Re: Packers foe - Vikings Zygi Wilf set on a Super Bowl win.

[woodbuck27]

Vikings owner Zygi Wilf has sights set on a Super Bowl

By Jeremy Fowler ; jfowler@pioneerpress.com

Updated: 09/14/2010

http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_16067908?nclick_check=1

The expectation from the top of Vikings brass is to win the franchise's first Super Bowl.

"We've built a team that we expect to go all the way," owner Zygi Wilf said. "We're not holding back right now."

Hit LINK for the remainder of this story.

[woodbuck27]

One more fling: Vikings have another opportunity to make a Super Bowl run

With Brett Favre at QB and 22 returning starters from last season, Vikings have another opportunity to make a Super Bowl run — and this time win.
By Jeremy Fowler ; jfowler@pioneerpress.com

Updated: 09/09/2010

[Tony Oday]

They HAVE to win this year or they are done. This is the only year they can win with this team.

[denverYooper]

They HAVE to win this year or they are done. This is the only year they can win with this team.

While our opportunities are just beginning :). ThanksTed

[mngolf19]

There will still be time. The will only lose Favre and Pat Williams after this year. Now, replacing Favre will be a challenge but you know they'll go after the biggest name available if there is one. Pat, not too much to miss there. Everyone else is still plenty young enough. And they are drafting well enough.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

There will still be time. The will only lose Favre and Pat Williams after this year. Now, replacing Favre will be a challenge but you know they'll go after the biggest name available if there is one. Pat, not too much to miss there. Everyone else is still plenty young enough. And they are drafting well enough.

I agree. I don't think the Vikings will disappear after this year but I do agree with the previous poster in that this is likely there best shot at winning it all. If they can get a good replacement for Favre I see them being good for a couple more years. They should have went after Mcnabb this offseason instead of waiting for Brett. The Vikings window would have grown 3 years if they did.

[Cheesehead Craig]

NFL team owner wants to win the Super Bowl.

For more on this groundbreaking story, tune in tonight on NBC News.

[channtheman]

NFL team owner wants to win the Super Bowl.

For more on this groundbreaking story, tune in tonight on NBC News.

LMAO.

[mission]

Yeah, great PackerRats thread.

[Tarlam!]

Yeah, great PackerRats thread.


:bclap: :bclap: :bclap: :wow: :bclap:

It's at least obvious to me that this Woodbuck27 is a Vikings troll. I'm getting sick of the propoganda and the drivel.

[pbmax]

I think you guys are missing the obvious ploy. Zygi is setting expectations so high that if they fail, there is no way the team will get a new stadium and he can pack up and head West.

Los Angeles Vikings of Oxnard here we come.

[Joemailman]

"We've built a team that we expect to go all the way," owner Zygi Wilf said.http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying.gif

Does this guy know what team he owns?

[MichiganPackerFan]

There will still be time. The will only lose Favre and Pat Williams after this year. Now, replacing Favre will be a challenge but you know they'll go after the biggest name available if there is one. Pat, not too much to miss there. Everyone else is still plenty young enough. And they are drafting well enough.

Vick?

[mraynrand]

Fat Williams got moved out multiple times by Miami linemen yesterday, opening holes right up the gut, so to speak. Minnesota's defense is still formidable (Greenway played exceptionally well, for example), but there are cracks forming....

[ThunderDan]

Fat Williams got moved out multiple times by Miami linemen yesterday, opening holes right up the gut, so to speak. Minnesota's defense is still formidable (Greenway played exceptionally well, for example), but there are cracks forming....

Plus they have a lot of guys who will hit FA. Minnestoa doesn't want to re-sign because of the up-front money it would cost them that they don't have to pay out. MINN will be paying premiums to retain talent in 2011 they should have extended in 2010.

[mngolf19]

There will still be time. The will only lose Favre and Pat Williams after this year. Now, replacing Favre will be a challenge but you know they'll go after the biggest name available if there is one. Pat, not too much to miss there. Everyone else is still plenty young enough. And they are drafting well enough.

Vick?

Chilly likes his athletes at QB and former Eagles too. Never know. Although I hope there is something better.

