable RB; early on defenses focusing on Favre may have made him better. But then again, the other RB's didn't look nearly as good as Grant early on while defenses schemed to stop the pass. He's no AP, but he is good.

This season will be interesting to say the least.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Your O tackles, D ends, and CB's are old

Our starting corners are old. Our starting DEs are 27 and 28 years old, so they are NOT old. Our starting OTs are the same age as your two best OL (Birk and Hutchinson). Not too bad for those being the three oldest positions on the team.

[SMACKTALKIE]

And you remind me of what a packer fan with blind allegiance is; disillusioned by 17 years of great QB play.

Disillusioned? You might want to look up that defintion, I do not think it means what you think it means.

disillusioned
Adjective
disappointed at finding out reality does not match one's ideals

Your ideals are that great QB play will happen. You may be dissappointed at finding the reality that it is not a given.


So......yeah that was poorly worded. Let me give you a more comprehensive example of what I am trying to say. I will pose a questios and offer facts to factor into your answers. You tell me:

Are your OT's really as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre got rid of the ball quickly and was rarely sacked.

Are your WR's as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre put the ball where it was needed when it was needed.

Is Ryan Grant a good RB or did Favre make him look better?
Fact: Favre's mere presence on the field kept Defenses guessing and on their heels.

This is what I meant when I said disillusioned. Perhaps a poor word choice.

The point is, how will Favre's absense affect the rest of the Offense?

I actually see your views as being much more accurate than most do in here. I'm not a Jackson fan, but he's still young. If it was up to me, I'd take Rodgers over Jackson. But this year will go a ways in showing their development.

1 Regarding the above, YES, the OT's are just as good as advertised. They are two of the more consistent OT's in the game. You are focusing on the wrong OL position. The OG's play was subpar in too many performances. They can be exposed, and Favre's ability to get rid of the ball may have made them look better at times.

2. We don't have one of the top 5 WR's in the game, but as a unit there probably are not five teams that have a better group of #1-#4 WR's either. So I would say they are as good as advertised.

3. Some of Both. Ryan Grant is a very capable RB; early on defenses focusing on Favre may have made him better. But then again, the other RB's didn't look nearly as good as Grant early on while defenses schemed to stop the pass. He's no AP, but he is good.

This season will be interesting to say the least.

Thank you for your fair take on these questions.

Truth be told I think Tauscher is the best RT in the game, and together with Clifton they make up the best OT tandem in the league. The interior O line seems a bit soft and does'nt seem to block well on screens and in the second level.

WR's, I'm still skeptical. Last year they seemed to get big YAC. I wonder how/if Rodgers will affect their YAC.

Grant seems to make his first cut well, which is important in a pure ZBS, but seems otherwise an above average back. I really do believe Favre made Grant better because he kept all defenders thinking with great PA passes. Favre could really sell the play action.

[Scott Campbell]

Bring some sense and facts to the table next time.


Ok. The Vikings have never won a Superbowl. That's a fact Jack.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Bring some sense and facts to the table next time.


Ok. The Vikings have never won a Superbowl. That's a fact Jack.

Oh....and the sky is blue and the sun rises in the east. Way to kick around the common knowledge Jack.

[Patler]

Thank you Palter. That is all I'm trying to say. Our teams are in very similar situations despite our differences in wins and losses last year.

Not sure I agree with that. While both have uncertainties at QB, I look at the Vikings as being older and potentially having players who will decline in performance. The Packers have more who could ascend.

Besides, the Vikings have three Packer rejects projected as potential starters! :lol: :lol:

Let's not forget about coaching.

Your O tackles, D ends, and CB's are old, and you offered Daunte Culpepper a contract.

GB didn't offer Culpepper a contract to be a starter, just to carry a clipboard.

[Patler]

Our teams are in very similar situations despite our differences in wins and losses last year.

Care to elaborate???

