Vikings Message Board.Com

sneaxsneax wrote:My god this guy is going full...something. did you just argue we couldn't have Rodgers because of the cap. You aren't understanding the argument. You think you have a better or as good roster to us, you think you have a better defense. You have neither of those things, my point was that Rodgers level play on our team would be a couple of sb appearances. Aaron Rodgers on your team has been 1. Don't get me wrong I'd love 1, but my point is for such a strong roster you seem to have you really only managed to get there 1 time. Rodgers had a down year last year but he still was more productive than our qb. You can rank your team however you want, again ask a non biased person and there taking the Vikings roster.

Glad the rest of the forum is backing me up here.


I mean holy #### Aaron Rodgers hit 2 hail Marrys for you this season. He literally stole a game you lost, much like Walsh lost a game we won.

Ok dude, again, statistics, ill get to that in a second.

You clearly have very little knowledge of the cap, if you had Aaron Rodgers, the ENTIRE makeup of your roster would be different, completely, and utterly, different. The cap runs the team, you wouldnt have your current cast just added with Aaron Rodgers.

As to Rodgers getting a couyple of SB rings if he had been with the Vikes? Well, that is incorrect, and hey guess what? I can prove it.

2010: 2
2011:19
2012:11
2013:24
2014:13
2015:12

Vikings D

2010:18
2011:31
2012:14
2013:32
2014:11
2015: 5

So, please enlighten me as to what about those statistics seem to imply that the Vikings would have done vastly better with Rodgers then the Packers, please im absolutely enthralled. Unless, you think the Vikes have fielded a vastly better offensive cast then the Packers these last 5 years, which you seemingly must, according to the table above.

Amazingly enough you still seem to want to pin last year on Rodgers, no matter how many time I point out that the Packers D was top 5 for the majority of the year and the Packers O was 25th in the league, is no amount of tangible on field production enough to sway you? At this point your just willfully ignorant to the facts.

You point out two hail marys (The first which was set up by a great second half defensive effort, the second of which was set up by an great 60 minutes of defense) and act like it means something, bruh I could just as easilly point to double that of victories that were spearheaded by the defense.

As to the Vikes D vs the Packers D, well hey! Thats your opinion and I respect it, but your D finished 5th in the league which was the spot the Packers straddles for most of the year so I dont at all find it unlikely that the Packers continue to challenge for the mantle of one of the best Ds in the league next year.

Jordysghost wrote: Ok dude, again, statistics, ill get to that in a second.

You clearly have very little knowledge of the cap, if you had Aaron Rodgers, the ENTIRE makeup of your roster would be different, completely, and utterly, different. The cap runs the team, you wouldnt have your current cast just added with Aaron Rodgers.

As to Rodgers getting a couyple of SB rings if he had been with the Vikes? Well, that is incorrect, and hey guess what? I can prove it.

2010: 2
2011:19
2012:11
2013:24
2014:13
2015:12

Vikings D

2010:18
2011:31
2012:14
2013:32
2014:11
2015: 5

So, please enlighten me as to what about those statistics seem to imply that the Vikings would have done vastly better with Rodgers then the Packers, please im absolutely enthralled. Unless, you think the Vikes have fielded a vastly better offensive cast then the Packers these last 5 years, which you seemingly must, according to the table above.

Amazingly enough you still seem to want to pin last year on Rodgers, no matter how many time I point out that the Packers D was top 5 for the majority of the year and the Packers O was 25th in the league, is no amount of tangible on field production enough to sway you? At this point your just willfully ignorant to the facts.

You point out two hail marys (The first which was set up by a great second half defensive effort, the second of which was set up by an great 60 minutes of defense) and act like it means something, bruh I could just as easilly point to double that of victories that were spearheaded by the defense.

As to the Vikes D vs the Packers D, well hey! Thats your opinion and I respect it, but your D finished 5th in the league which was the spot the Packers straddles for most of the year so I dont at all find it unlikely that the Packers continue to challenge for the mantle of one of the best Ds in the league next year.

