Vikings Message Board.Com

PurpleKoolaid wrote:Packers dont like playing teams with good D. And our Vikes have one of the better ones. Its going to be a much closer game then a lot thought at the start of the year.

Yea, not like we almost tied up one of the best Ds in the league after trailing 37-14 or anything. Not like we beat one of the best Ds in the league earlier in the year either..

The one thing I think will help you guys alot, is that the Packers really don't like playing on the road, and I think in TCF that will help you, but if it comes down to week 17 in GB it is going to be a tough challenge for the Vikes.

PurpleMustReign wrote:Well, well, well...

The good:
Adrian Peterson
Blair Wal$h
The OL actually did quite well against the vaunted Rams' DL.
Linval Joseph is an absolute BEAST this season.
Marcus Sherels with a key return in OT

The bad:
Teddy still inconsistent
The Refs were horrific
The play calling at the end... Norv tried to get too cute

The ugly:
The refs were so bad
Locke didn't have a great game
The refs were terrible

The low-life scum:
Jeff Fisher, Gregg Williams, and the idiot player from STL. #### you all, I hope you rot in hell. ####.

Man the refs were soooooooo bad.
It doesn't surprise me that a Gregg williams defense plays dirty.... does it surprise you?
Lockes last punt was pretty decent going into the wind.

I agree with the playcalling at the end, wtf why would you bootleg old man hill? Just run AP, or if you wanna get cute jet sweep CP84, I was actually surprised they didn't Atleast try the sweep to him once.

I got banned from the rams forum til Sept 30 2017 for saying "the lambs had 2 dirty hits on bridgewater" after they had been calling the vikings queens.
I kinda wish I knew what they were saying right now....

Jordysghost wrote: Yea, not like we almost tied up one of the best Ds in the league after trailing 37-14 or anything. Not like we beat one of the best Ds in the league earlier in the year either..

The one thing I think will help you guys alot, is that the Packers really don't like playing on the road, and I think in TCF that will help you, but if it comes down to week 17 in GB it is going to be a tough challenge for the Vikes.

My point was, they lost 2 games in a row, to teams with really good defenses. Why are most of your post either sarcastic, or trying to start something with other members of this board. Do you get points on a Packer board for being a pain in the A over here?

PurpleKoolaid wrote: My point was, they lost 2 games in a row, to teams with really good defenses. Why are most of your post either sarcastic, or trying to start something with other members of this board. Do you get points on a Packer board for being a pain in the A over here?

I dont post with the intention of starting crap with other board members ever, jfyi.

Yes, they did, but i reject the premise that they 'cant' beat a top rated Defense, mainly because they already did, and partly because of the effort they poured upon the Panthers D in the closing moments of the game today, if i misunderstood your point, or took what you said out of context, then I apologize.

NFL.com just updated the standings. They always have tiebreakers applied. As of now, the Packers are still first in the NFC North and the Vikings are second. However, it's still early in the season. Eight more games to go.

akvikingsfan wrote:NFL.com just updated the standings. They always have tiebreakers applied. As of now, the Packers are still first in the NFC North and the Vikings are second. However, it's still early in the season. Eight more games to go.

Yes, including two head to head matchups, a race its going to be.

akvikingsfan wrote:NFL.com just updated the standings. They always have tiebreakers applied. As of now, the Packers are still first in the NFC North and the Vikings are second. However, it's still early in the season. Eight more games to go.

Vikings will get to Rodgers. I say a split isn't just optimistic, but realistic. Do I think Minnesota is a division winnner? Not really. Do I think they can win the division? Yes. It' just going to take some more growing (most especially from the offense) and dealing with the uncontrollable. By that, I mean Rodgers. He's the best in the game (We can argue between him and Brady, yeah, but you get the point) and not even what I would call an equalizer. A "put-you-over-the-top-er" kind of Q. He'll probably have a helping hand (arm?) in GB winning close games they may otherwise lose and we just can't control that. Vikings just need to keep taking care of business. 'Nuff said.

