Minnesota Vikings

[Raptorman]

Since it was my post that started it...

What was the formula to win it all? Before there were SBs, it was to win the NFL championship.

After the SBs, it was to win the SB.

Did you win any championships while it was the formula for winning it all? did you win any SBs while it was the formula for winning it all?

When we won the league, despite not winning the last game, what was the formula for winning it?

Saying you won because according to a different formula, you would've is an invalid point IMO.

RS, you are the first Packer fan to come up with the most reasonable arguments ever. The only "flaw" if you would call it is that the first 4 Super Bowls were not really the NFL Championship games. You had to win the NFL Championship to get there. Which is what the Ice Bowl was. But we won't go down that road again. So here's to your Packers and their 14, I mean 12 Championships. Since that is all you wish to claim.

BTW, Clay, I will be asking Chiefs fans about what we talked about. I'll get back to on that.

 

[Clay's Jock Strap]

BTW, Clay, I will be asking Chiefs fans about what we talked about. I'll get back to on that.

Since they won the Super Bowl I am guessing they won't care what you folks call yourselves in order to get off. They were the champions you folks took 2nd place...

 

[longtimefan]

Why not use the actual NFL?

Team » Green Bay Packers

Between the two, Lambeau and Lombardi brought the Packers 11 NFL championships, including two record strings of three straight titles, the first in 1929, 1930 and 1931 and the second in 1965, 1966 and 1967. Those last three championships completed the Packers' dynasty years in the 1960s, which began with Green Bay also winning NFL championships in 1961 and 1962. During the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Lambeau-led Packers were annual championship contenders. They won four divisional crowns and NFL titles in 1936, 1939 and 1944.

Yes that says 11, but doesnt include the 96 team so that would be 12


Team » Minnesota Vikings

The success of the Vikings over the next two decades always will be highlighted by the image of the stone-faced Grant on the sidelines of the frozen field at old Metropolitan Stadium. In only their second year under Grant, the Vikings began a stretch of 11 division titles in 13 years. They won the NFL championship in 1969

So they won one..

its still 12-1

 

[Clay's Jock Strap]

Why not use the actual NFL?

So they won one..

its still 12-1

Yeah, let's just all forget about that pesky little drubbing in the Super Bowl... I guess that was just an exhibition game or something...

I know you are just being kind and all but... Why encourage the delusion?

 

[longtimefan]

Yeah, let's just all forget about that pesky little drubbing in the Super Bowl... I guess that was just an exhibition game or something...

I know you are just being kind and all but... Why encourage the delusion?

Because the NFL says they won something in 69...

Not delusional, just stating a fact

 

[PackersRS]

RS, you are the first Packer fan to come up with the most reasonable arguments ever. The only "flaw" if you would call it is that the first 4 Super Bowls were not really the NFL Championship games. You had to win the NFL Championship to get there. Which is what the Ice Bowl was. But we won't go down that road again. So here's to your Packers and their 14, I mean 12 Championships. Since that is all you wish to claim.

BTW, Clay, I will be asking Chiefs fans about what we talked about. I'll get back to on that.

You're right. They weren't the "NFL" championships. But that's semantics in my opinion. They were, by agreement, the ultimate title a professional football team could achieve in that year.

My point is the NFL and AFL titles had the same weight, when they were played separatedly. But when both leagues decided to battle both champions, then that game would have the most weight.


-


There's a similar discussion in soccer. Now that FIFA has endorsed the clubs' world cup, there're people who don't credit the former intercontinental cup with the same weight. However, there weren't a FIFA endorsed competition, and clubs from Asia, North America, Africa and Oceania didn't participate in it.

It was, however, the winner from the Libertadores Cup (South America continental title) against the winner from the UEFA Champions League (Europe continental title). It was, in it's time, the world chamionship.

Since the FIFA endorsed cup was created, there was never a final other than a South American club vs. an European club. It's pretty simple. Teams from Asia, Oceania, Africa and North America didn't participate before because they're nowhere near the same level as the Europeans and South Americans.

Anyway, by comparison, The South American title would be the NFL, and the European would be the AFL, or vice-versa, and the SB would be the Intercontinental Cup. Though teams give great importance to the continental title, it's not in the same realm as the Intercontinental Title. It's not the same as the NFC championship. It has much more value. As probably had the NFL and AFL titles had back then, when there was the SB.

But it's not the ultimate title. It's not a "championship" as the 12 are...

 

[Clay's Jock Strap]

Because the NFL says they won something in 69...

Not delusional, just stating a fact

Understood, but they think (at least I think they think - otherwise what is the point of the discussion?) that they were the "champs" in 1969. They weren't, the Chiefs were. IMO, this is similar to major league baseball before interleague (when teams from the two "leauges" never played each other until the WS) play. It is like a team winning the American League pennant and losing the World Series, but wanting to call themselves champions. The only sticking point is the semantical use of the acronym N.F.L. which didn't mean exactly what it does today. Queen fans are trying to distort truth for some unknown reason. In 1969 they took 2nd place even if they took 1st in the "NFL"... They played a title game versus the AFL and LOST... BIG. Their argument is semantics and they know it.

