Packers v Vikings

[swede]

Re: Packers v Vikings

I'm not sure what BOX again means. Are you challenging my assertion that he had more sacks and want a "box score"?? If so, use google, if not please explain so I can understand.

BOX means you put somebody in the box. The reference being to smacktalkie.

KFAN uses it all the time basically saying you have no recourse or argument that works because all the facts are against you.

Thank you. I went so far as to look it up in the online slang dictionary and I didn't find out what Harv meant by "Box", but on the bright side, after thirty-eight years, I finally get that dirty joke that was going around Roosevelt Jr. High.

Q: Why do ladies sit higher in the bathtub than men?

A: Because they're sitting on a box.

[ThunderDan]

Re: Packers v Vikings

I'm not sure what BOX again means. Are you challenging my assertion that he had more sacks and want a "box score"?? If so, use google, if not please explain so I can understand.

BOX means you put somebody in the box. The reference being to smacktalkie.

KFAN uses it all the time basically saying you have no recourse or argument that works because all the facts are against you.

Thank you. I went so far as to look it up in the online slang dictionary and I didn't find out what Harv meant by "Box", but on the bright side, after thirty-eight years, I finally get that dirty joke that was going around Roosevelt Jr. High.

Q: Why do ladies sit higher in the bathtub than men?

A: Because they're sitting on a box.

You never heard of Monster in a Box?

[bobblehead]

Re: Packers v Vikings

I'm not sure what BOX again means. Are you challenging my assertion that he had more sacks and want a "box score"?? If so, use google, if not please explain so I can understand.

BOX means you put somebody in the box. The reference being to smacktalkie.

KFAN uses it all the time basically saying you have no recourse or argument that works because all the facts are against you.

Damn...not up with my hip lingo....getting old.

[bobblehead]

Re: Packers v Vikings

I'm not sure what BOX again means. Are you challenging my assertion that he had more sacks and want a "box score"?? If so, use google, if not please explain so I can understand.

BOX means you put somebody in the box. The reference being to smacktalkie.

KFAN uses it all the time basically saying you have no recourse or argument that works because all the facts are against you.

Thank you. I went so far as to look it up in the online slang dictionary and I didn't find out what Harv meant by "Box", but on the bright side, after thirty-eight years, I finally get that dirty joke that was going around Roosevelt Jr. High.

Q: Why do ladies sit higher in the bathtub than men?

A: Because they're sitting on a box.

Now that is almost as funny as the old atari 1600 pac man game. The graphics weren't good enough for fruit, so they used a sqaure that was bigger than the other dots. We would sit and holler "Eat the box" when it popped up and never figured out why my mom would get pissed.

[mngolf19]

Re: Packers v Vikings

I think they're very close. I'd argue the biggest difference is coaches. Chilly gets them up for these games and MM doesn't.

I think they are almost identical in "big games". To me, the biggest games are playoff games, against each other, and against Chicago. McCarthy is 10-9 in those games. Childress is 8-11.

Well the first couple years, Chilly didn't have the ammunition to compete with the Pack. Last 2 years and this year, different story. What does that calculate out to?

[Fritz]

Re: Packers v Vikings

I recall going into that game hearing about how strong the chiefs front 7 was. That if not for the complete lack of a QB they would be a really good team. And why did he get more sacks in 14 games with those inferior players around him than he got in 16 games with Minnesota??

BOX again

I believe Clifton and Tauscher are a huge improvement in pass blocking over Colledge at LT/Lang/Barbre. Bulaga also could improve LG. We'll see. The proof is in the pudding. A lot of Vikings fans here in the Twin Cities are in a dream world thinking the Vikings are much better than the Packers. In the other 14 games last year, playing a similar schedule, the Packers went 11-3 and the Vikings went 10-4. Minnesota just happened to play Green Bay when they were their healthiest and Green Bay wasn't (no Clifton, Tauscher, Nelson, Finley, etc.). On offense, at least.

I think they're very close. I'd argue the biggest difference is coaches. Chilly gets them up for these games and MM doesn't.

Hand jobs?

[Joemailman]

Don't forget Childress was 10-6 in 2008 with Gus Frerotte and Tarvaris Jackson at QB. So far I'd say he and McCarthy are pretty even. Both have proved they can get to the playoffs. Both have proved they can get really really really close to the Super Bowl before Brett dials up another tragedy. I believe one of them will get there this year.

[bobblehead]

Don't forget Childress was 10-6 in 2008 with Gus Frerotte and Tarvaris Jackson at QB. So far I'd say he and McCarthy are pretty even. Both have proved they can get to the playoffs. Both have proved they can get really really really close to the Super Bowl before Brett dials up another tragedy. I believe one of them will get there this year.

Now if you were a betting man would you bet on the guy with the QB that has thrown 2 NFCC ending picks, or the guy whose QB fumbled it away after missing a wide open Jennings?? I'm hoping ARod is young enough to learn from his mistakes.

