2 Tackles And Half A Sack

[Zool]

Re: Allen

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]

Re: Allen

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]

Re: Allen

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...........

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.......................

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]

Re: Allen

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...........

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.......................

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]

Re: Allen

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]

Re: Allen

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]

Re: Allen

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]

Re: Allen

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]

Re: Allen

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]

Re: Allen

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]

Re: Allen

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...