[mngolf19]

Fat Williams got moved out multiple times by Miami linemen yesterday, opening holes right up the gut, so to speak. Minnesota's defense is still formidable (Greenway played exceptionally well, for example), but there are cracks forming....

Plus they have a lot of guys who will hit FA. Minnestoa doesn't want to re-sign because of the up-front money it would cost them that they don't have to pay out. MINN will be paying premiums to retain talent in 2011 they should have extended in 2010.

It's not that they don't have the money, they are just holding off due to lack of CBA. If they want them all back, they can afford it and have shown no issues spending it.

[ThunderDan]

Fat Williams got moved out multiple times by Miami linemen yesterday, opening holes right up the gut, so to speak. Minnesota's defense is still formidable (Greenway played exceptionally well, for example), but there are cracks forming....

Plus they have a lot of guys who will hit FA. Minnestoa doesn't want to re-sign because of the up-front money it would cost them that they don't have to pay out. MINN will be paying premiums to retain talent in 2011 they should have extended in 2010.

It's not that they don't have the money, they are just holding off due to lack of CBA. If they want them all back, they can afford it and have shown no issues spending it.

Really? What is the logic in not locking up Chad Greenway in 2010? It's cash plain and simple. The Vikes don't want to spend it. And so instead of getting a year early discount they will have to pay top dollar.

What is the cap hit for Greenway, Leber, Sidney Rice and Ray Edwards all to be signed in 2011? That is going to cost a pretty penny and I am sure those players will draw quite a bit of interest as FAs or RFAs.

[Spaulding]

I'm on the same page as mngolf19, I think Wilf is a far better owner than combs was (then again, are there many worse than him?) and I'd be suprised he wouldn't ante up to keep key players.

His main fault is in staying loyal to Childress :) Then again it bodes better for us that he keep Chilly in the fold.

[ThunderDan]

I'm on the same page as mngolf19, I think Wilf is a far better owner than combs was (then again, are there many worse than him?) and I'd be suprised he wouldn't ante up to keep key players.

His main fault is in staying loyal to Childress :) Then again it bodes better for us that he keep Chilly in the fold.

I think he will also. I am saying that by allowing a "chunk" of good players all get to FA or RFA the team will have to pay a lot more to retain their services. Players will discount a contract going forward knowing they are getting guaranteed money now. It is the players only "insurance" policy against an injury and they are willing to take less long-term to get some of the contract now.

[denverYooper]

Fat Williams got moved out multiple times by Miami linemen yesterday, opening holes right up the gut, so to speak. Minnesota's defense is still formidable (Greenway played exceptionally well, for example), but there are cracks forming....

Plus they have a lot of guys who will hit FA. Minnestoa doesn't want to re-sign because of the up-front money it would cost them that they don't have to pay out. MINN will be paying premiums to retain talent in 2011 they should have extended in 2010.

It's not that they don't have the money, they are just holding off due to lack of CBA. If they want them all back, they can afford it and have shown no issues spending it.

Really? What is the logic in not locking up Chad Greenway in 2010? It's cash plain and simple. The Vikes don't want to spend it. And so instead of getting a year early discount they will have to pay top dollar.

What is the cap hit for Greenway, Leber, Sidney Rice and Ray Edwards all to be signed in 2011? That is going to cost a pretty penny and I am sure those players will draw quite a bit of interest as FAs or RFAs.

Ray Edwards is on record saying he's not sure if he'll play for the Vikings beyond this year: http://www.twincities.com/ci_16092399?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1

I understand it could be a bargaining tactic but it sounds to me as though he might out anyway.

[Scott Campbell]

Viking record over the past 9 games:

3-6



Miami L

@ N.O. L

@ N.O. L

DAL W

NYG W

@ CHI L

@ CAR L

CIN W

@ ARI L

[mngolf19]

Viking record over the past 9 games:

3-6



Miami L

@ N.O. L

@ N.O. L

DAL W

NYG W

@ CHI L

@ CAR L

CIN W

@ ARI L

what's your point?

