Page 3 of 4
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:38 am
by PacificNorseWest
Heading into next season and by projecting some things, I would say the Vikings are probably looking like a top 2 or 3 team in the NFC. Honestly, I only see Carolina being better at this point and Seattle is debatable.
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:09 pm
by mondry
PacificNorseWest wrote:Heading into next season and by projecting some things, I would say the Vikings are probably looking like a top 2 or 3 team in the NFC. Honestly, I only see Carolina being better at this point and Seattle is debatable.
Yeah, anything but the #1 or #2 seed and a first round bye next year would be absolutely frustrating. Not that they still couldn't win it all from the #3-#8 seed but having that bye week to heal up is always nice.
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:23 pm
by dead_poet
mondry wrote:
Yeah, anything but the #1 or #2 seed and a first round bye next year would be absolutely frustrating.
Whoa.
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 1:51 pm
by jackal
honestly the Vikings OL is the only thing keeping them out of top dicussion for NFL teams
If they fix the OL A.P. will probably break 1800 next season. Teddy will move into the 4000 relm and
we will only lose a few games at most. Our defense is going to get better again. Hendricks, Barr, Hunter
all look to be all pro players, so far. Smith, Rhodes are in their prime, along with Griffen.
We should start to see Waynes emerge into his abilty this season. Newman even though old
really solidified his place in the secondary. I am hoping we can add dept to the LB core
especially if Greenway is gone.
Luckily most of the over paid players are FA or in a spot to redo their deals are be dropped
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:36 pm
by chicagopurple
Yeah,, IF we fix most of the Ol.....Unfortunately, it seems Spielman is going to try and sell us our current retreads on the OL...Again!
"they have more experience now, now they are healthy, blah blah blah".......get a NEW OL or we are going no where.
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:30 am
by Jordysghost
jackal wrote:Based on what? they had a top 12 O and D coupled with a HOF QB, a top 5 youngest roster, and one of the leagues best cap situation.
Their defense is terrible, especially in the playoffs. The refs threw GB probably two wins this year. That face mask call against Detroit
being one of them. It was obvious in the in the replay that the Detroit didn't grab Rodgers face mask, but lets break down your logic ??
One of the NFL's best cap situations? Wrong your 15'th in the league (middle of the road) right now
You couldn't afford a top NFL free agent unless you moved his cap across many seasons.
http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/
GB has top five youngest roster? Well lets look at how all those young wide outs did for you through
the grind of the season?
http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/ Yeah all those drops, led you guys from being five or six
drops on the season to being worst in the league. Luckily Eagles and Giants were really bad. Our younger roster
including Teddy was like five spots better than your "TOP FIVE young team.... when it came to drops.
Reality check...Teddy had one of the best games against Denver and Arizona, on the road this season.
Rodgers had two horrible games against Denver 76 passing yards and Arizona ripped you guys a new one.
Your delusional if you think your team is going the right way. WE only lost one divisional game last season
(which happened to be against you guys) Green Bay lost every divisional home game 0-3 at home versus
NFC North teams. Rodgers was 17th in yards last season You lost by thirty points in Arizona
and Rodgers had a 64 percentage QBR. If you take away the Divisional win against Detroit in which
you should have lost(via the terrible face mask call). Carolina thumped you guys too by what 19 points.
Next season your schedule with be much harder and you lost against three of the playoff teams by
an average of twenty points last year (Carolina, Denver, and Arizona) I think you guys will be closer
to the bottom of the North than top(which is where the Vikings will be).
Reality check, current cap space is not the same thing as ' overall cap situation', which you apparently seem to think.
Our young Wrs? you mean our 5th round and 7th round picks? Every other WR on the roster incurred a lingering injury and missed a good amount of the season. Jordy out, Cobb out/nursing injury, Adams, out/nursing injury, Montgomery, nursing injury until incurring a season ending injury.
You can cry all you want about that facemask call (that the league stood by) but you always seem to ignore the incorrectly blown whistle that costed GB the game winning thanksgiving night TD, or the undisputable incorrectly non called penalty that hande AZ a 20-13 lead, i think is clear that performance was much more indicative of the Green Bay Packers, and with our top 3, yes top 3 WRS out of action that game.
Oh and, like nearly everything else you stated above, you may want to check your facts abut that Carolina game, we lost by 8.
QBR is an absolutely worthless stat that noone gives even a remote crap, how about you use real stats to make your point, like passer rating, of whom Rodgers was top 5 in the league in the worst statistical year of his career since his first.