From Palter:

"Much about the futures of the two teams will be determined by who made the better choice, the Packers with Rodgers or the Vikings with Jackson.

It will be interesting to see who is the better prepared to lead his team, Jackson with 14 starts and 200+ attempts or Rodgers with 0 starts and 35 attempts. Rodgers seemed to catch on in his 3rd season, Jackson could too."

Sorry, but my statement that you quote does not support or lead to your subsequent conclusion. Just because both teams have uncertainty at QB doesn't mean the teams are in very similar positions in total. They have similarities at QB, but in the remaining roster spots the Packers are well on their way to a rebuilt, younger roster; and in my opinion the Vikings are not. They keep bringing in retreads.

Yes, the Packers are old at starting corner, as you mentioned in another post; but GB has a bunch of young corners that look OK, and potentially better than OK. The position isn't as worrisome as it was just two years ago. Are the Packers any worse of in age at DB than the Vikings starting DBs? Yes the Packers are getting a bit old at OT, but they have a bunch of young linemen from which a replacement or two seem very possible. Besides, Tauscher is the same age as Hutchinson, and Clifton the same as Birk. Yes, Driver is getting up there in years, but WR might be the Packers deepest position. Other than those 5 spots, where the Packers seem to be building replacements, the Packers are a very young team with many players who can be expected to improve.

How many starters do the Vikings have that can be considered to be ascending players? (I'm really asking, I don't know.) The Packers have a bunch of starters who are. How many starters do the Vikings have that are in the prime years of their careers? Again, I really am asking, because I don't know. How many backups do the Vikings have who look to be of starting potential? I'm not sure, but I think the Packers are better off in these categories, but I am interested in what you think about the Viking roster top to bottom. I like the Packers' probable roster top to bottom.

[sharpe1027]

So......yeah that was poorly worded. Let me give you a more comprehensive example of what I am trying to say. I will pose a questios and offer facts to factor into your answers. You tell me:

Are your OT's really as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre got rid of the ball quickly and was rarely sacked.

Are your WR's as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre put the ball where it was needed when it was needed.

Is Ryan Grant a good RB or did Favre make him look better?
Fact: Favre's mere presence on the field kept Defenses guessing and on their heels.

This is what I meant when I said disillusioned. Perhaps a poor word choice.

The point is, how will Favre's absense affect the rest of the Offense?

Clear evidence that you watched maybe 2 Packer games per year and are trying to wax philosophical about it.

1) Yes they are. I'm faster than Favre is now. Granted he gets the ball out quick, but the ridiculously low sacks over the last 5 years cant be all him. It is a team sport after all.

2) Ever see Driver using his high jump skills? I have pretty much 2-3 times per week for the last long time. Granted they are no Turd Ferguson or Troy Williamson, but they're pretty good.

3) See Wynn/Jackson weeks 1-6 for the answer.

So are you saying Favre's absense will not affect the offense at all?

So are you saying Favre's absence will mean the offense won't even take the field?

When did I say that?

When did he say that Favre's absence will not affect the offense at all?

[Zool]

So......yeah that was poorly worded. Let me give you a more comprehensive example of what I am trying to say. I will pose a questios and offer facts to factor into your answers. You tell me:

Are your OT's really as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre got rid of the ball quickly and was rarely sacked.

Are your WR's as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre put the ball where it was needed when it was needed.

Is Ryan Grant a good RB or did Favre make him look better?
Fact: Favre's mere presence on the field kept Defenses guessing and on their heels.

This is what I meant when I said disillusioned. Perhaps a poor word choice.

The point is, how will Favre's absense affect the rest of the Offense?

Clear evidence that you watched maybe 2 Packer games per year and are trying to wax philosophical about it.

1) Yes they are. I'm faster than Favre is now. Granted he gets the ball out quick, but the ridiculously low sacks over the last 5 years cant be all him. It is a team sport after all.