[mngolf19]

Fat Williams got moved out multiple times by Miami linemen yesterday, opening holes right up the gut, so to speak. Minnesota's defense is still formidable (Greenway played exceptionally well, for example), but there are cracks forming....

Plus they have a lot of guys who will hit FA. Minnestoa doesn't want to re-sign because of the up-front money it would cost them that they don't have to pay out. MINN will be paying premiums to retain talent in 2011 they should have extended in 2010.

It's not that they don't have the money, they are just holding off due to lack of CBA. If they want them all back, they can afford it and have shown no issues spending it.

Really? What is the logic in not locking up Chad Greenway in 2010? It's cash plain and simple. The Vikes don't want to spend it. And so instead of getting a year early discount they will have to pay top dollar.

What is the cap hit for Greenway, Leber, Sidney Rice and Ray Edwards all to be signed in 2011? That is going to cost a pretty penny and I am sure those players will draw quite a bit of interest as FAs or RFAs.

Ray Edwards is on record saying he's not sure if he'll play for the Vikings beyond this year: http://www.twincities.com/ci_16092399?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1

I understand it could be a bargaining tactic but it sounds to me as though he might out anyway.

Edwards would only re-signed if he came in at a low number. They have replacements already. Greenway, Rice, Leber will all resigned if they want them. Wilf is holding off so he doesn't have to give them money before the lockout. Helps the owners position. Also, will allow them to see what the new cap numbers will be if there is one.

[ThunderDan]

Fat Williams got moved out multiple times by Miami linemen yesterday, opening holes right up the gut, so to speak. Minnesota's defense is still formidable (Greenway played exceptionally well, for example), but there are cracks forming....

Plus they have a lot of guys who will hit FA. Minnestoa doesn't want to re-sign because of the up-front money it would cost them that they don't have to pay out. MINN will be paying premiums to retain talent in 2011 they should have extended in 2010.

It's not that they don't have the money, they are just holding off due to lack of CBA. If they want them all back, they can afford it and have shown no issues spending it.

Really? What is the logic in not locking up Chad Greenway in 2010? It's cash plain and simple. The Vikes don't want to spend it. And so instead of getting a year early discount they will have to pay top dollar.

What is the cap hit for Greenway, Leber, Sidney Rice and Ray Edwards all to be signed in 2011? That is going to cost a pretty penny and I am sure those players will draw quite a bit of interest as FAs or RFAs.

Ray Edwards is on record saying he's not sure if he'll play for the Vikings beyond this year: http://www.twincities.com/ci_16092399?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1

I understand it could be a bargaining tactic but it sounds to me as though he might out anyway.

Edwards would only re-signed if he came in at a low number. They have replacements already. Greenway, Rice, Leber will all resigned if they want them. Wilf is holding off so he doesn't have to give them money before the lockout. Helps the owners position. Also, will allow them to see what the new cap numbers will be if there is one.

Trust me, signing 1-3 more players to extensions in 2010 will not affect the lockout one way on the other. It is simple that the Vikings don't want to spend the cash. And the cap number stuff is just stuff. It is so easy to front load contracts into an uncapped year that reasoning is silly. Look at Nick Collins for the Pack $10M this year, ~$5M for the next 3. That will help the Pack cap for years.

MINN's "refusal" to resign important pieces a year early is going to cause issues down the line.

[Patler]

Viking record over the past 9 games:

3-6



Miami L

@ N.O. L

@ N.O. L

DAL W

NYG W

@ CHI L

@ CAR L

CIN W

@ ARI L

what's your point?

It seems to me his point would be that the Vikings are 3-6 over their last 9 games! :lol:

Seriously, that should be of concern to the staff. When a bad streak stretches over an off-season it does change things a little, but that is still more than a half-seasons worth of games with limited success. To compound the urgency, they have a difficult schedule facing them for the next 5 games. Just as success breeds confidence, failure breeds doubt. At some point, some players will doubt themselves, doubt their teammates, doubt their coaches. If can spread and snowball.

The psyche of a team can be a fragile thing. It will be interesting to see how they handle it. The Vikings might be at a critical juncture, even though it is very early in the season.

