Question Marks

[retailguy]

and another personal attack.... <sigh>

Seriously, what a hypocrite you are. Do you really believe you aren't engaging in the same so called "personal attacks"?

Do you really believe that?

Do you?

Really?

Really.

[Scott Campbell]

Really.

LOL

Well then you're pathetic too.

[retailguy]

Back to Harv's topic, did anyone else notice that the Vikings owned 2 of the 3 biggest question marks in the league - according to this guy anyway.

Yes they do, and they're well earned. Tavaris Jackson is definitely boom or bust, and the WR core looks bleaker than ours did in 2002. At least we had Terry Glenn and some unknown guy named Donald Driver, and a promising rookie names Javon Walker. Oh yeah, we did have ferguson too, fwiw...

Minnesota is about the only team in the league with clearly bigger questions on offense than us, and possibly Tennessee.

I do like their running backs better than ours though. Tennessee's too. But that's just because they have more than 145 carries between six backs.

If Peterson stays healthy it's going to be a long 6 or 7 years.

[Bretsky]

Back to Harv's topic, did anyone else notice that the Vikings owned 2 of the 3 biggest question marks in the league - according to this guy anyway.

Yes they do, and they're well earned. Tavaris Jackson is definitely boom or bust, and the WR core looks bleaker than ours did in 2002. At least we had Terry Glenn and some unknown guy named Donald Driver, and a promising rookie names Javon Walker. Oh yeah, we did have ferguson too, fwiw...

Minnesota is about the only team in the league with clearly bigger questions on offense than us, and possibly Tennessee.

I do like their running backs better than ours though. Tennessee's too. But that's just because they have more than 145 carries between six backs.

If Peterson stays healthy it's going to be a long 6 or 7 years.

The Vikings do have a boatload of questions as well.

I wonder if over on the Vikings Board there are similar characters as we have here.

You'd have the overly optimistic Childeressites, like the Turtleites, who believe another year of development from Jackson and all this young talent will lead to a team on the upside.

And then you'd have the anti group who wonders how the hell they picked the free agents they did and how they could possibly not look for veteran help at the QB position in case Jackson bombs.

Funny, but if I was a Viking fan I think I'd find myself in the middle but more in group B. I surely would have LOVED the Vikings draft, but at the same time I'd be pretty upset than Minnesota was not bringing in some veteran help at QB or making moves to do so.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I wonder if over on the Vikings Board there are similar characters as we have here.

You'd have the overly optimistic Childeressites, like the Turtleites, who believe another year of development from Jackson and all this young talent will lead to a team on the upside.

I don't think they'd necessarily be overly optimistic to think that. They could be better. Sure, they have holes, but they also have talent--just like we do. I've predicted they'll finish below .500 (mainly because of the inexperienced QB), but you never know. Who is to say that T-Jack won't be solid this year? That might not be probably, but it's not out of the question. OL has talent (even though I think it's overrated). RBs are great. Run defense is great. Pass defense could be better with James back and maybe Udeze does better. They have a lot of questions, but if I were a Vikings fan, I'd wait to see what their team looked like in the preseason before completely writing them off.