Minnesota Vikings

[Jess]

LOL - don't tell me, you want to count an "NFL" championship before the merger and getting beaten down by the Chiefs in the Super Bowl right?? If that is the case then just claim all 4 superbowl losses as championships because they brought home as much hardware and are just as recognized as championships since the one you are referring to is simply a technicality becasue the NFL had yet to be re-named the NFC... So, I guess you are only 8 behind us... Well, 9 if I count our loss in SB 32... More again if I go back to championship game losses back in the old days...

No, the queens are 12 behind and if they don't win it this year, the odds are decent they will trail by even more in the coming 5-6 years...

:viksux:

You should want to count those. Otherwise we have 3 championships to their 0. We've only been to the Super Bowl 4 times.

 

[Clay's Jock Strap]

You should want to count those. Otherwise we have 3 championships to their 0. We've only been to the Super Bowl 4 times.

Their argument is semantical bull crap. You can only be the champion if you won your last game. That happened to the Packers 12 times and the queens never. Sure, way back when the NFL was only 2 divisions and the champion was the winner of the game between the two division champions. There was no game after that so any team that accomplished that feat had gone as far as was possible to go in their league-scheduled format... Same point. From that setting to the tournament that leads to the Superbowl today, you are only the "champion" if you win the last game. Any other interpretation is sheer rationalization. When the queens beat Cleveland in 1969 to win the "NFL" (which was soon to become the NFC) they still had one game left on their calendar - a game they lost I think 23-7 to the Chiefs. Hardly an ending that anyone rational would define as a "championship".

 

[Raptorman]

Their argument is semantical bull crap. You can only be the champion if you won your last game. That happened to the Packers 12 times and the queens never. Sure, way back when the NFL was only 2 divisions and the champion was the winner of the game between the two division champions. There was no game after that so any team that accomplished that feat had gone as far as was possible to go in their league-scheduled format... Same point. From that setting to the tournament that leads to the Superbowl today, you are only the "champion" if you win the last game. Any other interpretation is sheer rationalization. When the queens beat Cleveland in 1969 to win the "NFL" (which was soon to become the NFC) they still had one game left on their calendar - a game they lost I think 23-7 to the Chiefs. Hardly an ending that anyone rational would define as a "championship".

A couple of things. First let's deal with the "Didn't win the last game". The 1930-31 Packers did not win their last games, so I guess we need to take those two championships away. Any other interpretation is sheer rationalization. Second, the first 4 Super Bowls where not he NFL Championships. They were games played between two different leagues. Saying the the 1968 Jets were NFL Champions because they won the Super bowl would be like claiming Ohio State was the Pac 10 Champion for beating USC in the Rose Bowl. How separate were the leagues? Any player that played only in the AFL prior to the merger, and played no game after the merger is not eligible for the HOF. So, you can have a player with a Super Bowl ring from Super Bowls 3 and 4, yet, unless he played after the merger he would not be able to get in the HOF. Why? Because he was not in the NFL.

Yeah, I know how everyone and their brother thinks it, but you are re-writing history. The NFL is betting on fans being too dumb to want he truth so they run with it because it's easier. What the real history is, is the Packers actually have 14 Championships. But I love how the fans will give up two rightfully acquired titles to make sure no one recognizes the Vikings 1.

FWIW, The Packer first two "World Championship Trophies" should be counted separately from the 12 NFL titles. So the question I have, is which two are Packer fans not counting, the two NFL titles or the two "World Championship Titles"?

I won't argue the point further. I just don't like it when people re-write history to make things easier to sell. And that is what the NFL has done in this case. Sell the first 4 Super Bowl as the NFL Championship. It diminishes the accomplishments of those teams that played in them, those that won and those that lost.

BTW, a side benefit is that in the "true" history, the Cowboy's are 5 time losers in NFL Championship games. 2 to the Packer, 2 to the Steelers and 1 to the Colts.