[Patler]

It's not that they don't have the money, they are just holding off due to lack of CBA. If they want them all back, they can afford it and have shown no issues spending it.

Really? What is the logic in not locking up Chad Greenway in 2010? It's cash plain and simple. The Vikes don't want to spend it. And so instead of getting a year early discount they will have to pay top dollar.

What is the cap hit for Greenway, Leber, Sidney Rice and Ray Edwards all to be signed in 2011? That is going to cost a pretty penny and I am sure those players will draw quite a bit of interest as FAs or RFAs.

Ray Edwards is on record saying he's not sure if he'll play for the Vikings beyond this year: http://www.twincities.com/ci_16092399?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1

I understand it could be a bargaining tactic but it sounds to me as though he might out anyway.

Edwards would only re-signed if he came in at a low number. They have replacements already. Greenway, Rice, Leber will all resigned if they want them. Wilf is holding off so he doesn't have to give them money before the lockout. Helps the owners position. Also, will allow them to see what the new cap numbers will be if there is one.

Trust me, signing 1-3 more players to extensions in 2010 will not affect the lockout one way on the other. It is simple that the Vikings don't want to spend the cash. And the cap number stuff is just stuff. It is so easy to front load contracts into an uncapped year that reasoning is silly. Look at Nick Collins for the Pack $10M this year, ~$5M for the next 3. That will help the Pack cap for years.

MINN's "refusal" to resign important pieces a year early is going to cause issues down the line.

It seems to me that there are more reasons to try and get contracts signed now in an uncapped year than to wait until a new CBA is signed. What they might try to avoid will be having a lot of bonuses payable in early 2011, the March/April bonuses that have become common. But signing players now with significant payments in the uncapped year makes some sense.

[mngolf19]

It's not that they don't have the money, they are just holding off due to lack of CBA. If they want them all back, they can afford it and have shown no issues spending it.

Really? What is the logic in not locking up Chad Greenway in 2010? It's cash plain and simple. The Vikes don't want to spend it. And so instead of getting a year early discount they will have to pay top dollar.

What is the cap hit for Greenway, Leber, Sidney Rice and Ray Edwards all to be signed in 2011? That is going to cost a pretty penny and I am sure those players will draw quite a bit of interest as FAs or RFAs.

Ray Edwards is on record saying he's not sure if he'll play for the Vikings beyond this year: http://www.twincities.com/ci_16092399?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1

I understand it could be a bargaining tactic but it sounds to me as though he might out anyway.

Edwards would only re-signed if he came in at a low number. They have replacements already. Greenway, Rice, Leber will all resigned if they want them. Wilf is holding off so he doesn't have to give them money before the lockout. Helps the owners position. Also, will allow them to see what the new cap numbers will be if there is one.

Trust me, signing 1-3 more players to extensions in 2010 will not affect the lockout one way on the other. It is simple that the Vikings don't want to spend the cash. And the cap number stuff is just stuff. It is so easy to front load contracts into an uncapped year that reasoning is silly. Look at Nick Collins for the Pack $10M this year, ~$5M for the next 3. That will help the Pack cap for years.

MINN's "refusal" to resign important pieces a year early is going to cause issues down the line.

It seems to me that there are more reasons to try and get contracts signed now in an uncapped year than to wait until a new CBA is signed. What they might try to avoid will be having a lot of bonuses payable in early 2011, the March/April bonuses that have become common. But signing players now with significant payments in the uncapped year makes some sense.

Which is the process they have always followed as well. But they are going different this year. Should I suddenly think they are having money problems when they are trying desparately to get a new stadium in the next legislative session and have always spent more money than anyone expected? Wilf has not changed his tune 1 iota during his tenure and even spent big on Favre this year.

As far as 1-3 players having an affect on the lockout out, it was probably up to each owner to do his part but unfortunately we know many owners can't help themselves. And no it's not silly.

[mngolf19]

Viking record over the past 9 games:

3-6



Miami L

@ N.O. L

@ N.O. L

DAL W

NYG W

@ CHI L

@ CAR L

CIN W

@ ARI L

what's your point?