2) Ever see Driver using his high jump skills? I have pretty much 2-3 times per week for the last long time. Granted they are no Turd Ferguson or Troy Williamson, but they're pretty good.

3) See Wynn/Jackson weeks 1-6 for the answer.

So are you saying Favre's absense will not affect the offense at all?

So are you saying Favre's absence will mean the offense won't even take the field?

When did I say that?

When did he say that Favre's absence will not affect the offense at all?

Trollin trollin trollin....keep on forum trollin...rawhide!

Dont feed the Viking troll. He's just being contrarian for the sake of it now.

[sharpe1027]

Trollin trollin trollin....keep on forum trollin...rawhide!

Dont feed the Viking troll. He's just being contrarian for the sake of it now.

Sorry, I couldn't resist using his strategy against him. This thread is dead.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

[SMACKTALKIE]

So......yeah that was poorly worded. Let me give you a more comprehensive example of what I am trying to say. I will pose a questios and offer facts to factor into your answers. You tell me:

Are your OT's really as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre got rid of the ball quickly and was rarely sacked.

Are your WR's as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre put the ball where it was needed when it was needed.

Is Ryan Grant a good RB or did Favre make him look better?
Fact: Favre's mere presence on the field kept Defenses guessing and on their heels.

This is what I meant when I said disillusioned. Perhaps a poor word choice.

The point is, how will Favre's absense affect the rest of the Offense?

Clear evidence that you watched maybe 2 Packer games per year and are trying to wax philosophical about it.

1) Yes they are. I'm faster than Favre is now. Granted he gets the ball out quick, but the ridiculously low sacks over the last 5 years cant be all him. It is a team sport after all.

2) Ever see Driver using his high jump skills? I have pretty much 2-3 times per week for the last long time. Granted they are no Turd Ferguson or Troy Williamson, but they're pretty good.

3) See Wynn/Jackson weeks 1-6 for the answer.

So are you saying Favre's absense will not affect the offense at all?

So are you saying Favre's absence will mean the offense won't even take the field?

When did I say that?

When did he say that Favre's absence will not affect the offense at all?

Trollin trollin trollin....keep on forum trollin...rawhide!

Dont feed the Viking troll. He's just being contrarian for the sake of it now.

Is this your attempt at bowing out and saving face? I only spoke up in this thread to correct misled statements.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Our teams are in very similar situations despite our differences in wins and losses last year.

Care to elaborate???

From Palter:

"Much about the futures of the two teams will be determined by who made the better choice, the Packers with Rodgers or the Vikings with Jackson.

It will be interesting to see who is the better prepared to lead his team, Jackson with 14 starts and 200+ attempts or Rodgers with 0 starts and 35 attempts. Rodgers seemed to catch on in his 3rd season, Jackson could too."

Sorry, but my statement that you quote does not support or lead to your subsequent conclusion. Just because both teams have uncertainty at QB doesn't mean the teams are in very similar positions in total. They have similarities at QB, but in the remaining roster spots the Packers are well on their way to a rebuilt, younger roster; and in my opinion the Vikings are not. They keep bringing in retreads.

Yes, the Packers are old at starting corner, as you mentioned in another post; but GB has a bunch of young corners that look OK, and potentially better than OK. The position isn't as worrisome as it was just two years ago. Are the Packers any worse of in age at DB than the Vikings starting DBs? Yes the Packers are getting a bit old at OT, but they have a bunch of young linemen from which a replacement or two seem very possible. Besides, Tauscher is the same age as Hutchinson, and Clifton the same as Birk. Yes, Driver is getting up there in years, but WR might be the Packers deepest position. Other than those 5 spots, where the Packers seem to be building replacements, the Packers are a very young team with many players who can be expected to improve.