 

[Clay's Jock Strap]

A couple of things. First let's deal with the "Didn't win the last game". The 1930-31 Packers did not win their last games, so I guess we need to take those two championships away. Any other interpretation is sheer rationalization. Second, the first 4 Super Bowls where not he NFL Championships. They were games played between two different leagues. Saying the the 1968 Jets were NFL Champions because they won the Super bowl would be like claiming Ohio State was the Pac 10 Champion for beating USC in the Rose Bowl. How separate were the leagues? Any player that played only in the AFL prior to the merger, and played no game after the merger is not eligible for the HOF. So, you can have a player with a Super Bowl ring from Super Bowls 3 and 4, yet, unless he played after the merger he would not be able to get in the HOF. Why? Because he was not in the NFL.

Yeah, I know how everyone and their brother thinks it, but you are re-writing history. The NFL is betting on fans being too dumb to want he truth so they run with it because it's easier. What the real history is, is the Packers actually have 14 Championships. But I love how the fans will give up two rightfully acquired titles to make sure no one recognizes the Vikings 1.

FWIW, The Packer first two "World Championship Trophies" should be counted separately from the 12 NFL titles. So the question I have, is which two are Packer fans not counting, the two NFL titles or the two "World Championship Titles"?

I won't argue the point further. I just don't like it when people re-write history to make things easier to sell. And that is what the NFL has done in this case. Sell the first 4 Super Bowl as the NFL Championship. It diminishes the accomplishments of those teams that played in them, those that won and those that lost.

BTW, a side benefit is that in the "true" history, the Cowboy's are 5 time losers in NFL Championship games. 2 to the Packer, 2 to the Steelers and 1 to the Colts.

Leave it to a fan of a loser franchise to come up with a hogwash argument like this. I simply stated that within the context of the league's playoff system - if your last game was a loss you aren't the Champs. Leave it to a desperate QUEEN fan to pick examples that don't fit the data set. Green Bay's first 3 NFL championships came in years before they had a playoff. It was one big league and the team with the best record was the Champ. In no other seasons where Green Bay was in a league that had a playoff system were they given credit for championships when they didn't win their last playoff game.

Call the QUEENS NFL Champs from 1969 if it makes your **** hard. If you are a QUEEN fan, go for it, it is all you have to tug off to. But you did not beat the Chiefs - they smoked your boys. Your team has NEVER been the last team standing after all games played in a playoff system. You cling to the acronym "NFL" because it was a "league" but it was only that in name. The current NFL has evolved from what it once was. In the early days of the AFL they were considered by all an inferior league with inferior talent whose teams didn't belong on the same field as NFL teams. Before the late '60s they'd have had no more chance against the NFL than the a AAA champion team would against the MLB champ. Everyone knew it and to play the game would have been a joke. Everyone saw that gap shrinking in the days leading up to the merger. For an AFL team prior to the late '60s to have disputed who was the champion of pro football would have been similar to the little league champ crying foul because they didn't get a crack at the Yankees. When the merger was near the two leagues started playing each other at the end of the season to see who the true champion was. If the Packers had lost that game against either the Chiefs or the Raiders, there would be one less championship banner in our history, PERIOD. We didn't lose those games - therefore were the rightful champ. Do you see the Raiders and Chiefs claiming championships in 1966 or 1967? Hell no you don't. Do you see the Colts claiming an NFL championship in 1968? Nope? Only the sad sack Vikings who have nothing else to hang their hats on claim a mythical championship in 1969 based on semantics because they were the best team in the "NFL" even though the best team in the AFL cleaned their clock. Your argument would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic, desperate and sad.

Hey, keep viewing your truth through a cracked lens... Whatever make it easier to be a Queen fan is really what you ought to go ahead and keep on doing. I mean, if it is working for you, stick with it!!! You go ahead and keep calling your team the CHAMPS in 1969 - hell, it's your lie... your ***** extender... your pathetic franchise's closest brush with greatness. Why don't you go try your argument out for size on a Kansas City Chief forum and see how far it flies?