It seems to me his point would be that the Vikings are 3-6 over their last 9 games! :lol:

Seriously, that should be of concern to the staff. When a bad streak stretches over an off-season it does change things a little, but that is still more than a half-seasons worth of games with limited success. To compound the urgency, they have a difficult schedule facing them for the next 5 games. Just as success breeds confidence, failure breeds doubt. At some point, some players will doubt themselves, doubt their teammates, doubt their coaches. If can spread and snowball.

The psyche of a team can be a fragile thing. It will be interesting to see how they handle it. The Vikings might be at a critical juncture, even though it is very early in the season.

I don't know how many times I have to say this same thing. Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me) Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO. This year, they are starting out, out of sync on offense just like they did last year. I think it was the end of the SF game last year when it all started coming together. And, the fact that they are missing their #1 WR along with their #3 missing all of camp is likely going to cause it to string along further than last year.

I completely agree that losing messes with minds and this wknds game with Det is a critical juncture. The coaches are off the hook due to the WR situation and that it seems to most that they are trying everything possible to remedy that. The doubt will be aimed at people like Favre, Berrian. Although really, Berrian is not a #1 and Favre may be given the excuse of the WR problem as well. And if your talking about fans doubt, they're all idiots anyways. I'm the only smart one. :D

[Patler]

In the end, everyone plays the game where and when it is scheduled. Justifying losses because the games were played on grass is, well, just an excuse that doesn't really mean much to me. Can it have some impact? Sure, but a reason to lose? No, not really. Every team has challenges to face. Good teams overcome them.

I used to run in to that sort of thing all the time in hockey. Its fast ice, its slow ice, its a big sheet, its a small sheet. In the end, its still hockey, same rules, same plays. My advice was always to forget finding excuses for a loss and just play the game and win.

[superfan]

Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me)

No question the team is built for turf. Schedule isn't nearly as kind this year, with 4 away games on grass, 2 of those after Thanksgiving in potentially cold cities and traditionally difficult places to win - Washington and Philly.

That Miami game was a huge loss. Vikes will only likely be favored in 2 of their next 5 games (Detroit, @NYJ, Dallas, @GB, @NE). If they go 2-3 and then win at home vs Arizona, that's 3-5 over the first half of the season, and they will likely need to go at least 6-2 to have a shot at the playoffs over the last half of the season. Schedule is much easier over the 2nd half, but still not a cakewalk. I predict a Vikings victory in the last game of the season at Detroit since Detroit will probably be resting their starters. :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

Viking record over the past 9 games:

3-6



Miami L

@ N.O. L

@ N.O. L

DAL W

NYG W

@ CHI L

@ CAR L

CIN W

@ ARI L

what's your point?



That a winning percentage of .333 isn't likely to get you to the Superbowl.

[Scott Campbell]

Viking record over the past 9 games:

3-6



Miami L

@ N.O. L

@ N.O. L

DAL W

NYG W

@ CHI L

@ CAR L

CIN W

@ ARI L

what's your point?

It seems to me his point would be that the Vikings are 3-6 over their last 9 games! :lol:

Seriously, that should be of concern to the staff. When a bad streak stretches over an off-season it does change things a little, but that is still more than a half-seasons worth of games with limited success. To compound the urgency, they have a difficult schedule facing them for the next 5 games. Just as success breeds confidence, failure breeds doubt. At some point, some players will doubt themselves, doubt their teammates, doubt their coaches. If can spread and snowball.

The psyche of a team can be a fragile thing. It will be interesting to see how they handle it. The Vikings might be at a critical juncture, even though it is very early in the season.

I don't know how many times I have to say this same thing. ......................


I'd guess 6 times in the last 9 games. :lol:

[ThunderDan]

I don't know how many times I have to say this same thing. Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me) Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO. This year, they are starting out, out of sync on offense just like they did last year. I think it was the end of the SF game last year when it all started coming together. And, the fact that they are missing their #1 WR along with their #3 missing all of camp is likely going to cause it to string along further than last year.


So their last 3 losses have been on turf and even a slow starting Favre last year didn't lose a game in the Humptydome!

