Vikings
- Thread starter Strigs
- Start date
Profizzle99
Cheesehead
^ Oh yes exceptions now, those last 4 games were exceptions. Just like the packers 3 losses, all exceptions...
Please we killed you both times, deal with it and get over it we were the far, far superior team. Thats like saying oh the Giants loss was an exception...they won fair and square, and it was a rule.
Please we killed you both times, deal with it and get over it we were the far, far superior team. Thats like saying oh the Giants loss was an exception...they won fair and square, and it was a rule.
Zombieslayer
Cheesehead
In Nodak's defense, he was referring more to their D, how in the other 13 games, they played solid football. It wasn't about winning or losing, but more commentary about the Vikings D.
I think against elite teams, I don't have much faith in the Vikings' DBs. They hold up well against most teams though. With an added pass rush in '08, we'll see if this is a non-issue. Keep in mind, the Giants won an SB without good DBs. Their pass rush made that weakness a non-issue.
I think against elite teams, I don't have much faith in the Vikings' DBs. They hold up well against most teams though. With an added pass rush in '08, we'll see if this is a non-issue. Keep in mind, the Giants won an SB without good DBs. Their pass rush made that weakness a non-issue.
bozz_2006
Cheesehead
I think coaching had a bit to do with that win. Vikings fans just don't seem to understand that coaching and special teams are just as important, if not more, than all-star players. example: Brett Favre in 2005 vs. Brett Favre in 2007. think the coaching had anything to do with the difference in performance? These Viking fans "can't find much wrong in the coaching". I'll tell you this, if the Vikings had a half-way decent QB, and competent coaches, they could win quite a few games. But I don't sweat the Vikings, because they have neither. Sure, the games against the Packers will be close, they (almost) always are, but the Vikings have proven they don't have what it takes to win games week after week after week.
Zombieslayer
Cheesehead
bozz_2006 said:
Oh, fo shizzle!
I bet most non-Giant fans can't name five Giants. They don't have an all-star cast. They don't have on paper an elite team. They won their last 4 games by Coaching primarily.
And the Brett Favre '05 vs '07 is a perfect example. MM tells him to have faith in the system. It's a good system. You don't have to take too many chances. Let your WRs do the work. You don't have to do everything yourself. Work on timing. Work on putting the ball only where the WR can get it or it goes incomplete. Also, work on putting the ball where the WR can juke and get another 6 yards.
MM's offensive system worked. It was pure beauty. It even worked when we didn't have a running game and everyone KNEW we'd pass.
Vikings on paper have a solid team. But I don't think their fans realize that their coaching WILL hold them back. Their coaches just aren't that good. I'd LOVE to have the Vikings' RBs and DL. If we had that, we'd walk over everyone, because we have good Coaching (except for Schott, and I was really upset with our DC for not making adjustments in the Giants game).
Profizzle99
Cheesehead
HeHe I agree with the coaching but I really don't see an all-star cast in the vikings, only in two positions.
bozz_2006
Cheesehead
And having superstars on your team make you forget that chemistry, try-hard, and solid coaching are the primary elements of a successful team.
packerfan22
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 0
You mean running back not running backs. AD basically carried the Vikings last year and when he was injured Chester came in but didn't perform nearly as well as AD did. If he goes down again, and god forbid gets a season ending injury, their running game is going to be like the rest of their team...good but nothing special. But I agree I would love to have Kevin and Pat Williams to fill in the middle, especially with our recent trade loss this past off season.
Raptorman
Vikings fan since 1966.
Didn't Favre carry the Packers the first 5 games last year? And I do believe he retired. Who's going to fill his shoes? Rodgers? If Rodgers is an average QB the Pack will lose 6 points a game from 2007.
Thats "IF".
We haven't seen enough of Rodgers to say he's above or below average. Really, only time will tell.
I myself thinks he will be fine. We have some pretty darn good WR's, and a running game that Favre didn't have early last season. So Rodgers should have some of the pressure off him because of that alone.
