Page 1 of 4

IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:47 pm
by Hunter Morrow
:rock:

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:25 am
by RandallioCobb18
Hunter Morrow wrote::rock:
Interesting game was it not?

Haha, man, another instance where an admitted NFL officiating mistake costs the Pack the game, that mistake resulted in 7 points and the Packers lost by 6, oh well, not like it hasnt happened before, suck it up move on and lets get to dominating this division. :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock:

So much for the Niners being this invincible juggernaut.

So much for the Vikings season. :rofl:

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:22 am
by NextQuestion
Actually....
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... s-mistake/

Maybe if your boneheaded, HGH consuming, idiot LB didn't dive at a guy while out of bounds it would have been FG time. Also, your coach accepted a penalty when it could have been 4th down. STFU

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:49 am
by RandallioCobb18
NextQuestion wrote:Actually....
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... s-mistake/

Maybe if your boneheaded, HGH consuming, idiot LB didn't dive at a guy while out of bounds it would have been FG time. Also, your coach accepted a penalty when it could have been 4th down. STFU
Woah calm down there queenies fan, your right about one thing, that was a bone headed play for sure, but it still should have been 4th down, not 3rd. Big, big mistake on the refs part.

Why u so mad bruh? Didn't u guys play alright against the lions? LOL get back in the cellar with you Vikings.

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:35 pm
by NextQuestion
I forget...aren't you 0-1 as well?
Dagger.

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:05 pm
by Sinatra
Lol, all losses count the same in the standings, so no arguing there. But if I'm trying to forecast my chances for the rest of the season, I'd feel a lot better about losing at the last minute by less than a touchdown to SF, then losing by two TDs to the Lions, LOL.

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:30 pm
by RandallioCobb18
NextQuestion wrote:I forget...aren't you 0-1 as well?
Dagger.
Losing because of a questionable call, on a last minute TD against the defending NFC Champion is a lol bit more impressive then losing to Lions by multiple possessions...lol.

Seriously, how can you even be optimistic in the slightest about the Vikings? There not going to even sniff the playoffs, and even if they would, do you REALLY think you could compete for a SB with Ponder at QB? I mean, really.....you don't even have a realistic chance.

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:55 pm
by Hunter Morrow
I saw at least 2 "Roughing The Rodgers." Don't act like the team hasn't been given rockstar treatment by the refs because of Favre and Rodgers.
It absolutely has. Every team with a star quarterback gets catered to.

I don't know why you'd give Kaepernick, Boldan and Vernon Davis another crack at you and not make it 4th and a very long 1.
Blame the coaching, blame Matthews for running his mouth and then cheap shotting a guy.

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:40 am
by NextQuestion
RC18 is out of his mind. Questionable call? Maybe don't have your player dive at the QB when he's out of bounds and the whole "what down is it" thing doesn't happen.

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:53 pm
by RandallioCobb18
NextQuestion wrote:RC18 is out of his mind. Questionable call? Maybe don't have your player dive at the QB when he's out of bounds and the whole "what down is it" thing doesn't happen.
I completely agree it was a bone headed move in which Clay let his emotions get the best of him, but then that makes it the refs job to not throw the flag on Staley, but they did, you throw the flag...you get the down and distance right. And they didn't. Regardless, it doesn't matter, we lost, so be it, #### happens, now its time to suck it the #### up and get prepared for the Redskins.

BTW, what happened to all the optimism on this board? Did you guys get a taste of "Yea but Ponder Is still the QB" - itis?

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:19 pm
by NextQuestion
Optimism? Sure haven't had it through me. I've seen nothing but "Packers D is going to dominate this year with Dantone Jones and be Super Bowl bound" from the Wisconsin end. :wallbang:

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:40 pm
by Hunter Morrow
Packers D is going to cough up about 500 yards a game, but as long as Clay Matthews gets a sack, the media will suck Dom's capers and act like that
buffoon is some football mastermind. He's godawful.

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:43 pm
by RandallioCobb18
Hunter Morrow wrote:Packers D is going to cough up about 500 yards a game, but as long as Clay Matthews gets a sack, the media will suck Dom's capers and act like that
buffoon is some football mastermind. He's godawful.
LOL, you do realize that the Packers 2012 D was ranked higher then the Vikings 2012 D right? 12th my man, and was ranked fourth in sacks. Sounds pretty good to me.

He also had a top 10 D in 2009 and 2010, that leaves one bad year, 2011, now you can hopelessly cling to that all you want, but it doesn't mean anything. Also I might add that on our SB run in 2010, the D was infinitely more reliable then our O, like I said, one bad year does not constitute being "Godawful".

Your going to eat those words, btw, our D is going to be a force this year, Dom took our D from 32nd to 12th off of one draft, and were only getting better, did you see our opener? We were beat in space, yes, but we dominated the LOS on the Defensive side of the ball, so much for us being soft. And we did dominate the LOS on the D's end too, go back and check it out if you want. We had a couple tackles on Kap in the back field that were counted as tackles, not sacks, because he had already been declared as a runner, and this was also considering the lack of blitzes and Capers like tricks because we were focused on containment. We also shut Gore the #### down.

Not to mention, your offense sucks, I'll be surprised if you guys can put up 14 plus points on us, you surely won't be able to stop our O, this is a new and improved front seven my man, AP will get his, but it just won't be enough.

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:45 pm
by RandallioCobb18
Hunter Morrow wrote:Packers D is going to cough up about 500 yards a game, but as long as Clay Matthews gets a sack, the media will suck Dom's capers and act like that
buffoon is some football mastermind. He's godawful.
Man, it must suck to be a Vikes fan.

Re: IF THE VIKINGS CAN'T WIN, AT LEAST LET THE PACKERS LOSE

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:40 am
by King James
RandallioCobb18 wrote: Man, it must suck to be a Vikes fan.
It's quite awesome actually. :D