Vikings Message Board.Com

i meant guilty ^ not quilty. that was too funny of a typo to correct. i can see him sitting down in his den by the fire banging out quilts in the cold months. that would make him quilty imo. he kinda has that look.

Mothman wrote:
to the board and thanks for posting.

As I said above, I don't expect much agreement regarding Spielman and that's fine.

Thank Mothman! This is a great forum for Vikings Fans! I appreciate your opinions, insight and the information you provide here. I don't necessarily agree with your view all the time, but there is no doubt you know your football!!

Alaskan wrote:Thank Mothman! This is a great forum for Vikings Fans! I appreciate your opinions, insight and the information you provide here. I don't necessarily agree with your view all the time, but there is no doubt you know your football!!

Thanks. I try!

None of us ever see eye-to-eye about the team all the time but that's part of what makes a forum like this interesting. If we just nodded in agreement about everything, it would get awfully dull.

Mothman wrote: Thanks. I try!

None of us ever see eye-to-eye about the team all the time but that's part of what makes a forum like this interesting. If we just nodded in agreement about everything, it would get awfully dull.

I disagree!

losperros wrote: I disagree!

I agree with you.

Are the Vikings still on pace to have one of the worst rushing offenses in NFL history? I'm imagining so, since not much has changed.

is it really nfl history?
i was under the impression it was team history.

Nunin wrote:is it really nfl history?
i was under the impression it was team history.

Could be. I don't really remember if it was team/NFL or team/NFL history to that point in the season where I saw the stat...Maybe even just a "moder era" thing, but I thought it involved their ineptitude on a overall historical basis of the NFL because I remember being so disgusted...I could be wrong.

PacificNorseWest wrote: Could be. I don't really remember if it was team/NFL or team/NFL history to that point in the season where I saw the stat...Maybe even just a "moder era" thing, but I thought it involved their ineptitude on a overall historical basis of the NFL because I remember being so disgusted...I could be wrong.

tis disgusting either way IMO, especially after have the league leader last year.
-
i think a functional o-line requires consistency first...even more than talent. the vikes consistency has been injuries and inconsistency lol
sparano has had a handful.

Aikman just said historically bad without differentiation then Buck followed up the next play and said "in franchis history" or something along those lines, so I don't know, but you're right...disgusting regardless.

Nunin wrote:is it really nfl history?
i was under the impression it was team history.

It's both. They're not on pace to have THE worst running game in NFL history but they're on pace to be in that team picture and could easily end up having the worst in decades.

Mothman wrote:
It's both. They're not on pace to have THE worst running game in NFL history but they're on pace to be in that team picture and could easily end up having the worst in decades.

Averaged 3.0 yards a carry today...slight improvement.

Yesss....Movin' on up!!!

Mothman wrote:
It's both. They're not on pace to have THE worst running game in NFL history but they're on pace to be in that team picture and could easily end up having the worst in decades.

Or could easily end up *not* having the worst in decades.

The offense is a mess. Lost starting QB. Highest paid franchise once in a career HB. Multiple OL.

I personally believe if we had Norv today, we would have lost. I don't like Norv or Shurmur. But when you're in the situation we're in? Shurmur seems like the obvious choice over Norv. Even if the run game is limping in the ditch....

Demi wrote: Or could easily end up *not* having the worst in decades.

The offense is a mess. Lost starting QB. Highest paid franchise once in a career HB. Multiple OL.

I personally believe if we had Norv today, we would have lost. I don't like Norv or Shurmur. But when you're in the situation we're in? Shurmur seems like the obvious choice over Norv. Even if the run game is limping in the ditch....

This makes sense. I retract any condescension that I may have come across as, in the other thread (Not that I ever want to come across that way willingly, but I did feel bad once I hit submit).

I do want to ask you though...Why is it you think that? For me, the obvious answer is Patterson and Shurmur's willingness to get him involved. That simply did not seem to exist with Norv. There's more of a short passing game on short yardage plays than there was with Norv as well, but to whomever's credit, the Vikings and McKinnon actually carved out decent chunks on their first or second down runs than they did with Norv, which isn't completely a playcalling deal.