GB vs Minnesota schedule

Well, you keep tellin' yourself that..whatever gets you through the night, i guess.

Some people just don't think this team is for real yet. They beat some poor teams, and should have lost another game or two. But we will see that this team isn't for real very soon. Now is when it counts.

well your history on predictions is pretty bad since you seem to be a history buff and all so doubt you convince many with prediction record. I doubt you get to play the Vikings but if you do i like the vikes chances as I am batting 1.000 on my predictions

:viksux:

I would say your memory is about half right. The Packers had a good team in 96. Here is a list of teams they beat and their records.


The 9 teams with losing records and scores the Packers beat in 1996.
Tampa Bay 6-10 Beat them 34-3 and 13-7
Detroit 5-11 Beat them 28-18 and 31-3
Chicago 7-9 Beat them 37-3 and 28-17
St Louis 6-10 Beat them 24-9
Seattle 6-10 Beat them 31-10
San Diego 8-8 Beat them 42-10

And the 4 teams with winning records and scores in 1996 the Packers beat.
Denver 13-3 Beat them 41-3
Philly 10-6 Beat them 39-13
San Fran 12-4 Beat them 23-20
Vikings 9-7 Beat them 38-10

And the Packers 3 losses were to
Vikings 9-7 Lost to them 21-30
Dallas 10-6 Lost to them 6-21
Kansas City 9-7 Lost to them 27-20

All of the Packers wins against winning teams came at Lambeau. They beat no winning team on the road. The overall record of the teams played was 101-107. All in all a good year. It would be interesting to see what the overall record of teams played is for teams that win the Super Bowl.

Nice stats

You do know that there's only two games on the Vikings schedule that are different than the Packers, right? The Vikings play the Panthers instead of the Buccaneers and the Giants instead of the Cowboys.

The schedule argument isn't a good one, since I can say the same thing about Minnesota if you want to play that game.

Join the club. I feel the same way about Green Bay. That is why I can't wait to see the two teams square off in week 17.

My dream would be for Philly to settle for a wild card so that they would have to face Arizona - both of those teams I wouldn't want Minnesota to have to play. The ironic thing is that I believe Green Bay could handle either of those teams because they've got enough defense and more than enough offense.

The more I think about it, the more I feel Minnesota might not even win a playoff game, if they have to face Arizona or Philly.

WTF with you and predictions? When did I made such?

If you care, I'm 9-4 on my predictions. (Betted for us in Tampa and against us against Cowboys).

And I'm predicting a loss next week.

And you're batting 1.000? What about AZ and Pittsburgh? Did you bet your team to lose on those?

See, I don't go make claimings, I ask...

I know it's a hard concept, discussing with what the other says, instead of what you put on his mouth...

I was talking GB vs the purple and if you noticed I did pick the Steelers to beat the vikings in Pitt. I was wrong about the cardibal game but I also picked the packers to beat the winless bucs also

A romp in the dome is what I predict. Listening to you guys you act like the packers are the team to beat and that in its self is hilarious

Actually he said he doesn't see the vikings winning a playoff game

Just as long as we're all on the same page - if Green Bay has to play Minnesota, its season more than likely comes to a screeching halt. I don't think there is another NFC team save New Orleans ( And, I'm not sure how they match-up with Green Bay. I do know they waxed Green Bay last season, and New Orleans really sucked on defense last year.) that Green Bay couldn't manage.

My hope is that Green Bay or Minnesota at least contends for the NFCC. If the seeds unfold at some point and in a manner that sees Green Bay playing New Orleans and Minnesota has to face Philly or Airzona BEFORE the NFCCG, I think there's gonna be enough tears to fill the 10000 lakes in Minnesota and the 8500 lakes in Wisconsin.

Actually, a lot of us act like the Packers are a team to be taken serously, not that we're the team to beat.

What I've been trying to say is that the circumstances have changed tremenduously since the last vikings game, and that the premise that out of 10 Vikings x Packers games at the Humpty Dump the Vikings would win 9 is preposturous.

And as I've said before, because of the HF advantage, they would probably win 7 ouf of 10, but they're favorites, not winners already.

But, also as I've mentioned, it's futile this discussion, outside of the smack talk area IMHO, because it'll take a lot from us, and some luck, to have another MN x GB game this year.

Of course it is because Minnesota wouldn't win 9 out of 10, they'd win 10 out of 10. Green Bay does not match up well with Minnesota and unfortunately for them, this is 85% of the battle before the game even starts.

You guys really refuse to accept certain truths that to me, are certainly self-evident.

Again, what's the lotery numbers?

Why do they bother to play? They should just listen to you, and see who wins...:happy0005:

You crack me up...

9-4 is very respectable

:viksux:
Yes the Packer team that started the season did not match up well the vikings.

The only thing we know for sure is that the vikings have been the better regular season team start to finish of the regular 16 game season. Yet, as of this posting the vikings have not locked up the division.

I am sure the vikings and the Patriots (2007) can take great pride in the regular season, as for the rest of us the main event starts in playoffs. The Packers are just starting to come together and the vikings are showing signs of wear.

lol yeah we just dominated a team the beat the pack this week so keep talking smart guy because you clowns have been wrong all year, anyway we are in the playoffs alread and not the pukers

Anything you say big guy

:crazy:

I've stated it is "possible" the loss of Kampman draws the Packers closer to the Vikings, but there was quite a distance to begin with. It isn't necessarily that Minnesota is "that" much better than "every" NFL team, as much as it is they are quite a bit better than "certain" teams, and Green Bay is one of them.

Green Bay chose to stop All Day instead of Favre in both meetings. Normally, this would be the smart thing to do, but the problem is All Day has lost a step; either that, or the loss of Matt Birk has severely hampered Minnesota's ground game. The ironic thing, however, is that when Chester Taylor comes in to run, he usually gets 4 yards like clockwork, and you never see him running up the backs of his O-lineman.

If Green Bay plays Minny again, it might be a better idea to stop Favre because All Day has proven that he or he and his lineman are not capable of carrying the team.

I just HAD to bump this thread after all the trash talk we got from our Queens visitors on the forum. This game right now is why we don't think the Vikes are going very far in the post-season.

The possibility of a Vikes/Pack wild card matchup just became plausible.

I cannot imagine the media hype if we play Favre again. It's going to be sickening.