How many starters do the Vikings have that can be considered to be ascending players? (I'm really asking, I don't know.) The Packers have a bunch of starters who are. How many starters do the Vikings have that are in the prime years of their careers? Again, I really am asking, because I don't know. How many backups do the Vikings have who look to be of starting potential? I'm not sure, but I think the Packers are better off in these categories, but I am interested in what you think about the Viking roster top to bottom. I like the Packers' probable roster top to bottom.

Palter, this is what I cme up with to answer your question:

Offense: A. Herrerra, R. Cook, A. Peterson, T.Tapeh, S. Rice, A. Allison, and G. Mills. Backups: J. Booty, J. Sullivan, C. Johnson

Defense: R. Edwards, C. Greenway, C. Griffin, M. McCauley. Backups: C. Gordon, T. Johnson.

Thats the best I can do off the tpo of my head. Although the Vikings had a small draft class they picked up a lot of quality undrafted free agents.

[bobblehead]

So......yeah that was poorly worded. Let me give you a more comprehensive example of what I am trying to say. I will pose a questios and offer facts to factor into your answers. You tell me:

Are your OT's really as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre got rid of the ball quickly and was rarely sacked.

Are your WR's as good as advertised or did Favre make them look better?
Fact: Favre put the ball where it was needed when it was needed.

Is Ryan Grant a good RB or did Favre make him look better?
Fact: Favre's mere presence on the field kept Defenses guessing and on their heels.

This is what I meant when I said disillusioned. Perhaps a poor word choice.

The point is, how will Favre's absense affect the rest of the Offense?

Without completely dismissing your questions....did favre really throw 29 picks a few seasons ago despite his mythical ability to make everyone around him look like an all-pro.

Yes, having an experiences HOF QB helps matters, but this is still a team game where weaknesses can be exploited, so I would dare say we have a lot of talent on the roster, and we will go as far as ARod can take that talent.

[Patler]

Offense: A. Herrerra, R. Cook, A. Peterson, T.Tapeh, S. Rice, A. Allison, and G. Mills. Backups: J. Booty, J. Sullivan, C. Johnson

Defense: R. Edwards, C. Greenway, C. Griffin, M. McCauley. Backups: C. Gordon, T. Johnson.

Thats the best I can do off the tpo of my head. Although the Vikings had a small draft class they picked up a lot of quality undrafted free agents.

Are all of these players that people truly think are ASCENDING players, or just young ones? For example, the Packers have a couple young fullbacks, who undoubtedly will get better with more experience than they are now, but I wouldn't consider them to be truly ascending players. They aren't building to anything special.

[Guiness]

Thats the best I can do off the tpo of my head. Although the Vikings had a small draft class they picked up a lot of quality undrafted free agents.

That remains to be seen - we all like to think our teams scored well in the later rounds, and in the Undrafted FA market, but no one knows until final cuts at the end of TC are made. After a couple of practices in shorts, it's impossible to determine if you found a Cullen Jenkins or a Justin Beaver.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Offense: A. Herrerra, R. Cook, A. Peterson, T.Tapeh, S. Rice, A. Allison, and G. Mills. Backups: J. Booty, J. Sullivan, C. Johnson

Defense: R. Edwards, C. Greenway, C. Griffin, M. McCauley. Backups: C. Gordon, T. Johnson.

Thats the best I can do off the tpo of my head. Although the Vikings had a small draft class they picked up a lot of quality undrafted free agents.

Are all of these players that people truly think are ASCENDING players, or just young ones? For example, the Packers have a couple young fullbacks, who undoubtedly will get better with more experience than they are now, but I wouldn't consider them to be truly ascending players. They aren't building to anything special.

Well.....I guess I don't think any of them have leveled off. I think guys like Cook and Herrerra (and obviously Jackson) need to play well consistantly. Guys like Greenway, Brian Robison, McCaulley, Allison, Rice, and Peterson are definately ascending.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I like the Packers depth much better than the Vikings. In the end, I think that might end up being what allows them to win the division. I think it mostly comes down to Aaron Rodgers. When healthy, I think he'll do fine. However, we don't have anybody behind him that is ready to win games now. Until Rodgers proves he can stay healthy, I won't get too overconfident about how we'll do this year.

