Norv Zimmer wrote: I realized that after I posted. I was thinking team as a whole. That doesn't take away that you have a smoking problem... you taking wake and bake to a whole new level!![]()
![]()
Yeah, but I'm bakin' donuts!
Moderator: Moderators
Norv Zimmer wrote: I realized that after I posted. I was thinking team as a whole. That doesn't take away that you have a smoking problem... you taking wake and bake to a whole new level!![]()
![]()
I'm not burying my head. I just plain disagree with you.IrishViking wrote:I am not. Again, people arent reading the discussion and just burying their head at the first sounds of an AP complaint.
Only because we were also 14th in rushing.Norv Zimmer wrote:The Packers are 22nd in receiving! Win!
That's just it: he doesn't need an offense built around him to excel. What he really needs (and has desperately needed most of his career) is a more balanced offense that doesn't make him the first, second and third priority of every defense the Vikings face. How is this not obvious?IrishViking wrote:He needs an offense built around him to excel.
Jordysghost wrote: Your hyperbolic post isn't even accurate, Rodgers stats absolutely destroyed Hill's. Aside from that, the Vikes D hasn't shown nearly the pedigree that Rodgers has to make this even a remotely comparable thing. Im not even understanding completely, the Packers O played undoubtedly better then the Vikes did this most recent game, running and passing.
The fact that you think this is even remotely simillar to discussions of the Packers D in comparison to the Vikings D just goes to show how disillusioned you are, I don't think you understand how silly it is to say 'The Packers were only that good on D because of they're passing game' when our passing game was 25th in the league.
Hyperbolic remarks are no substitute for on field statistics, I get it, you want the Vikings D to be significantly better then the Packers despite the statistics not bearing that out at all, but making silly comments isn't going to make that happen.
I love SPAM. It is so delicious fried up and served with over easy eggs and toast. One of my favorite breakfasts.mansquatch wrote:You sir, have been trolled.
The best part of this Trolling is that I actually got you to attempt to put fourth some sort of rambling thought that links the Vikings Defensive Performance to Rogers. I mean really, how is that even remotely coherent? The whole point of my post was to point out absurdity by being absurd. By the way, my stats were total offense. I didn't say anything about defense.
Have a nice day.
... and on that note, I'm going to step in with this:mansquatch wrote:You sir, have been trolled.
The best part of this Trolling is that I actually got you to attempt to put fourth some sort of rambling thought that links the Vikings Defensive Performance to Rogers. I mean really, how is that even remotely coherent? The whole point of my post was to point out absurdity by being absurd. By the way, my stats were total offense. I didn't say anything about defense.
Have a nice day.
I completely agree, Norv is not doing a good job calling plays.... I think I could call a game better TBH. But, I also think Hill should have been audible happy seeing 10 people in the box. But nope, he would still hand it off and Peterson would run into 8 people.jackal wrote:IMO
Diggs and Theilen were most effective receivers
Hill had a couple of bad throws, but played like a decent back up
Norv Turner needs to go as our OC .. too stubborn .. if they overloading the box throw
the ball. Why run Peterson into a wall play after play.. If they aren't defending the
pass.. then pass the ball...
The difference is, Treadwell has to compete with Johnson who has been in this offense for 3 years and knows it inside and out. Braxton Miller is a rookie and Strong struggled to get playing time last year behind Cecil Shorts so what does that tell you about their WR corps? We have an outside stud in Diggs and another guy that has been in the system for 3 years. Houston has one of those in Hopkins and nothing beyond that. So I'll refer back to what I said originally that Houston has zero depth at WR. So with Fuller getting time early doesnt means crap to me.Jordysghost wrote: And who do you guys have? At all?
Again, I don't think having no depth at WR around him would improve his statistical production anyway, on the contrary, I think it would hurt it, but really, who do the Vikes have at WR?
I wonder if he was given the option to audible out of those plays. He's a veteran so I don't see why they'd hold that option back but sometimes coaches do that.Norv Zimmer wrote:I completely agree, Norv is not doing a good job calling plays.... I think I could call a game better TBH. But, I also think Hill should have been audible happy seeing 10 people in the box. But nope, he would still hand it off and Peterson would run into 8 people.