Vikings Message Board.Com

80 PurplePride 84 wrote:If Cassel is as good as you think he is. Kansas City wouldn't have cut him.

That's just silly. It wouldn't be hard to find a list of Superbowl winning QB's who were let go by their former team. The easy one is Drew Brees. Two ex-Vikes won, in Gannon and Johnson. Favre was traded by the team that initially drafted him, and then released twice?, and would have led us to the Superbowl if it wasn't for the ref calls and the bounty bowl.

John_Viveiros wrote: That's just silly. It wouldn't be hard to find a list of Superbowl winning QB's who were let go by their former team. The easy one is Drew Brees. Two ex-Vikes won, in Gannon and Johnson. Favre was traded by the team that initially drafted him, and then released twice?, and would have led us to the Superbowl if it wasn't for the ref calls and the bounty bowl.

I agree totally and some players might not fit certain systems but finally settle into one that seems to work. I think Cassel might fit into that category and will make a good stop-gap until a younger QB can be found.

Purple bruise - just curious, if you are a Vikings fan then why do you have a picture of Rodgers for your avatar?

Purple Reign wrote:Purple bruise - just curious, if you are a Vikings fan then why do you have a picture of Rodgers for your avatar?

Okay I have answered this question before but I will explain it again. No one should "hate" another team as much as I hate the Packers but I do and so if you look at the Avatr it is not very flattering is it? I have a bunch of friends that are Packer fans and it makes Rogers look like a total dufuss and that is why just to dog them out.

Purple bruise wrote:
So what is so HAHAHAHAHAHA funny, Your prediction that this game would be the Viking's worst home loss EVER And what were you HAHAHAing about during the game Kudos to you for your prediction

Did you pass your third grade reading comprehension test? Something tells me you failed to do so.

I never said that this (game) was going to be, "the worst lost in Vikings' home history." I said this COULD be the worst Vikings' home loss in a LONG time. A long time does not equate to a holistic time period in regards to history (in this case, 'ever').

As if I have to explain my laughing, but hey, since you so 'kindly' asked, I will gladly share. Ever since we have lost in the 2010 NFCCG, my friends and I have vowed to try to take the Vikings' losing less seriously. Following three disappointing, losing seasons in 4 years, we have found that laughing is a way to cope. We like to laugh when our bum QBs throw interceptions (because it has been the norm). We like to laugh when our defense gives up a big passing playing and/or TD (because, again, that has become the norm).

Feel free to continue to selectively quote and respond to certain posts (as you so frequently do on this board) in your efforts to try to mock other posters. However, may I refer to to page 24 of this thread. I believe I said, "I will gladly eat my helping of crow," following the conclusion of the game.

Purple bruise wrote: Okay I have answered this question before but I will explain it again. No one should "hate" another team as much as I hate the Packers but I do and so if you look at the Avatr it is not very flattering is it? I have a bunch of friends that are Packer fans and it makes Rogers look like a total dufuss and that is why just to dog them out.

Thanks for the answer. But to me it looks just like a caricature of Rodgers and caricatures are meant to be kind of goofy and not meant to be all that flattering. To me, and I'm sure to others here as well, having Rodgers as your avatar, flattering or not, comes off more as you being a fan of Rodgers - just saying.

HardcoreVikesFan wrote: Did you pass your third grade reading comprehension test? Something tells me you failed to do so.

I never said that this (game) was going to be, "the worst lost in Vikings' home history." I said this COULD be the worst Vikings' home loss in a LONG time. A long time does not equate to a holistic time period in regards to history (in this case, 'ever').

As if I have to explain my laughing, but hey, since you so 'kindly' asked, I will gladly share. Ever since we have lost in the 2010 NFCCG, my friends and I have vowed to try to take the Vikings' losing less seriously. Following three disappointing, losing seasons in 4 years, we have found that laughing is a way to cope. We like to laugh when our bum QBs throw interceptions (because it has been the norm). We like to laugh when our defense gives up a big passing playing and/or TD (because, again, that has become the norm).

Feel free to continue to selectively quote and respond to certain posts (as you so frequently do on this board) in your efforts to try to mock other posters. However, may I refer to to page 24 of this thread. I believe I said, "I will gladly eat my helping of crow," following the conclusion of the game.

Okay, a couple of things. 1) what is a holistic time period? 2) yes I did pass all of my tests and did manage to get a Masters Degree in Economics thank you

Purple Reign wrote: Thanks for the answer. But to me it looks just like a caricature of Rodgers and caricatures are meant to be kind of goofy and not meant to be all that flattering. To me, and I'm sure to others here as well, having Rodgers as your avatar, flattering or not, comes off more as you being a fan of Rodgers - just saying.

Yeah, ok but take my word for it, I despise the Packers thus the Avatar. One of the other members has a goofy picture of Ponder, you might ask him the same question. I am certain that he hates Ponder.

Purple bruise wrote: Yeah, ok but take my word for it, I despise the Packers thus the Avatar. One of the other members has a goofy picture of Ponder, you might ask him the same question. I am certain that he hates Ponder.

His avatar is a little different as that is an actual picture of Bob Denver (aka Gilligan) with a confused look on his face - no mistaking his intention there. IMO, a caricature really isn't mocking anyone. Again, just my observation/interpretation. I have no doubt that you hate the Packers but you will more than likely have to explain it again to future new posters.

Purple Reign wrote: His avatar is a little different as that is an actual picture of Bob Denver (aka Gilligan) with a confused look on his face - no mistaking his intention there. IMO, a caricature really isn't mocking anyone. Again, just my observation/interpretation. I have no doubt that you hate the Packers but you will more than likely have to explain it again to future new posters.

Yeah, you are sort of correct except for the part about explaining it again because I really could not care less if anyone "gets it" or not, I know what it means and my Packer loving double check buddies also know what it means/stands for and that is all.

Purple bruise wrote: Yeah, you are sort of correct except for the part about explaining it again because I really could not care less if anyone "gets it" or not, I know what it means and my Packer loving double check buddies also know what it means/stands for and that is all.

Well, you said you had already explained it before and you did it again when I asked - so I do think you care a little bit.

There was an 'explanation' in there? Still looks like a Packer's fan and an Aaron Rodgers admirer to me.

Eli wrote:There was an 'explanation' in there? Still looks like a Packer's fan and an Aaron Rodgers admirer to me.

Yeah, he explained the avatar - didn't you read all the posts?

Eli wrote:There was an 'explanation' in there? Still looks like a Packer's fan and an Aaron Rodgers admirer to me.

If it is all that important to you then I suggest that you read the posts unless of course you are just trying to "start up " again.

Purple bruise wrote: If it is all that important to you then I suggest that you read the posts unless of course you are just trying to "start up " again.

I'm not going back through all of your posts trying to find it. If you want to look like the world's biggest Packer and Aaron Rodgers fan, that's up to you.