We're Packer fans - we don't need to manufacture championships pal - that's why it is called TITLETOWN. Lombardi's Packers (hell Holmgren's Packers if you want to be technical) accomplished more in TWO YEARS (truthfully 1 year but for the sake of argument versus the deluded) than your miserable excuse of a franchise has in 50...

Again... :viksux::viksux::viksux::viksux::viksux::viksux::viksux::viksux:

 

[Hauschild]

A couple of things. First let's deal with the "Didn't win the last game". The 1930-31 Packers did not win their last games, so I guess we need to take those two championships away. Any other interpretation is sheer rationalization. Second, the first 4 Super Bowls where not he NFL Championships. They were games played between two different leagues. Saying the the 1968 Jets were NFL Champions because they won the Super bowl would be like claiming Ohio State was the Pac 10 Champion for beating USC in the Rose Bowl. How separate were the leagues? Any player that played only in the AFL prior to the merger, and played no game after the merger is not eligible for the HOF. So, you can have a player with a Super Bowl ring from Super Bowls 3 and 4, yet, unless he played after the merger he would not be able to get in the HOF. Why? Because he was not in the NFL.

Yeah, I know how everyone and their brother thinks it, but you are re-writing history. The NFL is betting on fans being too dumb to want he truth so they run with it because it's easier. What the real history is, is the Packers actually have 14 Championships. But I love how the fans will give up two rightfully acquired titles to make sure no one recognizes the Vikings 1.

FWIW, The Packer first two "World Championship Trophies" should be counted separately from the 12 NFL titles. So the question I have, is which two are Packer fans not counting, the two NFL titles or the two "World Championship Titles"?

I won't argue the point further. I just don't like it when people re-write history to make things easier to sell. And that is what the NFL has done in this case. Sell the first 4 Super Bowl as the NFL Championship. It diminishes the accomplishments of those teams that played in them, those that won and those that lost.

BTW, a side benefit is that in the "true" history, the Cowboy's are 5 time losers in NFL Championship games. 2 to the Packer, 2 to the Steelers and 1 to the Colts.

Thoughtful post - rare around these parts.

I think another good method of determining which franchise is more successful is to compare regular season won-loss records in terms of percentage (since Minnesota is a much, much younger franchise) and years each franchise made the playoffs compared with how many seasons each franchise has existed.

I thought I read somewhere that Minnesota is one of the NFL's winning-est teams (on a percentage basis) since its inception; but, I could be mistaken on this one.

 

[Hauschild]

Leave it to a fan of a loser franchise to come up with a hogwash argument like this. I simply stated that within the context of the league's playoff system - if your last game was a loss you aren't the Champs. Leave it to a desperate QUEEN fan to pick examples that don't fit the data set. Green Bay's first 3 NFL championships came in years before they had a playoff. It was one big league and the team with the best record was the Champ. In no other seasons where Green Bay was in a league that had a playoff system were they given credit for championships when they didn't win their last playoff game.

Call the QUEENS NFL Champs from 1969 if it makes your **** hard. If you are a QUEEN fan, go for it, it is all you have to tug off to. But you did not beat the Chiefs - they smoked your boys. Your team has NEVER been the last team standing after all games played in a playoff system. You cling to the acronym "NFL" because it was a "league" but it was only that in name. The current NFL has evolved from what it once was. In the early days of the AFL they were considered by all an inferior league with inferior talent whose teams didn't belong on the same field as NFL teams. Before the late '60s they'd have had no more chance against the NFL than the a AAA champion team would against the MLB champ. Everyone knew it and to play the game would have been a joke. Everyone saw that gap shrinking in the days leading up to the merger. For an AFL team prior to the late '60s to have disputed who was the champion of pro football would have been similar to the little league champ crying foul because they didn't get a crack at the Yankees. When the merger was near the two leagues started playing each other at the end of the season to see who the true champion was. If the Packers had lost that game against either the Chiefs or the Raiders, there would be one less championship banner in our history, PERIOD. We didn't lose those games - therefore were the rightful champ. Do you see the Raiders and Chiefs claiming championships in 1966 or 1967? Hell no you don't. Do you see the Colts claiming an NFL championship in 1968? Nope? Only the sad sack Vikings who have nothing else to hang their hats on claim a mythical championship in 1969 based on semantics because they were the best team in the "NFL" even though the best team in the AFL cleaned their clock. Your argument would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic, desperate and sad.