Fortunately, we did have a talented, young QB ready to take over for Favre (and the QB has three years in the offense), so that gives us a reasonable chance at having a good season.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I like the Packers depth much better than the Vikings. In the end, I think that might end up being what allows them to win the division. I think it mostly comes down to Aaron Rodgers. When healthy, I think he'll do fine. However, we don't have anybody behind him that is ready to win games now. Until Rodgers proves he can stay healthy, I won't get too overconfident about how we'll do this year.

Fortunately, we did have a talented, young QB ready to take over for Favre (and the QB has three years in the offense), so that gives us a reasonable chance at having a good season.

"I won't get too overconfident about how we'll do this year."


Well I think that's the key in the NFL, never get comfortable. Injuries, women and wine can change a player into a mere man.

An old co-worker once told me a quote by Lombardi that was something like this; Confidence is that feeling you get right before you realize you don't know anything.

[Guiness]

Well I think that's the key in the NFL, never get comfortable. Injuries, women and wine can change a player into a mere man.
You forgot boats :P

[SMACKTALKIE]

Well I think that's the key in the NFL, never get comfortable. Injuries, women and wine can change a player into a mere man.
You forgot boats :P

Just like I forgot to mention after prom parties. :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

Just like I forgot to mention after prom parties. :lol:



.....except that was one loose cannon instead of being a team sanctioned activity.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Just like I forgot to mention after prom parties. :lol:



.....except that was one loose cannon instead of being a team sanctioned activity.

It was not a team sanctioned event. :roll:

[Tony Oday]

not sanctioned just most of the team was there! ;)

[Rastak]

I like the Packers depth much better than the Vikings. In the end, I think that might end up being what allows them to win the division. I think it mostly comes down to Aaron Rodgers. When healthy, I think he'll do fine. However, we don't have anybody behind him that is ready to win games now. Until Rodgers proves he can stay healthy, I won't get too overconfident about how we'll do this year.

Fortunately, we did have a talented, young QB ready to take over for Favre (and the QB has three years in the offense), so that gives us a reasonable chance at having a good season.


It was very smart the way they brought him along and they've given him every chance to suceed, now he has to do it.

[Scott Campbell]

Just like I forgot to mention after prom parties. :lol:



.....except that was one loose cannon instead of being a team sanctioned activity.

It was not a team sanctioned event. :roll:


ROFL

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Partial]

I like the Packers depth much better than the Vikings. In the end, I think that might end up being what allows them to win the division. I think it mostly comes down to Aaron Rodgers. When healthy, I think he'll do fine. However, we don't have anybody behind him that is ready to win games now. Until Rodgers proves he can stay healthy, I won't get too overconfident about how we'll do this year.

Fortunately, we did have a talented, young QB ready to take over for Favre (and the QB has three years in the offense), so that gives us a reasonable chance at having a good season.

Likewise, I think the Vikes will run as far as AD can carry them. Hopefully he doesn't drop the ball. :rs:

[Zool]

I like the Packers depth much better than the Vikings. In the end, I think that might end up being what allows them to win the division. I think it mostly comes down to Aaron Rodgers. When healthy, I think he'll do fine. However, we don't have anybody behind him that is ready to win games now. Until Rodgers proves he can stay healthy, I won't get too overconfident about how we'll do this year.

Fortunately, we did have a talented, young QB ready to take over for Favre (and the QB has three years in the offense), so that gives us a reasonable chance at having a good season.

Likewise, I think the Vikes will run as far as AD can carry them. Hopefully he doesn't drop the ball. :rs:

Huh? I say hopefully he DOES drop the ball. At least 6-8 times this season.

[RashanGary]

If Half-Day wants to run high and fearless he's going to end up lying on a stretcher before week 8.