Yes, you are stating a "fact" but a semantical one only.

 

[longtimefan]

go whine to the nfl, cuz that is where I got my info from

 

[Clay's Jock Strap]

go whine to the nfl, cuz that is where I got my info from

Hardly whining... Just pointing out the obvious. Aparently wasting too much of my time doing it too cuz it would seem you don't much care. My bad, I'll refrain from discussing with you in the future... Sorry.

 

[Purplepeopleeater]

If you do win the big game, the minute after the game, I'll just forget it happened. Who cares about the past?

You can try, but you know you won't be able to....hee hee

 

[Clay's Jock Strap]

If the queens actually get past New Orleans I will be drinking during the Super Bowl. If the queens are doing well I will be drinking harder. If they are doing REALLY well I will be drinking like I did back in college during spring break. If the queens win the Super Bowl there actually is a very serious chance that I will not remember a bit of it.

In the aftermath I will treat it just like some consipiracy theorists do when they claim the USA never landed on the moon.

 

[GBFANATIC]

if the Vikings do win the Superbowl... I think Favre finally retires and ultimately that helps us next year because a Favreless Vikings will not win the NFC North. Sage Rosefels and Tavaris Jackson (free agent) do not have the leadership and skill to take that team to the next level. Chad Pennington (debatebly the best free agent QB) would not benefit the Vikings either. I do not see any big trades for the Vikings to go after a QB, however espn is already reporting that McNabb could be dealt to Minnesota and Kolb would step in as the starter in Minn. In any situation McNabb, Rosenfels, Jackson, Pennington, or some average caliber qb they trade for will not produce enough results to get them as far as they did this year. Packers were 11-5 and surging as the Vikings were 12-4 and starting to crumble at the end (i know the vikings looked impressive against dallas last week). What am I getting to... we lost 2 games to the Vikings where we were rallying back. Next year I see 2 victories vs the Vikings. Favre had 2 game winners this year (please correct me if I'm wrong). Those could have easily gone the other way resulting in 10-6 Vikings. Us 11-5 and take away the last second play in Pitt and we are 12-4 with homefield advantage. Before you hit me back with coulda, shoulda, woulda... realize I do understand that we are out of the playoffs but we proved that we can overcome adversity and as long as management drafts well and we learn from a few mistakes we are going to continue to come together as a TEAM with a goal to win the Superbowl next year and years to come.

 

[angryguy77]

if the Vikings do win the Superbowl... I think Favre finally retires and ultimately that helps us next year because a Favreless Vikings will not win the NFC North. Sage Rosefels and Tavaris Jackson (free agent) do not have the leadership and skill to take that team to the next level. Chad Pennington (debatebly the best free agent QB) would not benefit the Vikings either. I do not see any big trades for the Vikings to go after a QB, however espn is already reporting that McNabb could be dealt to Minnesota and Kolb would step in as the starter in Minn. In any situation McNabb, Rosenfels, Jackson, Pennington, or some average caliber qb they trade for will not produce enough results to get them as far as they did this year. Packers were 11-5 and surging as the Vikings were 12-4 and starting to crumble at the end (i know the vikings looked impressive against dallas last week). What am I getting to... we lost 2 games to the Vikings where we were rallying back. Next year I see 2 victories vs the Vikings. Favre had 2 game winners this year (please correct me if I'm wrong). Those could have easily gone the other way resulting in 10-6 Vikings. Us 11-5 and take away the last second play in Pitt and we are 12-4 with homefield advantage. Before you hit me back with coulda, shoulda, woulda... realize I do understand that we are out of the playoffs but we proved that we can overcome adversity and as long as management drafts well and we learn from a few mistakes we are going to continue to come together as a TEAM with a goal to win the Superbowl next year and years to come.

Mcnabb on the viks would make them very good as well. I believe that Minn will also improve with FA this year.

 

[ThinkICare]

The Vikes will improve with who? There's not that many unrestricted FA's. There's a few, but it's hard to say since there's this whole CBA mess.

 

[angryguy77]

The Vikes will improve with who? There's not that many unrestricted FA's. There's a few, but it's hard to say since there's this whole CBA mess.

I do believe they will sign Kampman. I think he fits in perfectly there. I know Edwards has been playing decent but Kampman is more consistent.

My guess is they will sure up the secondary either by trade or signing.

Even if they don't do those things, they still would be a very good team with Mcnabb.

 

[Geneva09]

The Vikings will have a close game against the Saints but Brees and them will win.

 

[ThinkICare]

I do believe they will sign Kampman. I think he fits in perfectly there. I know Edwards has been playing decent but Kampman is more consistent.

My guess is they will sure up the secondary either by trade or signing.

Even if they don't do those things, they still would be a very good team with Mcnabb.

