Viking's New QB?

[Packerbacker87]

I know there are some Vikings fans here on this board, and I was curious what their reaction is/was to this bit of news: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3928630

I think Sage is a reliable back up, but a starter?...not so sure.

IMO Vikings would be better off releasing Frerotte, picking up Garcia, and having Jackson learn from an experienced (and often good) veteran....then again, as a Packers fan, I'm not interested in the Viking's best interests

 

[DonnieCash]

I'd rather them sign Sage than Jeff Garcia.

IF they get a guy like Garcia, I say they have the conference pretty much wrapped up.

 

[nelanator]

Garcia for a fourth would be a better option, and they could have gotten Garcia for no picks at all...

Frerotte is as good as gone now.

 

[Aa-rodg_is_cool]

There garbage no matter whos at QB.. They can have fun with sage.. He was a backup for a reason

 

[Raptorman]

There garbage no matter whos at QB.. They can have fun with sage.. He was a backup for a reason

You know everyone keeps saying he's a backup for a reason. Really? Have you ever even seen him play besides the highlight reel from the Colts game? Just think of it like this, since the Vikings QB's have been below average the last few years, all Sage has to do is be above average.

 

[Vikeman]

Anything is better then what we had....I mean look at this.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3_hi7gOjE0

 

[PackersRS]

That stuff right there is what really grinds my gears man... The purples make poor choices every year, and the last time they had a QB was with Culpepper in 2000. The bears are just an awful, awful team that never had a decent QB, and the *****cats are the worst franchise in the history of the NFL. Considering there should be at least 5 wins from them every year (give 1 home win to either Chicago or Minnesota for their D), we should win the division every year! Sure, the NFC WEST is the worst division by miles, but our's is not that hard either...

 

[Vikeman]

That stuff right there is what really grinds my gears man... The purples make poor choices every year, and the last time they had a QB was with Culpepper in 2000. The bears are just an awful, awful team that never had a decent QB, and the *****cats are the worst franchise in the history of the NFL. Considering there should be at least 5 wins from them every year (give 1 home win to either Chicago or Minnesota for their D), we should win the division every year! Sure, the NFC WEST is the worst division by miles, but our's is not that hard either...

poor choices every year? give me examples of poor choices the past 5 years in the draft and free agency compared to the Packs stellar 1st round picks and free agency pick-ups.

The 2005 draft was a nightmare for the Vikes...I'll give you that...that aside I'll give you the best guard in the game, the best DE in the game, the best RB in the game, one of the best CB's in the game, one of the best DT's in the game, Ej Henderson in the 2nd, Greenway in the late first, Bernard Berrian proved his worth, Pat Williams proved his worth.

Now give me the last time the Packers drafted a HOF'er? Other then Woodson your team has picked up nobody in free agency and has drafted poorly. How bout a punter that got cut in the 3rd round? I'm not saying the Vikings don't make poor decisions from time to time....but so do the Pack. This was the same fanbase that booed Rodgers in training camp for doing nothing wrong. "Poor choices every year" get real.

 

[PackersRS]

You want 1 poor choice that has stoped you guys from winning?? TARVARIS JACKSON. Want another?? Sage "Chopra" Rosenfels. The fact is, unles you have a 2000 Ravens-like defense, you CANNOT win in this league without a QB. And even they had a nice management qb in Dilfer. Tarvaris is a joke, and so is Rosenfels. Your defense is great at sopping the run, I give you that, but the best DE? that drunk? best cb? really? your linebackers are laughable, your safeties are old. Your line is GREAT at the running game, and Peterson is a monster, but what good is that if they cannot protect the qb and the qb cannot throw? Berrian is a deep threat, but he doesn't have a clue as how to catch the ball. Your team can stop the run and run the ball, a little better than the bears, but nothing big. And want more proof of that? WHAT WAS THE LAST TIME YOU PEOPLE WON A SUPERBOWL? APPEARED IN ONE? WENT TO THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME? Thats poor choices every year...

 

[Raptorman]

Lets see, where to start. Safeties. Vikings are 23 and 27, Packers are 25 and 27. Vikings pass D gave up 52 tds the last three year, Packers gave up 70. Last year: Vikings LB have 279 tackles to Packers 315. Vikes LB had 6 FF to Packer's 5. Vikes LB have 7 Fumble recovers to Packers 0. Vikes LB had 9 sacks to Packers 5. The only thing that is even remotely true is the Vikings QB is suspect.