If you put Rodgers on this vikings team we will be going to the super bowl very year. Where did I say over the last 6 years if we had Rodgers we would have made it to a few? I mean to think you spent 15 minutes or more posting that when you didn't even comprehend my statement which I outlined pretty clearly, is astounding.

No one in there right mind argues the Vikings have had anywhere near a superbowl caliber team over the last 6 years. I mean did you sit there and go hahaha this idiot? The Packers defense is mediocre get over yourself how can you sit there and say you have a better defense, we know you have a better offense. We beat you and took the division from you in your own house. How can you have a better or even equal defense when we were the better team? We all know our offense isn't that good. I guess an inferior team won 11 games and beat you when it mattered most because we have more heart.

fiestavike wrote:
When you have the best QB in the league, a well run organization, and continuity, I would anticipate standards being pretty high.
They've wasted a lot of great shots at another title. Hopefully this year will be no different!

Right, not like the front office has anything to do with the Packers being a well run organization, that maintains continuity.

Not like the coach they hired specifically with Aaron Rodgers in mind coming in and and completely overhauling his mechanics had anything to do with it either im sure.

Falling short isn't the same as "wasting' Fiesta, Im surprised you would look at it that way. I also dont think it makes sense to hold a team to a higher standard based on the fact that they have been very succesful, that seems a bit redundant.

sneaxsneax wrote:
If you put Rodgers on this vikings team we will be going to the super bowl very year. Where did I say over the last 6 years if we had Rodgers we would have made it to a few? I mean to think you spent 15 minutes or more posting that when you didn't even comprehend my statement which I outlined pretty clearly, is astounding.

No one in there right mind argues the Vikings have had anywhere near a superbowl caliber team over the last 6 years. I mean did you sit there and go hahaha this idiot? The Packers defense is mediocre get over yourself how can you sit there and say you have a better defense, we know you have a better offense. We beat you and took the division from you in your own house. How can you have a better or even equal defense when we were the better team? We all know our offense isn't that good. I guess an inferior team won 11 games and beat you when it mattered most because we have more heart.

Yea, we have a mediocre D, except for the fact that I already proved that statement to be a hundred percent incorrect multiple times over in this very thread..

Yes, you beat us in Lambuea just as the Bears and the Lions did, is this indicative of them being a better team then us too? It was a good game, an important game, but if your honestly asking me if i think the Vikes are going to start beating the Packers consistently, my answer is no, I don't, we play each othewr twice a year, you had to win sometime, thats not smack, and I certainly wish you would have chosen a different time to pull out a close win, but its nothing I hadnt already seen the Lions and Bears do prior, we lost because of our O, I just find it unlikely that they have such an off year again, that is all.

Look man. I was pretty happy when the Jets beat the Pats in the 2010 playoffs, but I didnt find it very likely that they started doing so with any regularity then either. Im not trying to rile any body up and I think you have every right to be optimistic, but im just stating my opinion.

As to whether the Vikes have more "Heart" then the Packers, well that is debateable, I mean the Packers did go farther after all.

Jordysghost wrote:
Right, not like the front office has anything to do with the Packers being a well run organization, that maintains continuity.

Not like the coach they hired specifically with Aaron Rodgers in mind coming in and and completely overhauling his mechanics had anything to do with it either im sure.

Falling short isn't the same as "wasting' Fiesta, Im surprised you would look at it that way. I also dont think it makes sense to hold a team to a higher standard based on the fact that they have been very succesful, that seems a bit redundant.

I don't understand the first part of what you are trying to say about the front office. I'm arguing they do have a good front office. Clearly the best in the division for a couple decades really.