[Bretsky]

If Half-Day wants to run high and fearless he's going to end up lying on a stretcher before week 8.

so will AROD if he scrambles all year long

[RashanGary]

If Half-Day wants to run high and fearless he's going to end up lying on a stretcher before week 8.

so will AROD if he scrambles all year long

Haha, do you ever look on the bright side of things, Bretsky? Rodgers was never injured in his college career and other than the broken foot, I think he could have played through whatever nicks and bruises kept him as the #3 QB rather than #2 on game day.

[Bretsky]

If Half-Day wants to run high and fearless he's going to end up lying on a stretcher before week 8.

so will AROD if he scrambles all year long

Haha, do you ever look on the bright side of things, Bretsky? Rodgers was never injured in his college career and other than the broken foot, I think he could have played through whatever nicks and bruises kept him as the #3 QB rather than #2 on game day.

I'm just a good opposite of you :wink:

I'm fine for this year; Green Bay will make the playoffs and I'm at peace with that. With expectations lower I probably won't be disappointed

[Packnut]

If Half-Day wants to run high and fearless he's going to end up lying on a stretcher before week 8.

so will AROD if he scrambles all year long

Haha, do you ever look on the bright side of things, Bretsky? Rodgers was never injured in his college career and other than the broken foot, I think he could have played through whatever nicks and bruises kept him as the #3 QB rather than #2 on game day.

I'm just a good opposite of you :wink:

I'm fine for this year; Green Bay will make the playoffs and I'm at peace with that. With expectations lower I probably won't be disappointed


Super Bowl or bust! My expectations hav'nt been this high in a long time. Plenty of reasons for optimism. Ya just gotta believe my friend! 8-)

[Patler]

Rodgers was never injured in his college career ...

Was his knee surgery after the 2003 season just the doctors practicing on a live specimen????

[Iron Mike]

Yes pack fans.....Allen is good, and was a great trade for the Vikings. He will make an impact, although probably one you won't like.

I think the only impact that was made was Allen's tired ass hitting the airplane seat on his way out of Austin Straubel Field. :P

[Chevelle2]

Great thread...Smackietalk said some retarded things.

[Iron Mike]

Great thread...Smackietalk said some retarded things.

I notice that guy hasn't been around much since Monday.....

[HarveyWallbangers]

Pat Williams doesn't even play much on passing downs, so he won't help out Allen much. Kevin does get doubled, but you can double two guys on the DL. Allen will still get doubled (he'll be chipped by TEs and blocked by RBs). If they had one other good pass rusher, then they would be trouble. That means Ray Edwards is going to have to be very good for them to be as dominant as some think they'll be. Kind of like the Giants. They had a good pass rush with Osi and Strahan, but they didn't become dominant until Justin Tuck become a stud also. I don't see Ray Edwards becoming another Justin Tuck.

What he said.
:D

[pbmax]

Edwards did come loose once from Tauscher for one of the few knockdowns. Did we double Kevin Williams every pass?

And this performance doesn't really discredit the improvement the Vikings may have made in their D. Even Reggie White had an O Lineman he couldn't pass rush (Erik Williams). White still played good run D on that side and Allen held up against our run fine on Monday.



Pat Williams doesn't even play much on passing downs, so he won't help out Allen much. Kevin does get doubled, but you can double two guys on the DL. Allen will still get doubled (he'll be chipped by TEs and blocked by RBs). If they had one other good pass rusher, then they would be trouble. That means Ray Edwards is going to have to be very good for them to be as dominant as some think they'll be. Kind of like the Giants. They had a good pass rush with Osi and Strahan, but they didn't become dominant until Justin Tuck become a stud also. I don't see Ray Edwards becoming another Justin Tuck.

What he said.
:D

[Iron Mike]

Even Reggie White had an O Lineman he couldn't pass rush (Erik Williams).

I imagine it's hard to get your rush on with Big E's thumb up in your grill. :x