Just saying.
I'd take it to the Smack Shack but are you allowed to talk smack about your own QB?
Outside of the Vikings general discussion area, of course.
Bears and Packers backups look better than Vikings starters
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5692
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:56 am
- x 16
-
- Pro Bowl Elite Player
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:51 pm
- Location: Waiting for hell to freeze over
Re: Bears and Packers backups look better than Vikings start
Man the drop off between Rodgers and Wallace was massive.
And going for it on 4th and inches from the Bears 33 with 7 minutes to go and then basically taking out most of the remaining clock was gutsy. Why can't we get things like that done
word on the twitter-verse is a broken Collarbone.... but why no sling when he came back out in the 3rd? or was he just trying to mask it? Or possibly a separated shoulder? This could get interesting very quickly over the next day or two.
And going for it on 4th and inches from the Bears 33 with 7 minutes to go and then basically taking out most of the remaining clock was gutsy. Why can't we get things like that done

word on the twitter-verse is a broken Collarbone.... but why no sling when he came back out in the 3rd? or was he just trying to mask it? Or possibly a separated shoulder? This could get interesting very quickly over the next day or two.
Purple Pride till the end.
Re: Bears and Packers backups look better than Vikings start
Josh McCowan looked pretty good.
Seneca Wallace didn't impress anyone with 114 yards, no TDs and one INT. The Packers discovered that Eddie Lacy is a beast, if they didn't already know it. With Rodger's injury, the Packers have instantly been reduced to something resembling the Vikings. No QB, reliance solely on the running game, and a porous defense.
Seneca Wallace didn't impress anyone with 114 yards, no TDs and one INT. The Packers discovered that Eddie Lacy is a beast, if they didn't already know it. With Rodger's injury, the Packers have instantly been reduced to something resembling the Vikings. No QB, reliance solely on the running game, and a porous defense.
Re: Bears and Packers backups look better than Vikings start
You didn't notice that Rodgers never took his left hand out of his jacket pocket? Even during the post-game hand shakes and congrats.PotGoblin wrote:word on the twitter-verse is a broken Collarbone.... but why no sling when he came back out in the 3rd? or was he just trying to mask it? Or possibly a separated shoulder? This could get interesting very quickly over the next day or two.
Re: Bears and Packers backups look better than Vikings start
The Packers looked like the Vikings last night. Strong running game with a 100 yard passer running around throwing errant passes all over the yard. Losing a close game. Love it! Let them get a taste of the misery we've had to put up with for nearly a decade. With our luck Wallace will throw for 300 and 4 TD's next week with a little more prep. 20 years of HoF QB's, you spoiled b***es.
"Our playoff loss to the Vikings in '87 was probably the most traumatic experience I had in sports." -- Bill Walsh
-
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:28 am
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Re: Bears and Packers backups look better than Vikings start
I noticed it right away, when he came out after half waiving at the fans.Eli wrote: You didn't notice that Rodgers never took his left hand out of his jacket pocket? Even during the post-game hand shakes and congrats.
This space available for rent.
-
- All Pro Elite Player
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:28 am
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Re: Bears and Packers backups look better than Vikings start
I wouldn't say Wallace looked better than our QBs. They have more weapons and he barely held his own. Cutler starts for the Bears that night, that game woulda been a blowout.
This space available for rent.