Raptorman
Vikings fan since 1966.
But most Packer fans assume that he is going to step in and be able to play as well, if not better then Favre. Given the history of new QB's in the league that is expecting too much. Sure he has 3 years riding the bench, or "learning" the system, but he has very little time on the field. You can only learn so much in practice. How well Rodgers does will be how well the Packers do. Since we have seen so little of him it is hard to judge how well he will do. Just hope the Packers are not into the Miami problem of finding someone to replace Marino.
Rodgers had the luxery of being able to sit and learn behind Favre. Most NFL QB's don't get that chance. I think that will put him ahead of most "rookie" QB's.
Of course only time will tell, as i said before.
Raptorman
Vikings fan since 1966.
So by this standard then, if the Packers go 8-8 in 2008 is it the coaching or the QB? Everyone assumes Childress is a bad coach. But tell me this, if MM had a 2nd year QB instead of a HOF QB last year, do you really think the Packers would have been 13-3? I don't. MM had the advantage of having a HOF QB when he took the job. Very few new head coaches have to deal with a QB that has less then 2 years on the job. And if they do, they do not do so well. If Miami win 6 games this year I will be surprised. I'm not saying Childress is any better or worse them MM, just that MM was in a better position to be successful sooner because of Favre.
It's hard to say. It is what it is. You can "what if" till your blue in the face (or purple!) :wink:
Fact is, we were 13-3.
Will we be that good this year? It could happen.
Childress had one of the best RB's in football last year, wouldn't you say? Yet that wasn't enough to make the Vikings 13-3.
Once again, ONLY time will tell as to whether or not Rodgers is the "real deal" or an imposter.
I myself think he will do fine. He has a pretty darn good supporting cast around him.
Packnic
Cheesehead
Childress had his chance to interview here for this job. that was his first in a long line of bad decisions.
Raptorman
Vikings fan since 1966.
Having one of the best RB's in the league is never a guarantee of success. If it was the Bears and Lions would have more championships in the last 40 years. The teams that win are the ones with the best combination of players. You have to be able to pass in this league these days to win. Running is really secondary. A QB being on top will bring a team farther then a running back that is the best in the league. It matters less what Grant and Peterson do then what Jackson and Rodgers do. How they do will be how the teams fair.
I see the Packers and Vikings both being able to put together a 12-4 season this year. But that is all predicated on the young QB's playing average football. Not above average, just average. It should be a fun year.
Oh, i agree. Just having a great RB has been proven not to guarentee anything. That said, the Packers have a much better supporting cast around Rodgers then Jackson has. That leaves more room for error. We have Driver, Jennings, Jones, Grant and Brandon Jackson. I think those players together are better then the cast the Vikings have around their QB.
And i agree it's gonna be a good season. Lots of fun to watch.
Zombieslayer
Cheesehead
I disagree.
I'm under the impression that most Packer fans see Favre's retirement as a step back for the Green Bay Packers.
Take a look at our record predictions thread. Almost everyone says worse than last year because of Favre's retirement. Well, Obi1 said 16-0, but he says that every year.
Really? I think I'm going to have to throw a flag on that comment. (Is "illeagal use of the hands - hands to the keyboard" a five post or a ten post penalty?)
Adrian Peterson 2007:
1341 yards on 238 carries, 5.6 yards per attempt, 12 TDs
Chester Taylor 2007:
844 yards on 157 carrries, 5.4 YPA, 7 TDs
5.4 doesn't look that much worse than 5.6. In the first game that AD was out, Taylor ran for 165 yards on 22 carries, for a 7.5 average, and 3 touchdowns. That doesn't look like the run game went into free-fall with AD out. In the second game, CT ran a bunch, but it was all in garbage time. That was the game against the Giants where the D scored three times, and the Vikings hung 41 points on New York before anyone knew what happened.
It's true that the running game carried the offense last year, but both players played well. Even if AD gets hurt again, the Vikings will still be able to run the ball well with CT.
Similar threads