Hey, keep viewing your truth through a cracked lens... Whatever make it easier to be a Queen fan is really what you ought to go ahead and keep on doing. I mean, if it is working for you, stick with it!!! You go ahead and keep calling your team the CHAMPS in 1969 - hell, it's your lie... your ***** extender... your pathetic franchise's closest brush with greatness. Why don't you go try your argument out for size on a Kansas City Chief forum and see how far it flies?

We're Packer fans - we don't need to manufacture championships pal - that's why it is called TITLETOWN. Lombardi's Packers (hell Holmgren's Packers if you want to be technical) accomplished more in TWO YEARS (truthfully 1 year but for the sake of argument versus the deluded) than your miserable excuse of a franchise has in 50...

Again... :viksux::viksux::viksux::viksux::viksux::viksux::viksux::viksux:

I think somebody needs a "timeout" and a "hug". :blush2:

 

[BBalzWI]

Why is this thread here? Or are you looking to make Packer fans upset?

Yes the vikings looked good but to be honest I wish both teams could have lost last Sunday and I hope that the Saints kick the s#^@ out of the the vikings Sunday.

I'm looking forward to the Jets and Colts more than the vikings and Saints to be honest. . .to be honest it has to be odd to realize that there is no future for this purple team. It really is this year and then back to what you are used to, losing.

 

[Clay's Jock Strap]

I think somebody needs a "timeout" and a "hug". :blush2:

Gee - would that be a Viqueen fan lost at a Packer forum?? Seems to me that you must need a hug from Packer fans otherwise you wouldn't be here.

 

[Hauschild]

Why is this thread here? Or are you looking to make Packer fans upset?

Yes the vikings looked good but to be honest I wish both teams could have lost last Sunday and I hope that the Saints kick the s#^@ out of the the vikings Sunday.

I'm looking forward to the Jets and Colts more than the vikings and Saints to be honest. . .to be honest it has to be odd to realize that there is no future for this purple team. It really is this year and then back to what you are used to, losing.

Wow - the level of hate in your words is astonishing?!?!?

I do find it amusing that Packers fans have been accusing Minnesota for the past 10 years of "mortgaging the future on costly FA's" and "not having a future" and "being forced to move to California", but none of it has happened yet. Suddenly, Minnesota finds itself primed for a Super Bowl appearance and all us Packers fans are reserved to is playing wit' our horns and having to accept that maybe - just maybe - the Vikings front office has a clue.

It's easy to hate and exhibit envy, but it is difficult to accept reality and move on.

 

[Raptorman]

Thoughtful post - rare around these parts.

I think another good method of determining which franchise is more successful is to compare regular season won-loss records in terms of percentage (since Minnesota is a much, much younger franchise) and years each franchise made the playoffs compared with how many seasons each franchise has existed.

I thought I read somewhere that Minnesota is one of the NFL's winning-est teams (on a percentage basis) since its inception; but, I could be mistaken on this one.

I am not even going to which is more successful. It does not matter and it would be hard to compare since the Packers have such a long history. I was simply stating the "true" history of the NFL and it's Championships. At one time I challenged Packer fans on another board to prove me wrong with historical facts, and not one could, nor can anyone else. I know the history. The NFL decided in 1970 that the Super Bowl was the NFL championship game and that is fine. Along the line they chose not to address the the first 4 as not being the Championship game. Which is fine. But to deny the real history of them is disrespectful of the men who played them. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Hauschild]

I am not even going to which is more successful. It does not matter and it would be hard to compare since the Packers have such a long history. I was simply stating the "true" history of the NFL and it's Championships. At one time I challenged Packer fans on another board to prove me wrong with historical facts, and not one could, nor can anyone else. I know the history. The NFL decided in 1970 that the Super Bowl was the NFL championship game and that is fine. Along the line they chose not to address the the first 4 as not being the Championship game. Which is fine. But to deny the real history of them is disrespectful of the men who played them. But that's just my opinion.

