Vikings Message Board.Com

fiestavike wrote:
Oh I know. I'm not one of these "only focus on the positives" people. I just thought that the thread was kinda reactionary since the game thread was full of plenty of negatives (most of them legitimate!). It just struck me as an unnecessary response to the "positives" thread, which was clearly already in reaction to all of the negative observations that were pretty much self-evident to anyone who watched that game. In other words it struck me as rather intended to irritate and provoke and it would have amused me if nobody had responded to it at all...fat chance I know.

Many people call it 'trolling'. But maybe that kind of thing is ok nowadays, who knows.

Watching the replay and only one quarter into it, but...

-Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy on O
-Offensive line was puke
-Toby Gerhart. AP goes down and the Vikings are screwed.
-Ponder and Jennings' rapport.

2 of the 3 will fixed.

Had to wait for the game to be on NFLN here.

Way more negs than pos. Our O-line pretty much sucked, QBs had no protection. We have too much talent to look that bad.

Ponder needs to step up NOW. 3rd year for him, and it's time for him to hit more than ONE FAVORITE RECEIVER!!! His favorite should be whomever is OPEN.

D was much better than O, still need to work on tackling, they can't just hit down their man. They will improve.

Lots of work to do this week. Glad we have a 'long week' to prep for the 9ers.

tnvikesfan wrote:Had to wait for the game to be on NFLN here.



Ponder needs to step up NOW. 3rd year for him, and it's time for him to hit more than ONE FAVORITE RECEIVER!!! His favorite should be whomever is OPEN.

As he did in my opinion. Rudolph with a drop and a throw on the money to Jarius but just a great defensive play made it look worse than it appeared...Along with the putrid O-line play. His pocket awareness and mobility were a huge + in this game, in my opinion. His accuracy was on point.

One negative to me was the lack of familiarity that him and Jennings showed.

PurpleMustReign wrote: Many people call it 'trolling'. But maybe that kind of thing is ok nowadays, who knows.

Horrible game looked sloppy everywhere...starting a thread to point out how great our Punter is, our punt returner, and our third string quarterback? Now THAT'S trolling...

Or just pathetic.

Or maybe a bit of both.

Man the homers are getting pretty riled up now that they're starting to realize the reality of the situation, and it isn't as purple and golden as they built themselves up to believe...and lashing out at anyone that says so.

Demi wrote:
Horrible game looked sloppy everywhere...starting a thread to point out how great our Punter is, our punt returner, and our third string quarterback? Now THAT'S trolling...

Or just pathetic.

Or maybe a bit of both.

Man the homers are getting pretty riled up now that they're starting to realize the reality of the situation, and it isn't as purple and golden as they built themselves up to believe...and lashing out at anyone that says so.

I find Demi to be quite right, every time the 'negative' talks starts there is a group of people who always throw the troll word and also that people are thinking irrationally. I have been barely on this forum a year with a bit of 100 post, and maybe a handful of them include what I don't like about Ponder and yet I have still been called a naysayer and a Ponder hater. It seems like taking about the negatives after a game is frowned on because its obviously clear what we are doing wrong in those games, so doing is trolling (or at least it says in another post) however, is it also not clear what we did right? So talking about the positives (which everyone who watched the game saw) while ignoring a game that was filled with a lot more negatives because everyone can see the negatives so its trolling to talk about them? Someone help me out this seems quite contradicting.

fiestavike wrote: I don't see anything wrong with talking about the negatives. I talk about the negatives. That last game was ugly. That said...there are a few people on this board who are trolls, not because they want to talk about the negatives, but because they are trolls. Their objective is not to carry on a conversation, just to be incendiary and get people riled up. Its all good. I don't care that much, I just find it funny.

That explains it a bit better thanks.

fiestavike wrote: I don't see anything wrong with talking about the negatives. I talk about the negatives. That last game was ugly. That said...there are a few people on this board who are trolls, not because they want to talk about the negatives, but because they are trolls. Their objective is not to carry on a conversation, just to be incendiary and get people riled up. Its all good. I don't care that much, I just find it funny.

You nailed that and how very true it is. Read their daily posts and especially the game posts. You called a troll a troll except I do not find it funny it is quite sad that they try and pass themselves off as fans and then scream good/fan, bad/fan whenever they are "called out" for it.

Or you could just choose to not repsond to the hyperbole, that is my typical approach.

The trolling gets annoying, but I'd rather have that vs. aggressive mods who are constant canning converstations in effort to keep a clean board. It isn't that hard to "self-moderate" and thus everyone gets what they want out of the board. Maybe not all things to all people, but it works for me.

Note this is just my view of how things transpire here and the above in no way reflects actual board policy.

There was a lot of negative in the game on Friday, but I stand by what i said earlier which is that it is a preseason game. So I take the coach's word for it when he says they practiced to work on the Vikings, not the Bills. If that had been a regular season game my views would be dramatically different.

definitely a lot of negatives from fridays game, especially on offense, but when a team blitzes 80% of the time in a preseason game, its not going to be pretty for us since no one would expect that sort of thing in a preseason game. ponder had zero time and did alright. too many drops and guys in his face for him to do much. defense didnt look too bad, but i dont think preseason is a good indication at all of regular season performance.

