1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Minnesota Sinks To 0-4

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Bogart, Oct 2, 2011.

  1. LionsFan

    LionsFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    52
    Ratings:
    +20
    You'll need more than Luck ( no pun intended ) you will have to clean house, manning has made that team AND staff look better than they are.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Jules

    Jules The Colts Fan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,769
    Ratings:
    +754
    So true. Our staff has declined horribly since Dungy left. I have zero faith in Jim Caldwell and I have seen so many coaching errors from him. He looks clueless half the time. Some poor draft picks have set us back as well.

    I am hoping for a new head coach and a shot at Luck if Manning's career is in jeopardy.

    Watch out 2008 Lions we are coming for you!!! ;)
     
  3. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,889
    Ratings:
    +3,967
    The worst thing that could happen is you could end up like the Vikings for so many years, never bad enough to finish with a terrible record, rarely good enough to finish with a great one. Those 7-9 years that string together are what keeps teams down.
     
  4. Purplepeopleeater

    Purplepeopleeater Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    176
    Ratings:
    +39
    Yes! 0-4, and going for 0-5 this week! Wooo-hooo....we are in the Suck for Luck sweepstakes. Even if we decide to keep Ponder, we can get a King's Ransom for the 1st draft pick. Either way I hope we finish the season without a win.
     
  5. Kitten

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,090
    Ratings:
    +1,427
    If you guys go 0-16, you'll get it, unless somebody else has the misfortune to do even worse. It might not be a bad idea maximize that 1st draft pick and get a King's Ransom for it as you say. You guys need to seriously start rebuilding and get out of limbo. Ivo, has a good point, you guys seem to be stuck in a holding pattern of 7-9 seasons. So if you are lucky enough to suck the worst and get the first pick, either take Luck or cash in your chips and rebuild. The problem is, rebuilding can take years and some are not that patient to hang around and wait. Better have a competent owner to make good choices that are going to benefit the team for years to come. This season may already be over for you guys, but if I were the owner of the Vikings, I wouldn't be looking at this season, I'd be focusing on as far as 3 years from now and what I would do with the first pick if I had it.
     
  6. Jules

    Jules The Colts Fan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,769
    Ratings:
    +754
    I know. And to make matters worse outside of Maninng injuries are piling up everywhere. We have lost d lineman, Gary Brackett, foolishly cut one of our best CBs who the Giants picked up. (Tyron) Our top two picks were OTs. Castonzo was looking like a solid and very good LT and now he has a bad ankle sprain and might be out. Our second round pick is out for the year. We may be stuck with horrible OTs now which won't help Painter.

    I was thinking we may beat the Chiefs at home but not so sure now. Chiefs gave us issues even with Manning last season on defense. The o line protection is going to decline now.

    The crap bowl is being played Sunday in Indy. And the following week we go to Cincy, who knows there.

    Oh imagine the SNF game against the Saints in NO in a few weeks. The Brees vs. Painter shootout should be one for the ages.....
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Bogart

    Bogart Duke Mantee

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,551
    Ratings:
    +871
    Has Minnesota ever been 0-4?

    It's kinda hard to believe even after all this time. They haven't sucked for so long, I guess last year was the beginning of it.

    Ever since I was a little kid, the Vikings were always our biggest competition (before Chicago got good in recent years). Sure we had problems with Barry Sanders' Lions sometimes, but not near as bad as the washed up quarterback led Minnesota Vikings.
     
  8. Purplepeopleeater

    Purplepeopleeater Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    176
    Ratings:
    +39
    You may be right, but then again teams have been turning around these days in one season. It just depends. The careers of football players are so short, that a dominating team can become less so very quickly. Just look at Indy, they lose Manning and they are in the Suck for Luck Sweepstakes with the Vikes. Just think what would happen to the Pack if Aaron Rodgers goes down with an injury this Sunday....it would turn their season into a probable bust. So I'm never looking down the road 3 years in the NFL, cause it changes every year.

    I say play Ponder NOW. Let's see how good he is, and whether we want to make him the future. If he is the future, trade away the high draft pick we will have, build a giant line in front of him, get some awesome WRs, and start winning before AP leaves.
     