You do realize the Vikes can ONLY sign the same number of FA's as the same number of players they lose to Free Agency?

 

[Clay's Jock Strap]

You do realize the Vikes can ONLY sign the same number of FA's as the same number of players they lose to Free Agency?

And only for the money of the FA's they lose. I suspect that the money he gets will still be pretty good and I don't know why the Vikes would even be in the market for an expensive 30 year old DE coming off of major knee surgury when they have Allen and Edwards... If they can sign any FAs, I'd think they'd be targeting a S or CB.

 

[longtimefan]

I do believe they will sign Kampman. I think he fits in perfectly there. I know Edwards has been playing decent but Kampman is more consistent.

My guess is they will sure up the secondary either by trade or signing.

Even if they don't do those things, they still would be a very good team with Mcnabb.

You do realize the Vikes can ONLY sign the same number of FA's as the same number of players they lose to Free Agency?

He has such a grasp on the game I am sure he knows the new rule..

top 4 playoff teams ( Vikings) shall not be permitted to negotiate and sign any unrestricted free agent to a player contract except for players who acquired their status by being cut or were on the final four team when their contract expired.

right angryguy? you knew that and just mis spoke?

 

[Clay's Jock Strap]

Wow - I thought they could at least sign a FA if they lost one... That must be for the top 8 and not the top 4?? If you win the SB I am guessing you don't much care (or at least a lot less). If you are teams 2-4 that is brutal...

 

[angryguy77]

He has such a grasp on the game I am sure he knows the new rule..

right angryguy? you knew that and just mis spoke?

Yes I do know that, but I believe its the top 8 teams not 4. I'm not aware of the top 4 rule however.

See when I use the terms "I believe" or "my guess is" that means i'm stating an opinion. We are allowed to state those in relation to sports right? Now I didn't state facts because I'm not a 100% sure what will happen because I'm not sure of the FA that they have to lose at the end of the season. But I do know that Minn is proactive unlike another team not to be mentioned.

I also said they would be good with MCnabb if they don't do anything in FA.

And yes I do have some sort of grasp of the game LT. I predicted the GB d to be a fraud which it was and is. I predicted they wouldn't go far in the playoffs and they didn't. I predicted that Kampman would not fit in the 3-4(not sure if i said that on this board however). I predicted that Minn would win the division.

And I also said that Gb fans are new version of Cubs fans because their two favorite words in the english language are "next" and "year".



"There is a mechanism to permit the final eight teams to sign an unrestricted free agent for each one of their own unrestricted free agents who sign with another club as long as they don't spend more than what their own lost player received from his new club". This is a little different from what you posted.

 

[ThinkICare]

Do you expect the Vikes to trade for McNabb or what?

 

[angryguy77]

Do you expect the Vikes to trade for McNabb or what?

I don't know but if Favre doesn't come back I could see that as a move they would make.

 

[weeds]

Good God, really? Are you a Packer fan (I am asking for real cuz I don't know)? Just wondering because there are a lot of reason for Packer fans to hate the Biqueens. Most folks don't take an indifferent approach to that which they loathe.

Oh yeah, Packers fan but an old school Packers fan. First off, I don't despise the Vikies as much as you younger guys do. I'm born and raised northeastern Wisconsin and can't remember the last Packers game I missed.

Second, by 'old school', I'm saying I despise the Bears, inside out and upside down....and I'm not too keen on their fans whether they're at Lambeau or at Soldier Field. The Bears however, are one of 4 originals still hangin' around in one form or another and deserve, and have earned my loathing over the last 40+ years...I'm giving myself an 11 year grace period even though I went to my first game at age 7 in 1965.

Third, the Vikies are a cute little expansion franchise who came very close to ending up an AFL team, but at the last minute were admitted to the NFL. Their fans' Dads and Grandpas were largely Packers fans. That's one of the reasons you find so many Packers fans in Vikie territory. The loathing that the ESPN generation has for the Vikies is ok...I don't mind...I'll never root for the Vikies under any circumstances, but by-and-large, some of the best opponent fans I've met at Lambeau have been Vikie fans.


Finally, I don't hate Brett Favre enough to hate the Vikies solely on that issue. He's not a Packer anymore. He's a good player and all, but I don't idolize individual players and I don't know him personally...just witnessed him being poured into a back of a cab in Appleton too many times... as I said, I just don't have the same vested fan interest that the younger guys do. I will say that it damned near killed me to watch the flippin' Bears play in the Super bowl a few years back - so... you know... I empathize.

So, be it as it may ... I won't be rooting for the Vikies - I'd like to see the Saints go because they've never been there before -- and the Vikies and the Bills have each lost 4 Super Bowls, so they've had their shot and f'd it up each time ... but, I won't lose sleep one way or the other.

 

[ThinkICare]

I don't know but if Favre doesn't come back I could see that as a move they would make.

What if it's late July and BF isn't sure if he wants to come back?