Not trying to be mean, but i am not even remotely worried of being 'bottom in the North', Aaron Rodgers alone pretty much guarantees a playoff spot and I think he is going to come back swinging next year for another MVP honor, we will see though, but Its pretty hard to be worried when they have a HOF QB, top 12 D, and one of the youngest rosters in the league.
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:44 am
by chicagopurple
and I think they are gonna sign Forte and get a quality, reliable RB who is a very good reciever.......
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:52 am
by Jordysghost
chicagopurple wrote:and I think they are gonna sign Forte and get a quality, reliable RB who is a very good reciever.......
Who?
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:20 am
by losperros
Jordysghost wrote:
Who?
I think he means the Packers. There are a lot of rumors circulating saying GB is interested in Forte, according to the media talking heads.
Do you know anything about that? Would it be a good fit?
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:38 am
by autobon7
losperros wrote:
I think he means the Packers. There are a lot of rumors circulating saying GB is interested in Forte, according to the media talking heads.
Do you know anything about that? Would it be a good fit?
Not sure how Jordy feels but I think A-Aron would love to have Forte. I hope it doesn't happen.
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:17 pm
by mansquatch
The real question for GB is if whatever phantom ailment that plagued them through most of this past season on offense has been resolved. Was it coaching, was it some phantom injury, what was it? No one seems to know.
No place in the NFC North is set in stone next season. The Bears which were the dumpster fire of the conference on paper were very competitive last season. The Lions have the biggest hurdles IMO, especially of CJ leaves. Regardless, no team is without flaws and none should be taken for granted.
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:55 pm
by Mothman
mansquatch wrote:The real question for GB is if whatever phantom ailment that plagued them through most of this past season on offense has been resolved. Was it coaching, was it some phantom injury, what was it? No one seems to know.
First and foremost, I think it was the loss of Jordy Nelson, their best receiver and biggest deep threat. That changed the way they had to play offense.
There were other factors too but I believe that was the big one.
No place in the NFC North is set in stone next season. The Bears which were the dumpster fire of the conference on paper were very competitive last season. The Lions have the biggest hurdles IMO, especially of CJ leaves. Regardless, no team is without flaws and none should be taken for granted.
I agree. There's no reason to think GB won't be competing for the division title again (ditto for the Vikings). Detroit got their act together in the second half of last season and won 6 of their final 8 games. Based on Fox's track record, the Bears are likely an ascending team too. I doubt they'll be ready to seriously compete for the NFC North crown in 2016 but they could be a "tough out" and a real factor in who wins it.
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:25 pm
by losperros
Losing Jordy Nelson definitely left a big gap in the Pack's offense.
Regarding next season, it might be a hard fought war in the NFC North. I don't see a team there that couldn't conceivably be better than last season, including the Vikings. Let's see what each team does in the draft and free agency. All of them need improvement in one area or another.
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:02 am
by jackal
Regarding next season, it might be a hard fought war in the NFC North. I don't see a team there that couldn't conceivably be better than last season, including the Vikings. Let's see what each team does in the draft and free agency. All of them need improvement in one area or another.
I somewhat agree with NFC north getting tougher.. I think Chicago is in full rebuild mode...WE still have not seen what Kevin White will do
for the Bears. The Lions I think are having issues and are suffering some retirements. It looks like the Vikings and Packers will be fighting
out for the Championship again next season.
Re: Who's better than the Vikings?
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:57 am
by Jordysghost
mansquatch wrote:The real question for GB is if whatever phantom ailment that plagued them through most of this past season on offense has been resolved. Was it coaching, was it some phantom injury, what was it? No one seems to know.
No place in the NFC North is set in stone next season. The Bears which were the dumpster fire of the conference on paper were very competitive last season. The Lions have the biggest hurdles IMO, especially of CJ leaves. Regardless, no team is without flaws and none should be taken for granted.
Honestly, it isn't that big of a mystery imo.
First and foremost, both Rodgers and Lacy were legitimately just off there game, no way around that. (Lacy had a lingering ankle injury, but he seems to have one every year.)
But the injuries to our WR core put it over the top, Jordy out, Adams nursing an injury all season that kept him out a few games as well, Cobb nursing an AC joint sprain, Montgomery dealing with a lingering injury until finally being dealt a season ending blow, it was a big #### fest at WR until finally as you may have seen in the playoffs we were down to Jeff Janis and Jared Abbredaris as our top two starters. (Who played admirably in that last playoff game, I might add.)