2 Tackles And Half A Sack

[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...

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...

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

Re: Allen

Bring some sense and facts to the table next time.

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

[SMACKTALKIE]

Re: Allen

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!

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]

Re: Allen

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]

Re: Allen

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]

Re: Allen

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.