[Joemailman]

I would take a Rodgers entering his prime over a 41 year old Favre playing on a bad ankle. I wouldn't bet on the Packers though because I'm convinced McCarthy is better than Childress. I hope he is, but I'm not convinced.

[RashanGary]

I would take a Rodgers entering his prime over a 41 year old Favre playing on a bad ankle. I wouldn't bet on the Packers though because I'm convinced McCarthy is better than Childress. I hope he is, but I'm not convinced.

This looks like one of my posts.

I'm convinced McCarthy is better than Childress

I hope McCarthy is better than Childress but not convinced.


All in the same post


I'd say the 2nd statement more accurately represents your view. Taking it a step further, I'd say you don't "hope" he is but you "think" McCArthy is better but can never be sure until it plays out.

[RashanGary]

On offense we're going to be better.

Rodgers is at a point in his career where he's stepping into elite status (not just in stats, but in results)

Finley is about to add a dimension to our offense that should make us unstoppable assuming the OL is even below average. Him and Greg are playmakers and starting this year they're both right in their prime. Finley needs two covering him. Greg needs two covering him. Rodgers can throw it anywhere with great accuracy and is just starting to play the game at elite speed.

ST's is a wild card. I've given up thinking I know what will happen. We'll see if they find a way.

Defensively we have a couple concerns. The first is pass rush. Jenkins and Matthews are our only good pass rushers. Raji has done nothing so far to make me think he's improved at all and Jones looked pedestrian last week too. If our secondary can handle mixed coverages better, maybe we can shake up or blitz packages a little and still not get burned, but overall we have an average pass rush, and against top QB's who get the ball out, it's just plain not good enough.

The 2nd defensive concern is our secondary. Burnett, at this point, has a long way to go. Chances are he'll have rookie mistakes early and barely be average late in the season if he learns. Then there is the CB position. After Tramon, we don't have anyone who knows how to play even the basic coverages. They're fucking up base cover 2. If they can't play that, they're going to get tore to pieces when great QB's come to town. The problesm they have, they're so idiotic, I just don't picture Underwood or Lee magically getting it tomorrow. It's been 2 and 3 years respectively and they still have no clue. One more week will mean nothing.


So here we are, with some of the same issues as last year. Matthews, Raji and Jones should be getting better. Woodson should be getting worse. All in all, our age says we shouldn't drop off much on defense and we have had another year in the system so there is reason to believe we do get better. Not much though.



If we were an 8 on offense last year, I expect a 9 this year

If we were a 7 on defense, I expect a 7.5 this year.

If we were a 2 on ST's, I expect a 5 this year (regression toward the mean)


I'll count the offense and defense twice and the ST's once. . .

6.4 average last year
7.6 projected this year


Keep in mind, no team is a 10. I think we'll be a good, solid notch better this year, although clearly not perfect. Chances are, we won't have the injury problems we had a year ago this time, it was our worst stretch of the season. Chances are we won't be as clueless on defense as last year. The Vikings were better than the Packers last year. This year. . . I think it's going to be an even nastier dog fight because they're even closer to the same quality team, in the same division. It's going to be a fun season. It will be gut wrenching if we lose, and exciting as hell if we win.

[RashanGary]

If Harris and Bigby come back and we stay really healthy on defense, we could make a run at the SB. We have that type of team, but we're just a few pieces away from being one of the teams that can handle injuries at just about any position.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I just wish it was on MNF this year instead of the Bears/Packers...

Although one of the Vikings game is a Sunday Night Football game...

I hope they beat Favre twice... That will surely make him come back for 2011

Am I the only one who would rather watch the game on Sunday afternoon than what is liberally called "prime time"? I think that the Monday Night Games all around competition, production, etc have been really lame for a while. That and due to the late starts to accommodate the west coast, the "prime time" is ancient history by the time the 4th quarter starts. Please just give me the sunday game, late game is preferable so I can have the grill going and am eager to spend my day watching games. Not have to start the week without having been able to watch your team play...

[MichiganPackerFan]

Re: Packers v Vikings

I think they're very close. I'd argue the biggest difference is coaches. Chilly gets them up for these games and MM doesn't.

You might be on to something there. MM certainly isn't the calm laid back Mike Sherman, but I do remember MIN being really jacked up for the games last year. The schedule could certainly be more balanced with a colder weather game.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Re: Packers v Vikings

You might be on to something there. MM certainly isn't the calm laid back Mike Sherman, but I do remember MIN being really jacked up for the games last year. The schedule could certainly be more balanced with a colder weather game.

Don't buy it. We're plenty jacked up for games. This team is light years ahead of where they were under Sherman. We just need more of that swagger that comes with winning. McCarthy has done a lot to bring more physicality to the team. I think he sees the Steelers defense, and he thinks that their physicality is the main ingredient for their success. He wants a tough, hard nosed, hard working defense.