Vikings Message Board.Com

Thoughts on how we have have fared against the 49ers? Assuming we had a healthy Ponder and won last week, I'm not entirely convinced it wouldn't have been a blowout for the 49ers this week and that our defense could have stopped a QB like Kaepernick.

Orion wrote:Thoughts on how we have have fared against the 49ers? Assuming we had a healthy Ponder and won last week, I'm not entirely convinced it wouldn't have been a blowout for the 49ers this week and that our defense could have stopped a QB like Kaepernick.

On any given "Sunday" any team could win, or so they say. The Vikes played an exceptonal game when they played the 49ers but it was at home and the K man was not their QB.

Boon wrote:We would have played atlanta, not san fran

You are right, but what if it were th 49er's?

I think it would have been a similar result except I don't think we would have scored as many points as the Packers. AD would have been taken out of the equation early because of the score and I can't see Ponder and our WR core keeping pace with Kaepernick. Kaepernick finished with an NFL record (regular season and post season) 181 yards rushing from a QB. He probably would've went over 200 yards vs us considering how we notoriously struggle vs mobile QB's.

I still think we would have had a shot vs Atlanta, the opponent we would have played had we won last week.

Ohhhhh right. Wow i'm an idiot, forget this thread unless we switch to Atlanta :p

Orion wrote:Ohhhhh right. Wow i'm an idiot, forget this thread unless we switch to Atlanta :p

Hey we all screw up from time to time

Valhalla wrote:Green Bay made NO effective defense adjustments and 2 of San Francisco's TDs actually come in the 4th quarter, so GB totally collapsed. SF may have won but the Rams and Seahawks had both defeated them lately, I think GB was just caught out. I wonder if a lot of the responsibility rests with GB's defense coaches, Dom Capers, etc. I mean that game ended up being a total massacree but wasn't that way until about the 4th quarter besides Rodgers getting swarmed on Defense a lot. Packers looked very weak.

I think if that game is in Lambeau, it may have been a different story. I smile when I realize why it wasn't in Lambeau.

The 49ers need to send the Vikings a thank you gift...

makes you wonder if we'd of run webb more, would it of been closer? oh well.

does anyone think that our roster is actually much better than Green Bay's? Other than Rodgers, Clay Matthewss, BJ Raji, and an aging Woodson, that team doesn't really have a lot of talent. Of course the QB is the most important part

Something about Kaepernick doesn't feel like it rings true. I have this feeling from watching him that if a defense can bottle him up and force him to play like a pocket quarterback, that he'll get frustrated and make stupid mistakes. I don't know if Alan Williams also believes that, but something seemed mighty vanilla about the way the Green Bay defense played him, like they were trying to stop a conventional pocket passer all game long and couldn't believe that he'd run the ball so much. And most importantly, that they weren't ready for that.

I bet if you can irritate him into making a couple of those mistakes, then control the time of possession as much as possible, you could put Kaepernick in his place. The guy can run, and he can definitely chuck the ball pretty hard. But he sometimes doesn't seem like he can play "smart". I think Harbaugh and his coaching staff sort of compensate for that at times, but there's only so much a coach can do for a kid.

jayryp81 wrote:does anyone think that our roster is actually much better than Green Bay's? Other than Rodgers, Clay Matthewss, BJ Raji, and an aging Woodson, that team doesn't really have a lot of talent. Of course the QB is the most important part

They're very talented at WR. I wouldn't say the Vikings roster is better than Green Bay's (certainly not much better) but there's a comparable level of talent. It's just distributed differently.

Actually, seeing Atlanta play today, I think we would have had a decent shot to beat them, especially in the dome (with healthy Ponder).

All I could think about that whole game was the fact that we passed on Rodgers too... TWICE. I know QB wasn't exactly a need at the time (we had Culpepper I think), but we got Troy Williamson and Erasmus James with our two first round picks. I mean good Lord. Haha.

admvp wrote:All I could think about that whole game was the fact that we passed on Rodgers too... TWICE. I know QB wasn't exactly a need at the time (we had Culpepper I think), but we got Troy Williamson and Erasmus James with our two first round picks. I mean good Lord. Haha.

Ans Packer fans will let you know every time it comes up. The point is, did you see Green Bay taking a QB the last few years in the first round? Nope. Why? Because they have Rodgers. We had Culpepper who was coming off a fantastic season. So why would they pick a QB in the first round?

As to the games this weekend. I think with a healthy Ponder we could have played San Fran better than the Packers. Win? not so sure. Atlanta on the other hand, I think we could have taken them.

Mothman wrote: They're very talented at WR. I wouldn't say the Vikings roster is better than Green Bay's (certainly not much better) but there's a comparable level of talent. It's just distributed differently.

I look at it the same way. I think right now the Vikings and Packers are rather evenly matched, though most of their strengths and weaknesses lie in different areas.