The Official Vikings@Packers Gameday Thread

[Airin' Rodgers]

All of a sudden, the Pack is tied for the division lead. Crazy year

[digitaldean]

It's going to be a tough one next vs. the Jets.

Their D is darn good. Their O is good on the run, but they can be had on the passing game. Need to get a W on the road to keep the MO going!!

[imscott72]

It's going to be a tough one next vs. the Jets.

Their D is darn good. Their O is good on the run, but they can be had on the passing game. Need to get a W on the road to keep the MO going!!

Plus they were off this week and we're coming off somewhat of a short week. Everything points to a Jets win, but I didn't think we'd win tonight either. Who knows anymore.

[LEWCWA]

When we started discussing this game on the Vikings thread, I posted no team would win, one team would lose.

If Bert doesn't throw 3 picks, Vikes prolly win. So my prognosis was correct. The Vikes, or Bert, lost the game.

I'll take it, though!

What about Rodgers throwing 2 picks in the red zone. Thats thing about if statements, hard to argue with them but they don't really mean shit. Cause if Rodgers doesn't throw his its not a game. If Harvin drags his foot its lights out for GB....So the thing isn't if, because if never happens!

[Joemailman]

I'll consider it a huge plus if they beat the Jets. It's possible if they can be tough against the Jets running game. Having Pickett would certainly help. It won't be the end of the season if they lose to the Jets.

[Tarlam!]

When we started discussing this game on the Vikings thread, I posted no team would win, one team would lose.

If Bert doesn't throw 3 picks, Vikes prolly win. So my prognosis was correct. The Vikes, or Bert, lost the game.

I'll take it, though!

What about Rodgers throwing 2 picks in the red zone. Thats thing about if statements, hard to argue with them but they don't really mean shit. Cause if Rodgers doesn't throw his its not a game. If Harvin drags his foot its lights out for GB....So the thing isn't if, because if never happens!

I dunno what you're getting at LEWCA. My point is, the Pack didn't win the game, the Vikes lost it. It boils down to the team that made the fewest critical mistakes will be awarded the "W". Just my opinion.

[Joemailman]

When we started discussing this game on the Vikings thread, I posted no team would win, one team would lose.

If Bert doesn't throw 3 picks, Vikes prolly win. So my prognosis was correct. The Vikes, or Bert, lost the game.

I'll take it, though!

What about Rodgers throwing 2 picks in the red zone. Thats thing about if statements, hard to argue with them but they don't really mean shit. Cause if Rodgers doesn't throw his its not a game. If Harvin drags his foot its lights out for GB....So the thing isn't if, because if never happens!

I dunno what you're getting at LEWCA. My point is, the Pack didn't win the game, the Vikes lost it. It boils down to the team that made the fewest critical mistakes will be awarded the "W". Just my opinion.

Well, in that case, teams seldom "win" a game, since the team that commits the most turnovers usually ends up on the short end. I've always thought that committing fewer mistakes that the opponent was a part of winning.

[pbmax]

Great win for the team...needed it badly. Still upset with some of MMs decisions...not challenging the spot before the second 4th-and-1...the fake FG play...running the same damn 4th-and-1 play after it didn't work the first time...continuing the trend of tossing 40 yard bombs on 3rd and short. Amazingly, he gets some credit this week for rushing the extra point after the Quarless TD, which was huge.

This game was won in spite of another mediocre showing from the offense. Rodgers did not seem to be on the same page with many of his receivers, and got happy feet again at times. Driver has all but disappeared the last 2-3 weeks and we need to think about promoting both Jones and Nelson over him IMO. Running game had its moments, but it seems they either gain 12 yards or gain 2 yards...not much in between. Can't gain a yard when they need it either.

Defense played well again considering how many regulars are out. Capers is nothing short of a magician considering what he's working with. The guy has a college level DL in there half the time. Still were able to collapse the pocket on occasion. Coverage made big plays when the defense did get pressure on Favre.

Chilly tossing Bert under the bus is funny...Favre was driving that team for a win until their RT decided to yank Clay's facemask around a few times to see if he could play a role in The Exorcist. Chilly should've been calling AP's number all night anyway. The Vikings win if they just pound the ball on the ground all night long.

Leap, take a deep breath...

Challenging the spot on Rodgers run (that was the one you were referring to?) would have still left them short.

Driver was catching all the balls that everyone was complaining weren't going to Jennings until last week. That plus Driver was hurt this game. He is OK.

McCarthy got more out of the run game than at almost any other time this season and had better results on 3rd downs.

I am not a fan of the second 4th down call because you are running it behind your worst blocking TE and Nance was a wasted player as no one was buying the possibility of pitch when they had never done it in short yardage before.

Like the fake FG as it will help cause other teams to prepare and pull players away from the LOS.

I thought the D was shakier this week than the previous two but the offense they faced was better manned. Capers seemed to choose to let AP beat him rather than Favre. But with other lineman out, he might not have had a choice.

McCarthy got better production in the redzone, but the offense still faltered in second half. Rodgers feet looked much better and he looked more confident. But he can't get so comfortable that he makes two bad decisions like the two INTs were. And someone needs to cover back shoulder throws with the QBs and WR.

[pbmax]

This game was proof that if you limit penalties and turnovers (or at least come up net positive) you should win.

They still did not score enough for the yards they gained and did not generate enough heat on the QB, and Special Teams were still partially dysfunctional, but the other two improvements won out.

[channtheman]

^ No he is talking about the Jennings catch that was a first down by about a yard. MM did not challenge that and he ended the game with it in his pocket. He challenges that, I fully believe we score a TD to go up 2 possessions and the game is over.

[LEWCWA]

When we started discussing this game on the Vikings thread, I posted no team would win, one team would lose.