[Kiwon]

In the end, everyone plays the game where and when it is scheduled. Justifying losses because the games were played on grass is, well, just an excuse that doesn't really mean much to me. Can it have some impact? Sure, but a reason to lose? No, not really. Every team has challenges to face. Good teams overcome them.

I used to run in to that sort of thing all the time in hockey. Its fast ice, its slow ice, its a big sheet, its a small sheet. In the end, its still hockey, same rules, same plays. My advice was always to forget finding excuses for a loss and just play the game and win.

Yeah.....what he said.

Besides, the Vikes can't win the Super Bowl this year because it's played in Dallas and Farve never wins in Dallas :mrgreen:

[sharpe1027]

I don't know how many times I have to say this same thing. Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me) Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO. This year, they are starting out, out of sync on offense just like they did last year. I think it was the end of the SF game last year when it all started coming together. And, the fact that they are missing their #1 WR along with their #3 missing all of camp is likely going to cause it to string along further than last year.

I completely agree that losing messes with minds and this wknds game with Det is a critical juncture. The coaches are off the hook due to the WR situation and that it seems to most that they are trying everything possible to remedy that. The doubt will be aimed at people like Favre, Berrian. Although really, Berrian is not a #1 and Favre may be given the excuse of the WR problem as well. And if your talking about fans doubt, they're all idiots anyways. I'm the only smart one. :D

Boo fricken hoo. If you can't win on grass, you don't deserve to go to the Super Bowl.

The Packers have started out of synch on offense, lost their #1 back, #2 DB, two back up DL, their best returner couldn't recover from knee problems, their best LBer didn't practice all training camp despite having to switch positions, and their probowl LT is struggling so bad with knee problems he got benched. They still won both of their games.

[Patler]

Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO.

Isn't that sort of like saying they played very well except that they didn't play very well? When you have two interceptions and 6 fumbles, its kind of hard to say you played well, I think. They racked up some yardage, but turned the ball over 5 times.

Lots of teams "should have" won games, but didn't. In the end, they are all losses even if you "should have" won.

[ThunderDan]

Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO.

Isn't that sort of like saying they played very well except that they didn't play very well? When you have two interceptions and 6 fumbles, its kind of hard to say you played well, I think. They racked up some yardage, but turned the ball over 5 times.

Lots of teams "should have" won games, but didn't. In the end, they are all losses even if you "should have" won.

My cousin's husband came up with a term for that. He was extremely competitive, he would make games out of how many times you could flip a toothpick in your mouth in a minute and bet nickles.

He called it being the "moral" victor when you didn't win but you really should have but everything lined up against you.

[mngolf19]

Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me)

No question the team is built for turf. Schedule isn't nearly as kind this year, with 4 away games on grass, 2 of those after Thanksgiving in potentially cold cities and traditionally difficult places to win - Washington and Philly.

That Miami game was a huge loss. Vikes will only likely be favored in 2 of their next 5 games (Detroit, @NYJ, Dallas, @GB, @NE). If they go 2-3 and then win at home vs Arizona, that's 3-5 over the first half of the season, and they will likely need to go at least 6-2 to have a shot at the playoffs over the last half of the season. Schedule is much easier over the 2nd half, but still not a cakewalk. I predict a Vikings victory in the last game of the season at Detroit since Detroit will probably be resting their starters. :lol:

I concur

[mngolf19]

I don't know how many times I have to say this same thing. Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me) Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO. This year, they are starting out, out of sync on offense just like they did last year. I think it was the end of the SF game last year when it all started coming together. And, the fact that they are missing their #1 WR along with their #3 missing all of camp is likely going to cause it to string along further than last year.


So their last 3 losses have been on turf and even a slow starting Favre last year didn't lose a game in the Humptydome!

Because his slow start last year came on the road vs. Clev and Det.

[mngolf19]

In the end, everyone plays the game where and when it is scheduled. Justifying losses because the games were played on grass is, well, just an excuse that doesn't really mean much to me. Can it have some impact? Sure, but a reason to lose? No, not really. Every team has challenges to face. Good teams overcome them.