 

[PackersRS]

23 and 27? What about Sharper?
And even with all those numbers, we went to the NFC Championship game and you can't remember the last time you guys won a playoff game... Numbers are great for fantasy football, but when it comes down to the real thing, victories are what matters. In this century, you have won the division only once (last year), and if I'm not wrong, you didn't even won a playoff game. You guys don't even have a SuperBowl, how can you compare yoursef to us? Go play with the Lions...

 

[Raptorman]

Well, lets see, Sharper is no longer a Viking. I do believe he is a free agent that more then likely will sign with the Saints. But don't let that fact interfere with your "facts". And as for playoff games...the last one we won was in 2004, I believe it was at Lambeau, yeah, that's its, Vikings 31, Packers 17.

If your going to come after me with "history" you need to do better then that.

And tell me this, what good is a QB that can throw if the defense can't stop the other team from scoring? All I heard was the Packers were bringing back 21 of 22 starters last year from the team that went 13-3. You mean to tell me that one player made a 7 game difference?

 

[PackersRS]

Was wrong about Sharper, but the last time you played he was the starter, and he's still listed in your official site, as a starter...
Still hasn't answered me about the superbowls...
Harris didn't play the whole season, Jenkins didn't play the whole season, Woodson played injured, Bigby didn't play the whole season, Barnett didn't play the whole season, our O-line wasn't the same in most games... That's the 7 game difference.
But it doesn't change the fact that without a QB you cannot win the Lombardy. That's a fact. It has to be at least a good game manager, and untill the vikings get one, they'll never win. And, again, that is the only playoff victory you have in almost 10 years. A Franchise that has only 1 playoff victory in almost 10 years is a bad franchise, you can't argue with that...

 

[Raptorman]

And, again, that is the only playoff victory you have in almost 10 years. A Franchise that has only 1 playoff victory in almost 10 years is a bad franchise, you can't argue with that...

Yes I can.

Since 1998, that's 10 years, the Packers have been in 9 playoff games going 3-6. The Vikings have been in 9 playoff games going 4-5. I would have thought that before you spout off you would have at least enough sense to at least look it up. So if the Vikings are a bad team because of the playoffs, what does that make the Packers?

And oh yeah it's Lombardi. I would think a Packer fan would know how to spell his name correctly.

 

[PackersRS]

Again, I'm talking about this century. That's why allmost 10 years. And you had Cunningham and Culpepper... It's self explanatory, when you had a QB, you could win. Since then, you have only 1 win... You won't win unless you get a QB. That's what I'm talking about bad management. But hey, if you guys are happy being mediocre, that's fine. We packer fans can't stand that we play in a division with such mediocre teams, that have 1 superbowl win combined, and we don't make the playoffs every year...

 

[Raptorman]

Your right, MN has mediocre QB situation. But since 2004 Green Bay has had a good QB and has been to the same number of playoff games as MN and they have only won one. So what's Green Bays excuse? You can't complain about your QB, you had a HOF at the helm. Now Green Bay appears to have another good QB yet they didn't make the playoffs. And don't tell me about the injuries, MN had just as many to their starters. Your the one that made the statement about only winning 1 playoff game in 10 years. Then when I point out how wrong you statement was you switch to after Culpepper left. So what time frame do you want to move onto next? Past two years? Three? I expect a better challenge from a Packer fan. You're far to easy to predict.

I could go off on the time frame from 1968 to 1992 when the Packers played in a total of 3 playoff games during that entire time period. They only won one in the strike shortened 1982 season. But who cares, no one from that time is on the team and can help the Packers in 2009. So go back 3 years to 06 when both teams had new coaches come on. Since then MN is 0-1 and Green Bay is 1-1 in playoff games. Difference is Green Bay had a good QB. Not much seperates these two teams skill wise, only most Packer fans would never admit it.