If Bert doesn't throw 3 picks, Vikes prolly win. So my prognosis was correct. The Vikes, or Bert, lost the game.

I'll take it, though!

What about Rodgers throwing 2 picks in the red zone. Thats thing about if statements, hard to argue with them but they don't really mean shit. Cause if Rodgers doesn't throw his its not a game. If Harvin drags his foot its lights out for GB....So the thing isn't if, because if never happens!

I dunno what you're getting at LEWCA. My point is, the Pack didn't win the game, the Vikes lost it. It boils down to the team that made the fewest critical mistakes will be awarded the "W". Just my opinion.

Thats just it. This doesn't make sense to me. GB played well and won the game. Mn didn't give this game away in my opinion, sure they weren't perfect, but GB wasn't either. If your opinion is the case, teams never win games, the other team just loses.

[channtheman]

When we started discussing this game on the Vikings thread, I posted no team would win, one team would lose.

If Bert doesn't throw 3 picks, Vikes prolly win. So my prognosis was correct. The Vikes, or Bert, lost the game.

I'll take it, though!

What about Rodgers throwing 2 picks in the red zone. Thats thing about if statements, hard to argue with them but they don't really mean shit. Cause if Rodgers doesn't throw his its not a game. If Harvin drags his foot its lights out for GB....So the thing isn't if, because if never happens!

I dunno what you're getting at LEWCA. My point is, the Pack didn't win the game, the Vikes lost it. It boils down to the team that made the fewest critical mistakes will be awarded the "W". Just my opinion.

Thats just it. This doesn't make sense to me. GB played well and won the game. Mn didn't give this game away in my opinion, sure they weren't perfect, but GB wasn't either. If your opinion is the case, teams never win games, the other team just loses.

I've gotta agree with you. Can't it be said that Jared Allen made a great play to make the INT? Or that we were able to pressure Favre enough to force him to throw a pass to Bishop? Yes both were bad throws, but GOOD defense caused them.

Depends on how you look at it I suppose, I can see how it is seen both ways though.

[Tarlam!]

If your opinion is the case, teams never win games, the other team just loses.

Denver were beaten by Oakland, badly. It doesn't need to be a blowout for one team to beat the other, but a certain dominance, a big play to pull out a tight one, that to me is winning. The Vikes should have scored on that last possession and didn't. IMHO, they lost it.

Now, had the Packers scored on their last real possession, then I'd have a different opinion,

Hey, a it's glass half empty view, maybe, but it's how I see it. I'm as big as a homer and kool-aide drinker as anyone here. I'll take the "W" anytime no matter how ugly or fortunate. I reserve the right to create my own reality.

[Lurker64]

If your opinion is the case, teams never win games, the other team just loses.

Denver were beaten by Oakland, badly. It doesn't need to be a blowout for one team to beat the other, but a certain dominance, a big play to pull out a tight one, that to me is winning. The Vikes should have scored on that last possession and didn't. IMHO, they lost it.

Now, had the Packers scored on their last real possession, then I'd have a different opinion,

Hey, a it's glass half empty view, maybe, but it's how I see it. I'm as big as a homer and kool-aide drinker as anyone here. I'll take the "W" anytime no matter how ugly or fortunate. I reserve the right to create my own reality.

The Packers have lost three very close games this year in which the defense has dropped or had negated by penalties a significant number of turnovers that likely would have changed the outcome of the game. Were the Packers to hang onto or avoid being penalized on one of Cutler's late would-be INTs in the game at Chicago, would you say that the Bears lost that game or that the Packers won it?

There's no shame in winning, and there's no shame in winning because of your defense. Your defense can make plays because the opposing offense makes mistakes that enable your defense to make plays, but you still have to catch the interception, pick up the ball, or make the tackle.

The Packers won the game because the defense prevented a first down or touchdown on four consecutive plays after Minnesota had a first down in the red zone. If Minnesota had noticeably screwed up there, you might have a point, but you can't take credit away from your defense simply by saying the opposing offense sucked. Good defense and bad offense are sort of inseparable (similarly good offense and bad defense), you can never tell how much of each is playing a role in any given game. You don't want to take credit away from your team, or lay all the blame on the inadequacy of the other team so it's better to split the difference.

Minnesota made a bunch of mistakes and Green Bay was able to take advantage of enough of them in order to win the game. Whether the Vikings lost or the Packers won is ultimately just a semantic discussion. Whichever answer you pick counts exactly the same in the standings.

Do we need to play better going forward? Absolutely, but you know... never apologize for a win (or a loss by the team that you were just playing ).

[Tarlam!]

Do we need to play better going forward? Absolutely, but you know... never apologize for a win (or a loss by the team that you were just playing ).

I can agree with what you wrote and it's your perogative to see it anyway you choose. By no means am I apologizing for a "W".

I'm just not celebrating it like Rogers and many here. To quote Silversten on JSO

There were all kinds of reasons the Packers should have lost, but they didn't.

I would be over the moon happy if Rogers had led the Packers to a two score lead instead of a punt. Especially if the D would have kept it that way under those circumstances. I'll agree that the D did remarkably well, all things considered.

But let's be real; a QB of Bert's experience with the weapons he had around him against a makeshift defense..... sorry, I don't get excited by that. I'm really delighted with the outcome, I'll be even more delighted if this is the game that ends Bert's career.

So, I'm not bitching or apologizing, but IMHO, the Vikes lost and the Pack book a "W" as a result. The Pack lost in Chicago with the penalties, against the 'Skins with 2 missed FGs in regulation and I am trying to forget Miami.

The Pack, IMHO won against Phillie, Detroit and Buffalo, despite relatively mediocre performances by the O & ST units.