Jordysghost wrote:

Jordysghost wrote: Yea, not like we almost tied up one of the best Ds in the league after trailing 37-14 or anything. Not like we beat one of the best Ds in the league earlier in the year either..

The one thing I think will help you guys alot, is that the Packers really don't like playing on the road, and I think in TCF that will help you, but if it comes down to week 17 in GB it is going to be a tough challenge for the Vikes.

PurpleKoolaid wrote: My point was, they lost 2 games in a row, to teams with really good defenses. Why are most of your post either sarcastic, or trying to start something with other members of this board. Do you get points on a Packer board for being a pain in the A over here?

Jordysghost wrote: I dont post with the intention of starting crap with other board members ever, jfyi.

Yes, they did, but i reject the premise that they 'cant' beat a top rated Defense, mainly because they already did, and partly because of the effort they poured upon the Panthers D in the closing moments of the game today, if i misunderstood your point, or took what you said out of context, then I apologize.

Where did the words 'can't beat a top rated Defense' come from? I read 'Don't like playing playing teams with a good D.' I haven't followed the Packers, but it seems you lost two in a row and beat one earlier against good defenses. That puts you 1-2 against good defenses which qualifies for 'don't like playing'. You've admitted you don't like playing on the road and you're 2-2 on the road. So if they don't like that at .500 how could they possibly like playing good D's at 1-2???

You are rejecting a premise that you alone have put forward in this thread. And from where I sit you have absolutely confirmed the OP's position.

But you seem respectful in your attempts to defend your position which I sincerely appreciate. But you'll forgive me if I sincerely state what I see.

Worrying about who has the tiebreakers after eight games played is pointless.
The exciting part of this is having the opportunity of playing meaningful games from this point forward, sitting at 6-2. Especially after that Week 1 debacle.

Hopefully Teddy is healthy for these meaningful games. If anything, this week proved that Green Bay is hardly out of any game, and the Vikings can be a resourceful team. We may not be pretty. The defense may not be perfect. But I continue to like the direction this team is headed.

VikeMike wrote:Worrying about who has the tiebreakers after eight games played is pointless.
The exciting part of this is having the opportunity of playing meaningful games from this point forward, sitting at 6-2. Especially after that Week 1 debacle.

Hopefully Teddy is healthy for these meaningful games. If anything, this week proved that Green Bay is hardly out of any game, and the Vikings can be a resourceful team. We may not be pretty. The defense may not be perfect. But I continue to like the direction this team is headed.

Boy, can you imagine if we had won that first game? We would be 7-1, a game up on GB!!

PurpleMustReign wrote: Boy, can you imagine if we had won that first game? We would be 7-1, a game up on GB!!

... *and* undefeated in the NFC-- that is what makes that loss worse than the Denver loss.

I'll take 6-2 as long as we continue to improve and don't suddenly take a step backwards.

As I look at the standings, there is not a team we've beaten with a winning record. That will keep coming up. If the bears beat STL next week, then even after next week there won't have been a team with a winning record that we'd beaten. GB may be our first opportunity to actually win a game that most will concede is good. That's OK by me as long as we do win.

If the playoffs started today wouldn't we be the 3rd seed in the NFC?

Laserman wrote:If the playoffs started today wouldn't we be the 3rd seed in the NFC?

No..the Pack are the NFC North leader presently, due to tiebreakers, so we would be 5..or 6, not sure.

Jordysghost wrote: Yea, not like we almost tied up one of the best Ds in the league after trailing 37-14 or anything. Not like we beat one of the best Ds in the league earlier in the year either..

The one thing I think will help you guys alot, is that the Packers really don't like playing on the road, and I think in TCF that will help you, but if it comes down to week 17 in GB it is going to be a tough challenge for the Vikes.

This cracks me up no offense to the Vikings fans here but I swear AR has a @#!@#!@# (no swear words Mom) Minnesota mailing address. He has always been comfortable in Viking territory. Not to mention the GB minn games have so much green and yellow in the stands you would think there was poison fish pregame