 

[PackersRS]

My first post in this topic is a complain about GB's situation... But the thing that separates us is the QB. Our pass defense is better than yours, but your run D is better. Overall your D is better, but we're not that much apart. Your run game is one of the best, but our run game is very capable. But our passing game is top 5, and that's the reason we can be contenders and you cannot. With the 9th pick in the 1st and 2nd round, we can easily fix our D problems and turn that unit in a top 15. But with what you have right now, it's very unlikely you'll be contenders. Of course, if you trade for Cutler, then it's a different conversation, but nothing in the past years leads to that.
About the time frame, again, i'm talking about this, the XXI century. More precisely about this decade, which is not over. 01-02 we won SF and lost to the rams, 02-03 lost to falcons, 03-04 won seattle lost philly, 04-05 lost to you, 05-06 weren't, 06-07 weren't, 07-08 we all know and last year weren't. So in 8 years we've been to the playoffs 6 times, we won 3 games and we've been to the championship game.
You: 01-02 weren't, 02-03 weren't, 03-04 weren't, 04-05 won us and lost eagles, 05-06 weren't, 06-07 weren't, 07-08 weren't, 08-09 lost to eagles. So it's 2 out of 8 and 1 win.
In the recent history, we have far more sucess than you, and we were mediocre. If you look at last decade, we won a superbowl and you...
Of course, 70's and 80's we were bad, but you didn't won either. And in the 60's, there haven't been a franchise with more sucess in a decade than us in the 60's. You are a mediocre franchise, you were good in the late 90's, but in the mid 90's we won it all...

 

[Raptorman]

Ok, so we start by not winning a playoff game in 10yrs, your words, then we switch to not winning a playoff game since we had Cunningham-Culpepper, now its to winning a playoff game since this century. So I guess the year 2000 is not part of the XXI century then. Since you so eloquently ignored it. Or did you do that because MN had two playoff games in 2000? Oh yeah, and that would be the year the Vikes last went to the Conference Championship game.

I would mention that New England only has to go 10-6 this year to take away the winningest decade title from the Packers but then you would toss in that the Packers won 5 championships in the 60's, although in a much smaller, weaker league.

But hey if having the 8th best winning percentage in the NFL is considered mediocre in your book that would make the Dolphins the best at number one. MN been in the league for 48 years and has been in the playoffs 25 of those years. Only 4 teams have been in the playoffs more years and the Packers aren't one of them, even though they have been in the league longer.

And of course Sage Rosenfels will never be a good QB because he's a career backup. News for you. Up until 2008, Rodgers was a career backup.

 

[PackersRS]

So I guess the year 2000 is not part of the XXI century then.

No it's not. And you say i'm stupid... There's no such thing as year 0 A.D. The Ist Century started with 1 A.D., so the XXIth Century started with 2001 A.D.
This league isn't decided by victories. Nothing you say about New England or the Dolphins change the fact that you purples are far worse then us. 12 championships. It's self explanatory.
And about Rodgers. REALLY? Comparing him to Chopra? BTW, have you seen the vid? it's hilarious. But good luck with that, maybe he'll get you a ring like this http://z.about.com/d/jewelry/1/0/v/4/greenbay_XXXI.jpg or maybe this http://z.about.com/d/jewelry/1/0/s/4/greenbay_i.jpg, or even this http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EbyJJmg_Frs/R ... ackers.png . Found those on google, couldn't find yours, though...

 

[Raptorman]

As far as the time goes, who cares, you keep changing it to meet your needs anyway. like I said you started at 10 years, then went to Cunningham and Culpepper then switched to the XXI century. Most people would consider 2000 part of the XXI century. (Although they would be technically wrong.) I'll keep your history lesson in mind.

So there it is. The 12 championships. I was wondering when you would sling that out. The last act of Packer fan in an argument about who is better team. It always ends up with the 12.

This league isn't decided by victories

You toss this out and then finish up by showing the rings from the Packer Super Bowl wins. I would say you are contradicting yourself. The league is decided by victories, you get no credit for coming in 2nd place. And as far as championships go, it's 12-1 not 12-0 like you think. (A little history lesson for you.)

 

[PackersRS]

Okay, my last post here. I didn't have the intention to discuss who's a better franchise, my point was you haven't been a good franchise in a while...

My time frame was ALLWAYS this century. Ive never said 10 years, I said ALMOST 10 years, because the decade is not over. A franchise is usually judged by the decade, but this decade isn't over, so I'm judging by the Century.
When I mentioned Cunningham and Culpepper was to point out the last time you had some quality in QB, which is the point of this thread. And is what Rosenfels doesn't give you, but if you're happy with him...