I used to run in to that sort of thing all the time in hockey. Its fast ice, its slow ice, its a big sheet, its a small sheet. In the end, its still hockey, same rules, same plays. My advice was always to forget finding excuses for a loss and just play the game and win.

Yeah.....what he said.

Besides, the Vikes can't win the Super Bowl this year because it's played in Dallas and Favre never wins in Dallas :mrgreen:

Also because Jerry Jones said the Cowboys were going to play in that. :wink:

[mngolf19]

I don't know how many times I have to say this same thing. Their losses in the reg season last year were all on grass. That's a big deal to their style of play.(this has been detailed on by the beat writers as well so it isn't just me) Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO. This year, they are starting out, out of sync on offense just like they did last year. I think it was the end of the SF game last year when it all started coming together. And, the fact that they are missing their #1 WR along with their #3 missing all of camp is likely going to cause it to string along further than last year.

I completely agree that losing messes with minds and this wknds game with Det is a critical juncture. The coaches are off the hook due to the WR situation and that it seems to most that they are trying everything possible to remedy that. The doubt will be aimed at people like Favre, Berrian. Although really, Berrian is not a #1 and Favre may be given the excuse of the WR problem as well. And if your talking about fans doubt, they're all idiots anyways. I'm the only smart one. :D

Boo fricken hoo. If you can't win on grass, you don't deserve to go to the Super Bowl.

The Packers have started out of synch on offense, lost their #1 back, #2 DB, two back up DL, their best returner couldn't recover from knee problems, their best LBer didn't practice all training camp despite having to switch positions, and their probowl LT is struggling so bad with knee problems he got benched. They still won both of their games.

Sharpe, nobody's crying here. I'm saying that the comment of 6 losses in 9 tries has no merit. And by the way, they were 1 play away from the SB last year even though they lost 4 on grass. And I didn't say they lost all their games on grass, they did win 2. :twisted:

[mngolf19]

Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO.

Isn't that sort of like saying they played very well except that they didn't play very well? When you have two interceptions and 6 fumbles, its kind of hard to say you played well, I think. They racked up some yardage, but turned the ball over 5 times.

Lots of teams "should have" won games, but didn't. In the end, they are all losses even if you "should have" won.

I'll agree with you as long as I can use this quote sometime later this year after a Packer loss. :)

[Tony Oday]

During the Favre Glory Era here Favre couldnt win on AstroTurf!

[Patler]

Sharpe, nobody's crying here. I'm saying that the comment of 6 losses in 9 tries has no merit. And by the way, they were 1 play away from the SB last year even though they lost 4 on grass. And I didn't say they lost all their games on grass, they did win 2. :twisted:

The comment of 6 losses in 9 tries "has no merit"? Huh? Why not? Did they not really lose 6 of their last 9 games?

There are always reasons for losses, and many if not most NFL games are so close that either team could have won. Whether they should have won is an entirely different matter.

[Patler]

Their loss in NO during playoffs, they played very well other than turnovers and should have killed NO.

Isn't that sort of like saying they played very well except that they didn't play very well? When you have two interceptions and 6 fumbles, its kind of hard to say you played well, I think. They racked up some yardage, but turned the ball over 5 times.

Lots of teams "should have" won games, but didn't. In the end, they are all losses even if you "should have" won.

I'll agree with you as long as I can use this quote sometime later this year after a Packer loss. :)

Feel free to. Hopefully, you won't have any opportunities this year because there won't be any Packer losses! :lol:

[mraynrand]

During the Favre Glory Era here Favre couldnt win on AstroTurf!

Untrue! Favre's first great victory over a solid team on the road was on THE original Astroturf! Beat a Warren Moon, Sean Jones, and Bruce Matthews led Oilers team...

:D

[Joemailman]

During the Favre Glory Era here Favre couldnt win on AstroTurf!

Won the Super Bowl on the fake stuff.

[sharpe1027]

I'm saying that the comment of 6 losses in 9 tries has no merit.

It is what it is.

[Tony Oday]

During the Favre Glory Era here Favre couldnt win on AstroTurf!

Won the Super Bowl on the fake stuff.

yeah but the AFC sucked until the next year ;)