Re: Vikes Packers game day thread
Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:51 pm
This will just set up rogers to continue his career afternoon. Wind knocked out looks like.
A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://vikingsmessageboard.com/
TSonn wrote: My bad, virtually worthless was aggressive. Sub 500 is probably accurate.
I don't recall anyone questioning Bradford's toughness here.tmscr wrote:Any NFL fan who questions Sam bradfords toughness after this season needs their head examined. Absolutely tragic what he has to work with
Nobody cares.Jordysghost wrote:
The 96 Packers had a record setting D and cruised to an easy SB win on the running game, D, and special teans, Favre was a regular season star but largely took a backseat in the playoffs in the cold of Lambeau, its pretty clear a lesser QB could probably have sufficed as long as he was solid.
The 2010 Packers D was ranked higher then the O and closed out 3 of the 4 playoff games, we almost beat the Patriots with Flynn that year, I dont think anything of what you said bears out in reality.
That's why I said NFL fan. That's the knock on him, that he's fragile.Purple Reign wrote: I don't recall anyone questioning Bradford's toughness here.
I just would imagine if one didnt want to be corrected they wouldnt say things that dont bear out.[/quote]Jordysghost wrote:Nobody cares.
What packer cheese board do you belong to? I am gonna join. Send me the link.[/quote]purplehaze wrote: I just would imagine if one didnt want to be corrected they wouldnt say things that dont bear out.
I just would imagine if one didnt want to be corrected they wouldnt say things that dont bear out.[/quote]Jordysghost wrote:Nobody cares.
Like I said, that belongs on a different thread.[/quote]Dmizzle0 wrote: I just would imagine if one didnt want to be corrected they wouldnt say things that dont bear out.
Whatever man. I grew up in WI and had to watch the Packers every year. Favre was the MVP in 1996 so I think he was probably helpful for them that year. 2010 was a down year for Rodgers sure but 28/11 is still way better than Matt Flynn would have done.Jordysghost wrote: I just would imagine if one didnt want to be corrected they wouldnt say things that dont bear out.