I'm not holding them to a standard because they've been successful. (I'm not holding them to anything. I just want to see them lose)

My point is that they ARE very talented, most notably at the most important position in football, and they are well run. I'm saying they should be more successful. Their "success" to date has nothing to do with my argument...only their lack of success.

except for the fact that I already proved that statement to be a hundred percent incorrect multiple times over in this very thread

What is your definition of proof? Its seems to be a pretty low bar.

fiestavike wrote: I don't understand the first part of what you are trying to say about the front office. I'm arguing they do have a good front office. Clearly the best in the division for a couple decades really.

I'm not holding them to a standard because they've been successful. (I'm not holding them to anything. I just want to see them lose)

My point is that they ARE very talented, most notably at the most important position in football, and they are well run. I'm saying they should be more successful. Their "success" to date has nothing to do with my argument...only their lack of success.

What lack of success are you reffering to? It seems like they have been pretty succesful to me.

fiestavike wrote: What is your definition of proof? Its seems to be a pretty low bar.

The D ended the year 12 in overall D after spending most of the year in the top 5, the D finished with a top 5 passing D and ranked number 1 in the league in rushing YPG.

I dont think any of that at all qualifies as low bar.

Jordysghost wrote: The D ended the year 12 in overall D after spending most of the year in the top 5, the D finished with a top 5 passing D and ranked number 1 in the league in rushing YPG.

I dont think any of that at all qualifies as low bar.

You don't understand. I'm talking about a low bar for what you consider "proof" of something.

fiestavike wrote: You don't understand. I'm talking about a low bar for what you consider "proof" of something.

He posted a statement, I posted stats showing this statement to have no place in reality, its like your acting like im confused, but I think you are a little bit comfuzzled yourself.

Jordysghost wrote: He posted a statement, I posted stats showing this statement to have no place in reality, its like your acting like im confused, but I think you are a little bit comfuzzled yourself.

I'm not trying to weigh in on your argument. I agree GBs defense was pretty solid last year...best they've had over the last few years in my view.

I'm only commenting on your contending you are "proving" something by listing defensive scoring rankings. Evidence is not the same thing as proof. And scanty evidence is certainly not proof.

fiestavike wrote:
You don't understand. I'm talking about a low bar for what you consider "proof" of something.

Redundant

in lieu

Proof

Than/then

Anything remotely related to statistics.

I give up!

My conclusion: I don't understand the Wisconsin dialect of English.

Christmas almighty. You ignore my relevant arguments and either go straight to counter pointing the sarcastic joke thrown in there, like maybe they have more heart. Or completely misunderstanding me and then ignoring me when I call you out. You say you have the better team, but a bad Rodgers led offense was still leaps and bounds better than ours. So how did we beat you? How did we win more games? You seem to think your team is better at every level but you have an elite QB and are essentially no better than the Bengals these last 4 years.

You keep brining up going further in the playoffs when we had a freak occurrence stop us from progressing and you got to play a team that wouldn't be in the playoffs if it were in a division other than the nfc east. You don't seem to say anything to prove your point, sure your defense was alright this year, the Browns have had an all right defense at times in the past 5 years. We are building an elite defensive unit and to compare yours to ours is like us saying teddy is as good as Rodgers I mean, there passers ratings are close so they muuuuust be comparable right? 92 vs and 88 that's basically the same. So I guess teddy is on Rodgers level /sarcasm off. See how that works, your doing that.

Jordysghost wrote: The D ended the year 12 in overall D after spending most of the year in the top 5, the D finished with a top 5 passing D and ranked number 1 in the league in rushing YPG.

I dont think any of that at all qualifies as low bar.

Um, no they did not end up number 1 in the league in rushing in YPG. Try 21st.
Seattle was Number 1.
As to passing defense. The Packers were 6th in YPG.

Raptorman wrote: Um, no they did not end up number 1 in the league in rushing in YPG. Try 21st.
Seattle was Number 1.
As to passing defense. The Packers were 6th in YPG.

Wow, your right Raptor, the table that I got that from was accidently set to 'postseason'.