  9. Kitten

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,090
    Ratings:
    +1,427
    I hear ya. I was one of the people who was against the Vikings getting McNabb. I thought they should of started Ponder from day 1 this season. Now that they have McNabb, I think they should make good use having him and let him mentor Ponder. But you are right, the Vikings need to see what they have in Ponder and the sooner the better. Or NOW, as you say.
     
  10. Purplepeopleeater

    Purplepeopleeater Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    176
    Ratings:
    +39
    McNabb is starting to remind me of Warren Moon is his waning days....so maybe the Packers can do us a favor and just hammer him to the turf over and over so he is done...muhuhahahaha
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,157
    Ratings:
    +826
    Yes, Bud Grants first year.
     
  12. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,157
    Ratings:
    +826
    Just for the sake of it. MN: 26% of it's seasons were less than .500. To put that in perspective Green Bay is at 33% for seasons under .500.
     
  13. weeds

    weeds Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,103
    Ratings:
    +1,057
    Raptor, you know what? I firmly believe the Vikings would be 4-0 except for the fact that their opponents keep showing up. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,157
    Ratings:
    +826
    Actually it's only about 4-5 plays from 0-4 to 4-0 for them. That's how close they really were. But....you have to make those plays.
     
  15. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,889
    Ratings:
    +3,967
    Career winning % Vikings - .548 Packers - .560

    Should I put the nickname "titletown" in perspective for you as well? :)
     
  16. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,157
    Ratings:
    +826
    Titletown does no change the fact on my numbers. While Green Bay does have the titles they also have a higher percentage of losing seasons than the Vikings. The 50's and 70's were not good years the Pack. New England is at 40%. Kinda surprised me. As did the Packers 33%. I thought it would be lower. Pittsburg is at 49%. Throw that out there the next time Steeler fans start talking smack on 6 Super Bowls.
    The difference in .548 and .560 is about 2-3 good vs. bad seasons.
     
  17. weeds

    weeds Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,103
    Ratings:
    +1,057
    I agree with you. The Vikes ARE that close and you're right, someone has to make those plays. I don't think the Vikes are as bad as that record would indicate. I really don't. Still and the same, the only thing that would make me happier would be the Bears being 0-4 along with the Vikes. What can I say? I'm old school...I just dislike the Bears more. That's not to say that I'm unhappy that the Vikes are 0-4... ;) It just makes it more fun to lurk at the StarTrib, you know?
     
  18. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,889
    Ratings:
    +3,967
    The only thing that seems to matter or remembered is the titles. Packers have a better winning % but a few more losing seasons than the Vikings. Also, depending on how you count it, a dozen or so more titles than the Vikings. I guess our bad seasons are worse, and our great seasons are better.
     
  19. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,157
    Ratings:
    +826
    And you know, that's true. Winning a few titles changes everything. However, at this point MN would have to win about 6-8 Super Bowls for many "Football" fans to consider them a "winning" team. Because they lost 4 first that will always come to peoples minds first. It's just the way people think. Nobody talks about the Broncos losing 4 times because they won 2. But I would lay you odds when MN wins 2 those 4 will keep coming up. Hell, most people probably don't even know the Bronco's lost 4.
     
  20. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,580
    Ratings:
    +2,920
    I will take more titles over less losing seasons
     
  21. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,157
    Ratings:
    +826
    So would I. So would most Viking fans.
     
  22. Croak

    Croak Terminally twisted.

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,555
    Ratings:
    +1,150
    Considering the Vikings weren't around to lose in the 30's, 40's and 50's. Yet the Steelers were.
     
  23. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,157
    Ratings:
    +826
    That' why it's based on a winning percentage of seasons played. Whether they were around for the 30's or 40 doesn't change the percentage. You also have to remember in the 30's and 40's there were only 12-14 teams and they only played 12 games a year on average. So they should have had a better chance of winning more. They didn't. A winning record back then only took 7 games. Actually, now you made me think. I need to go back and check my math. My numbers may be off.

    Steelers were off. They should be 42% not 49%.
     
  24. fettpett

    fettpett Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    928
    Ratings:
    +217
    Vikings wont take Luck, they drafted Ponder in the first round unless they trade him (which would be dumb) Luck will be either a Colt, Dolphin or Chief next year.
     
  25. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,157
    Ratings:
    +826
    Vikings won't be in the running at 12-4! :roflmao:
     

Share This Page