Well, bringing facts into a Packers forum is frowned upon, believe me.

 

[BBalzWI]

Well, bringing facts into a Packers forum is frowned upon, believe me.

:viksux:

 

[longtimefan]

Wow - the level of hate in your words is astonishing?!?!?

I do find it amusing that Packers fans have been accusing Minnesota for the past 10 years of "mortgaging the future on costly FA's"

How many years did the Vikings spend like crazy on free agency and NOTHING ever came of it?



2001...no playoffs
2002...no playoffs
2003...no playoffs
2004...no playoffs
2005...no playoffs
2006...no playoffs
2007...beat Packers in playoffs and were 8-8

so dont sit there and act ignorant and say that spending free agency money has worked...JUST recently it worked...

 

[longtimefan]

Well, bringing facts into a Packers forum is frowned upon, believe me.

:viksux:

Yeah okay Haus..Still waiting for your hypocrite a@@ to provide the defense rankings at the time of Bretts bad December games

 

[Hauschild]

so dont sit there and act ignorant and say that spending free agency money has worked...JUST recently it worked...

Oh, ok - I think?!?!?:hmm:

 

[Clay's Jock Strap]

It's easy to hate and exhibit envy, but it is difficult to accept reality and move on.

Hausboy - if you don't know the meaning of the word "irony" please look it up in your remedial dictionary. If we envied anything about your fan base we would be the ones trolling your team's web site looking for acceptance and credibility - not the other way around. The very fact that you feel the need to hang out here shows who envies whom.

Does your pathetic team have sites dedicated to it? If so, and you want love, I suggest you take your needy tail over there for a big, sloppy Ragnar French kiss.

 

[BBalzWI]

Wow - the level of hate in your words is astonishing?!?!?

I do find it amusing that Packers fans have been accusing Minnesota for the past 10 years of "mortgaging the future on costly FA's" and "not having a future" and "being forced to move to California", but none of it has happened yet. Suddenly, Minnesota finds itself primed for a Super Bowl appearance and all us Packers fans are reserved to is playing wit' our horns and having to accept that maybe - just maybe - the Vikings front office has a clue.

It's easy to hate and exhibit envy, but it is difficult to accept reality and move on.

Yes I do hate the vikings. Thanks for stating what already should be obvious. I have issues with viking fans posting viking threads about how they played so awesome here or there, did you do this every time they won this season? Go to a vikings forum and gloat, don't bring it here.

You can say that I hate the vikings again though, that makes me happy lol.

 

[longtimefan]

Hausboy - if you don't know the meaning of the word "irony" please look it up in your remedial dictionary. If we envied anything about your fan base we would be the ones trolling your team's web site looking for acceptance and credibility - not the other way around. The very fact that you feel the need to hang out here shows who envies whom.

Does your pathetic team have sites dedicated to it? If so, and you want love, I suggest you take your needy tail over there for a big, sloppy Ragnar French kiss.

That is why I think he is just a troll..Maybe one that doesnt say stupid a@@ things Rodger sis @@@, or that we are fudgepackers

But he is a troll in the sense that he wants to start arguments

 

[dewitt60]

He's more of a Favre ******* sweat drinker than a Viking fan. I wonder how loud he would be if Favre got dropped into the Bucs as QB or maybe the Raiders.Rodgers played behind a crappy oline for 2 years and chucked 8000 yards. Brett did what with one of the best olines in the league? Basically match him.

 

[Hauschild]

That is why I think he is just a troll..Maybe one that doesnt say stupid a@@ things Rodger sis @@@, or that we are fudgepackers

But he is a troll in the sense that he wants to start arguments

So, what banish me to troll land because I can present better arguments than you can???

I think it really speaks volumes that you resign yourself to name-calling instead of matching wits with me.