This league isn't decided by victories

You toss this out and then finish up by showing the rings from the Packer Super Bowl wins. I would say you are contradicting yourself. The league is decided by victories, you get no credit for coming in 2nd place. And as far as championships go, it's 12-1 not 12-0 like you think. (A little history lesson for you.)

Again, and I'm the dumb in this conversation... You started talking about the Patriots needing to go 10-6 to be the best team in a decade, and my point is that going 10-6 doesn't matter Going 18-1 doesn't matter. All that does is Rings, not victories. Unless you're comparing two winningless franchises, which is not the case...

And again, you can't argue with 3 rings and 12 championships. It doesn't matter that you have more wins at home than us, that you play in a dome and we don't, that your shirt is more purple than us, all that matters when comparing 2 franchises are championships, and until you get 11 more, or at least 3 superbowl victories, you cannot compare the vikings to the Green Bay Packers.

 

[Raptorman]

I love how Packer fans are so sure Rosenfels won't get the job done. We will talk at the end of the season.

Like I said, Packer fans always, and I mean always fall back to the championships to prove their team is better. Never mind they have been in the league 50% longer then most other teams, never mind that they have played in more games then most of the other teams. They are always better because of the 12. Just remember without the other "incomparable" teams, Green Bay wouldn't have anyone to beat. MN could win 12 Super Bowls in a row and you would find some other reason to make the "incomparable".

First you say this.

but when it comes down to the real thing, victories are what matters.

And to quote you later in the thread

This league isn't decided by victories.

and this one.

All that does is Rings, not victories.

Make up your mind.

Then you said this.

And, again, that is the only playoff victory you have in almost 10 years. A Franchise that has only 1 playoff victory in almost 10 years is a bad franchise, you can't argue with that...

Which I corrected you on.

Then you went here

We packer fans can't stand that we play in a division with such mediocre teams, that have 1 superbowl win combined,

totally dismissing the other 8 championships (9 with the SB in the 80's, the one you gave)the Bears have, the 4 the Lions have and the 1 MN has. You want us to bow down to your 12 while you ignore 13 of the 14 championships won by other teams in the division. Now that's sportmanship on your part.

And as far a comparing Rosenfels to Rodgers. I'll just say Rosenfels has a winning record in the games he has started, does Rodgers?

 

[Eclipse612]

And as far a comparing Rosenfels to Rodgers. I'll just say Rosenfels has a winning record in the games he has started, does Rodgers?

I'm not getting into this absurd macho-man controversy, but this is no point at all. A-Rod played a single wonderful season, his record right now means nothing at all. When he'll be 35 we'll look at the record and see if he was good enough.

 

[Jess]

I love how Packer fans are so sure Rosenfels won't get the job done. We will talk at the end of the season.

He won't. But the thing is, he doesn't have to. Adrian Peterson will win you a lot of games. The best D-Line in the NFL will win you a lot of games. Hell, it's a top 3 defense as a whole. Let's say, hypothetically, they get a receiver out of this draft that isn't a Troy Williamson type bust, Minnesota becomes a Super Bowl contender. Rex Grossman and Trent Dilfer proved you don't need a great QB to get to a Super Bowl.

The Vikings will win more games than the Packers this year.

That pained me to type, but I am a realistic Packers fan. I don't think we're going to be 13-3 this year by doing nothing in the offseason. I think we'll hover around .500

And as a side-note: I totally drank the Troy Williamson kool-aid when he came out. I remember telling my Dad that Minni didn't need Randy Moss anymore, because they drafted the next Randy Moss. Oops. How the heck did he turn out to be so terrible? Lol.

 

[Raptorman]

And as a side-note: I totally drank the Troy Williamson kool-aid when he came out. I remember telling my Dad that Minni didn't need Randy Moss anymore, because they drafted the next Randy Moss. Oops. How the heck did he turn out to be so terrible? Lol.

Everyone was on the kool-aid at that time. He was one of the fastest players (4.32)at the combine that year if not the fastest. Hands of stone. His stats shake out at 84 catches 1,097 yards and 4 tds. That would not be bad for a year, but for 4 years, and picked at 7. I give 10-1 he doesn't make the final cut in Jacksonville this year.

I think the Packers will be well above .500 this year. To many close games last year that the defense gave away. Should be a dog fight for the division between the Packers, Bears, and Vikes. I won't make any predictions until after the first two pre-season games.