the NFC North favorite vikings look unimpressive

tromadz

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
999
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
a lot of penalties, culpepper turnovers, bad defense(minus darren sharpers season best play).

Life without moss isnt so easy after all is it, Culpepper?

Tice should get a head start on selling those super bowl tickets
 

tromadz

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
999
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
2 interceptions, 2 fumbles, 0 randy moss

Vikings lose

Are we gonna see an early season collapse instead of a late season one?

ill take it.
 

PackerChick

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
3,143
Reaction score
1
Location
Ashland, WI
tromadz said:
2 interceptions, 2 fumbles, 0 randy moss

Vikings lose

Are we gonna see an early season collapse instead of a late season one?

ill take it.

they wont have to worry about choking so late in the season, so they start early.
 

NDPackerFan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
2,253
Reaction score
2
Location
North Dakota
This thread would be a lot funnier if the Pack could have mustered more than 3 lousy points against Detroit today... :wall:
 

rabidgopher04

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
0
Location
Boston, MA
I don't think it's the loss of Moss so much as it is the loss of Scott Linehan their former OC.

IIRC the Vikes did well even without Moss when he was injured. New OC = new offensive scheme. Perhaps this isn't the one that will work well for Daunte.

Oh well, better for us! :)
 

Philtration

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,246
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
tromadz said:
ill miss him beating the bears
In 14 games vs the Packers Moss has 1313 yards and 14 TD's.
In 14 games vs the Bears Moss has 1115 yards and 10 TD's.
His top seven games vs the Packers:
190, 153, 150, 136, 131, 130, 115.
His top seven games vs the Bears:
204, 122, 119, 119, 106, 93, 89.
He has hurt the Packers more than he has hurt the Bears.
 

jdlax

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Location
Burnaby, B.C.
Philtration said:
tromadz said:
ill miss him beating the bears
In 14 games vs the Packers Moss has 1313 yards and 14 TD's.
In 14 games vs the Bears Moss has 1115 yards and 10 TD's.
His top seven games vs the Packers:
190, 153, 150, 136, 131, 130, 115.
His top seven games vs the Bears:
204, 122, 119, 119, 106, 93, 89.
He has hurt the Packers more than he has hurt the Bears.

But is a Packers fan going to miss him beating the Packers? Thanks for going to all that trouble though.
 

tromadz

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
999
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
hes been public enemy #1 agaisnt GB. i know that. I live in chicago though, so I watch him slice up the bears too...i get those games twice. i usually only get 1 gbvikes game
 

Philtration

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,246
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
JD said:
Philtration said:
tromadz said:
ill miss him beating the bears
In 14 games vs the Packers Moss has 1313 yards and 14 TD's.
In 14 games vs the Bears Moss has 1115 yards and 10 TD's.
His top seven games vs the Packers:
190, 153, 150, 136, 131, 130, 115.
His top seven games vs the Bears:
204, 122, 119, 119, 106, 93, 89.
He has hurt the Packers more than he has hurt the Bears.

But is a Packers fan going to miss him beating the Packers? Thanks for going to all that trouble though.
Looks like you have bigger problems than Randy Moss. The Lions receivers had nothing to do with the Packers sorry showing on offense.
I said that loosing two starters on the O line would hurt the Packers more than you wanted to admit. Let me guess. I am trolling here right?
 

jdlax

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Location
Burnaby, B.C.
I'm not sure how a thread about Minnesota apparently struggling without Moss turns into you digging up stats showing how he had more numbers vs. Green Bay than he did against Chicago. I'm not up on all the internet terminology though, so I'm not sure if that's "trolling".
 

Philtration

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,246
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
JD said:
I'm not sure how a thread about Minnesota apparently struggling without Moss turns into you digging up stats showing how he had more numbers vs. Green Bay than he did against Chicago. I'm not up on all the internet terminology though, so I'm not sure if that's "trolling".
I am saying that the Packers played this game with all three of their starting recievers against a so so Lions defense and put 3 points on the board. Minnesota loosing without Moss and Onterio Smith is not as bad as Green Bay loosing with Driver, Walker, Ferguson, Franks and Green all on the field today. Randy Moss is gone.
 

jdlax

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Location
Burnaby, B.C.
That they did, but seriously, you think what you see today was as good as the Packers offence is going to be? You don't seem stupid or anything. I say they laid an egg.
 

IGHPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Location
T-Cities(via Glandon Wis.)
rabidgopher04 said:
I don't think it's the loss of Moss so much as it is the loss of Scott Linehan their former OC.

IIRC the Vikes did well even without Moss when he was injured. New OC = new offensive scheme. Perhaps this isn't the one that will work well for Daunte.

Oh well, better for us! :)

I completely agree. Linehan knew exactly what he could exspect from Daunte and taylored the offense to fit him. The new OC Looney is trying to force his system. At half time there was an interveiw with Tice, and he said they were going to take away some of Daunte's calls at the line.
 

Philtration

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,246
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
JD said:
That they did, but seriously, you think what you see today was as good as the Packers offence is going to be? You don't seem stupid or anything. I say they laid an egg.
No of course not, but I say that the offense is not what it was last year and they really have to be that good to win games. Obviously they will not score 3 points a game but every time they stall and every time they turn the ball over, that means that their weak defense will be on the field trying to save the day. Do you see that happening this season?
I don
 

jdlax

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Location
Burnaby, B.C.
I think there's a good chance the defence's improvement matches or passes the offence's decline. Whether that ends up meaning status quo record wise, I'll tell ya in January. :wink:
 

Ryan

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
3,371
Reaction score
1
Location
Omaha, NE
Funny that both the Vikes and Packers had offensive retardation when everyone was so concerned with our D's last year (and our D still this year).
 

TOPackerFan

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
2,084
Reaction score
0
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Phil, I think you're giving the Lions' D too little credit. They have one of the best front 4's in the league, they're a little weak at LB, but they have two Pro Bowlers in the secondary. I wouldn't say it's a so-so D. It's definitely in the top half of the league.
 

Philtration

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,246
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
TOPackerFan said:
Phil, I think you're giving the Lions' D too little credit. They have one of the best front 4's in the league, they're a little weak at LB, but they have two Pro Bowlers in the secondary. I wouldn't say it's a so-so D. It's definitely in the top half of the league.
I never said that the Lions defense was bad; I just think that they are middle of the Pack at best. The Packers are going to face teams that have better defenses than the Lions this year including Tampa Bay, Carolina, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Atlanta and Chicago twice.
 
Top