Demi wrote: Man the homers are getting pretty riled up now that they're starting to realize the reality of the situation, and it isn't as purple and golden as they built themselves up to believe...and lashing out at anyone that says so.

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.


What rubs people is the tone and heavy sarcasm incluced in the constant, to the point of being redundant, drone of people who just can't accept the FO's decisions. Whether or not those decisions pan out is the point of watching the games in the first place. Ragging and nagging about them constantly when it won't change anything is a bit like the definition of insanity.

It's no great feat to disect what goes wrong every time it does. It's pretty evident to anyone who watches. To disect it without actually adding anything constructive other than namecalling and whiney drivel is akin to pouring gas on a burning blaze. There is a huge difference between sparking a fire and pouring gas on one, and you pretend to not know what it is. This makes people question your actual intent for being involved in conversations in the first place.

IMO there are only two kinds of people that post here, ones that I would enjoy having a beer with watching a game and others that I would not. I imagine you to be quite different in person as far as actual conversation....that's what's funky about the internet.

I suppose there are some people who post here that actually look to be part of a community and make some friends, as weird as that may sound....and some others just like to be forum parrots repeating the same theme over and over and over.

15 minutes to Wopner~

The Breeze wrote:
I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.


What rubs people is the tone and heavy sarcasm incluced in the constant, to the point of being redundant, drone of people who just can't accept the FO's decisions. Whether or not those decisions pan out is the point of watching the games in the first place. Ragging and nagging about them constantly when it won't change anything is a bit like the definition of insanity.

It's no great feat to disect what goes wrong every time it does. It's pretty evident to anyone who watches. To disect it without actually adding anything constructive other than namecalling and whiney drivel is akin to pouring gas on a burning blaze. There is a huge difference between sparking a fire and pouring gas on one, and you pretend to not know what it is. This makes people question your actual intent for being involved in conversations in the first place.

IMO there are only two kinds of people that post here, ones that I would enjoy having a beer with watching a game and others that I would not. I imagine you to be quite different in person as far as actual conversation....that's what's funky about the internet.

I suppose there are some people who post here that actually look to be part of a community and make some friends, as weird as that may sound....and some others just like to be forum parrots repeating the same theme over and over and over.

15 minutes to Wopner~

Very cool Breeze and insightful. The one thing that I would disagree with is that these kinds of "fans" are no different in their real life than their internet life. I am proud to be a homer it beats the hell out of whatever they are

Purple bruise wrote: Very cool Breeze and insightful. The one thing that I would disagree with is that these kinds of "fans" are no different in their real life than their internet life. I am proud to be a homer it beats the hell out of whatever they are

I tend to agree more with Breeze, if you really think you can 'know' someone after just talking on a message board your probably a very judgemental person. I have known lost of people that are either the cup is half full or half empty people and they all get along all the same.

The Breeze wrote:
I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.


What rubs people is the tone and heavy sarcasm incluced in the constant, to the point of being redundant, drone of people who just can't accept the FO's decisions. Whether or not those decisions pan out is the point of watching the games in the first place. Ragging and nagging about them constantly when it won't change anything is a bit like the definition of insanity.

It's no great feat to disect what goes wrong every time it does. It's pretty evident to anyone who watches. To disect it without actually adding anything constructive other than namecalling and whiney drivel is akin to pouring gas on a burning blaze. There is a huge difference between sparking a fire and pouring gas on one, and you pretend to not know what it is. This makes people question your actual intent for being involved in conversations in the first place.

IMO there are only two kinds of people that post here, ones that I would enjoy having a beer with watching a game and others that I would not. I imagine you to be quite different in person as far as actual conversation....that's what's funky about the internet.

I suppose there are some people who post here that actually look to be part of a community and make some friends, as weird as that may sound....and some others just like to be forum parrots repeating the same theme over and over and over.

15 minutes to Wopner~

Good post.

People say that Vikings fans should all be pessimistic. That there have been so many failures, we should just expect it. I guess I just go against the grain. After 44 years as a Vikings fan, I'm actually an OPTIMIST. I expect good things. Yeah, I get crushed at times, but are the pessimists any better off simply because they had lower expectations? Don't think so. They may say that, but I don't believe them. They're fans, and fans live and die with their team.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say this.

I have complete faith that the Minnesota Vikings are going to win a Lombardi trophy in my lifetime. When they do, I plan to be one of the few who hoped for it, rather than the many who are surprised by it.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Good post.

People say that Vikings fans should all be pessimistic. That there have been so many failures, we should just expect it. I guess I just go against the grain. After 44 years as a Vikings fan, I'm actually an OPTIMIST. I expect good things. Yeah, I get crushed at times, but are the pessimists any better off simply because they had lower expectations? Don't think so. They may say that, but I don't believe them. They're fans, and fans live and die with their team.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say this.

I have complete faith that the Minnesota Vikings are going to win a Lombardi trophy in my lifetime. When they do, I plan to be one of the few who hoped for it, rather than the many who are surprised by it.

I think your attitude honestly reflects the way I feel. I used to have times where I was gut shot after losses or be axnious during games. Football is the weirdest thing. But now days I'm just such a fan of the action and artistry of the game that it over rides my old expectations. I'm still dejected when the season ends in a loss or they miss the playoffs, but win or lose I usually feel like I get a good return on my time invested being a fan of this team~