Vikings Message Board.Com

PurpleHalo wrote: I am past the point where I want this team to tank, it now needs to grow up and learn to win.

It's mighty generous of you to think it's OK for us to win now. Tanking would have done nothing for us, except possibly get good players cut for tanking.

Reignman wrote: Cassel, Patterson, Jennings, and Rudolph are going to light up Fraziers soft zone for 350 yards. Time to end some droughts.

I am SOO looking forward to that game. If we win only one game this year, it better be that one.

Webbfan, please stop. I mean this in the most caring and helpful way: if you continue this conversation with the position you started with, you're going to embarrass yourself.


I shall do nothing of the sort, thank you. I'm not worried one bit about embarrassing myself-even if 9 out of 10 people ...

WTF? Well I guess I just can't understand your logic. But if you think that the start of the game by having two conservative 3 and outs was the reason why they lost the game and discount one of the worst QB performance that I have ever seen, then knock yourself out :wink:


The logic is that you ...

They lost 42-14 and you blame that on the coaches for taking a "try not to lose approach" :lol:

Yup. As I said then:



We started the game with 2 conservative 3 and outs in textbook Musgrave fashion, and that robbed us of all momentum and confidence coming off last week. The first half was ...

Considering the circumstances of being jerked around I thought his flat performance against Carolina was not all on his shoulders. But it was certainly flat.

I put CIN squarely on Musgrave's and Frazier's shoulders. We could have won that game if we hadn't taken the try not to lose approach

PsyDanny wrote: It's OK that I said woody, right?

As long as "Favre" is not used in the same sentence I think it's OK.

mosscarter wrote:2.3 qbr and it probably cost the average fan at least $125.00 per ticket (for a crappy seat) to watch that sick atrocity. i'd boo myself if i played that sadly

Don't flatter yourself so much. You couldn't play so well against Cincinnati's D in your wildest dreams.

808vikingsfan wrote:
Booing someone because he stinks is totally different than cheering because a player is taken out of a game after laying hurt on the field.

Which is "sickening" as Cassel's teammate said, and that applies no matter who the injured party is. Sports fans really are morons sometimes.

[
Bridgewater is playing better (at this point in their respective careers) than Ponder. The only thing 'bad' about this comparison is that it is a small sample size for Bridgewater. Teddy could have two more games like the Raiders game (he'd still surpass Ponder's yardage, though) and he'd have a ...

To be perfectly fair: Some of those comments about Ponder were also made after he has replaced Donovan "Pants..erm..football's on the ground" McNabb. Teddy's performance have been with Matt Cassel's performance as a backdrop (which would normally be faint praise, but Matt has been having ...

Sorry if I misread you but you seemed confused about emotions.

frosted21 wrote: Emotionally?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yeah, really. These are professionals, right? You should be able to jerk them around any which way you want without any effect on their emotions, confidence, or performance. They are cogs in a wheel, not humans.

Purple Reign wrote: I thought it would be fun to go back and repost some of the comments from Ponder's first game that he started against the Packers in 2011:

Thank you, if only to deter people from chanting "Teddy" next weekend when Matt is driving down the field.

I said 10-6. That's only if the defense is improved a fair bit. If it improves a lot, I'd say 11 wins. But I won't be disappointed in anything from 8 wins up. I don't see us winning less than 8. We were only a few fups away from 8 last year.