 

[Hauschild]

He's more of a Favre ******* sweat drinker than a Viking fan. I wonder how loud he would be if Favre got dropped into the Bucs as QB or maybe the Raiders.Rodgers played behind a crappy oline for 2 years and chucked 8000 yards. Brett did what with one of the best olines in the league? Basically match him.

Rodgers is also sitting on his couch right now.

 

[BBalzWI]

Rodgers is also sitting on his couch right now.

Honestly why the hell are you on these forums? I would respect you more if you simply said, 'Because I enjoy getting a rise out of Packer fans.' You are like BF this season, withholding the truth back about what is really going on. He didn't have the balls to say he simply didn't want to go to training camp, that he wanted revenge on TT and the Packers org. . .but that he simply wanted to keep playing. . .B.S.

Just admit you enjoy upsetting Packer fans, I find it hilarious that you spend so much time on this forum instead of supporting your team on THEIR forums.

P.S. Even if Rodgers is sitting on his couch, I'll be glad to watch him another 10+ years, how long do the vikings have until they go back to their losing ways? :snooze:

 

[Hauschild]

Honestly why the hell are you on these forums? I would respect you more if you simply said, 'Because I enjoy getting a rise out of Packer fans.' You are like BF this season, withholding the truth back about what is really going on. He didn't have the balls to say he simply didn't want to go to training camp, that he wanted revenge on TT and the Packers org. . .but that he simply wanted to keep playing. . .B.S.

Just admit you enjoy upsetting Packer fans, I find it hilarious that you spend so much time on this forum instead of supporting your team on THEIR forums.

P.S. Even if Rodgers is sitting on his couch, I'll be glad to watch him another 10+ years, how long do the vikings have until they go back to their losing ways? :snooze:

Not at all. I enjoy making arguments and I find satisfaction in getting people to see points of view that differ from their own.

It also goes without saying that if I weren't being successful in my arguments, few would respond to my posts.

After all, this is a Packers forum, not a Homers forum. **** ain't sunshine and lollipops 24-7 in the real world.

 

[BBalzWI]

Not at all. I enjoy making arguments and I find satisfaction in getting people to see points of view that differ from their own.

It also goes without saying that if I weren't being successful in my arguments, few would respond to my posts.

After all, this is a Packers forum, not a Homers forum. **** ain't sunshine and lollipops 24-7 in the real world.

This isn't politics, this is football. No one cares if you have good points or counter points. This isn't a debate team, when it comes down to sporting events. . .it's opinions and only opinions that people have and the support in statistics is pathetic since they mean absolutely nothing when it comes to game day.

You're a classic troll who tries to make more out of something that is meaningless in the big picture of life. This is simply a fan forum that will result in opinions from people and if people come into our Packer forums with viking flags, expect some strong opinions from those people and support from everyone else on these forums who believe in the Pack.

 

[longtimefan]

So, what banish me to troll land because I can present better arguments than you can???

I think it really speaks volumes that you resign yourself to name-calling instead of matching wits with me.

I have tried it, but I have to bring it up for the 50th time?

Show proof of the defense rankings Brett played when he had his bad Decemeber games...You WONT even though that is YOUR claim..so eiother man up and say you mis spoke, or you really are wrong, or provide the proof and I will gain a ton of respect for you..

And calling you names??

A troll by definition is

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

Tell me you dont do that?


Read the pm I sent ya..

Better yet, I am going to post it here cuz you never reply to my ***..

I USED to enjoy reading your in depth posts,thought you had some great insight and a different view point we needed here...

but ever sense that December thread and the defense was the reasons for the bad games, I had it with you..

You REFUSE to put up the proof to back it up, and flip flopped your stance on it 2 times..

That to me is and was a cop out and I lost a lot of respect for you when you pulled that ****..Not only I, but mostly everyone else here as well think same way.

You only seem to be here to get a rise out of the posters..And that to me is what a troll does..

When I am replying to you about Brett, maybe it seems hateful is because I have lost so much respect for you as a contributor of this forum it comes out in my posts...

But the only reason right now for my hate for Brett is he is a Vik nothing more..