Vikings Message Board.Com

Norv Zimmer wrote: I realized that after I posted. I was thinking team as a whole. That doesn't take away that you have a smoking problem... you taking wake and bake to a whole new level!

Yeah, but I'm bakin' donuts!

IrishViking wrote:I am not. Again, people arent reading the discussion and just burying their head at the first sounds of an AP complaint.

I'm not burying my head. I just plain disagree with you.
I think AP missed one hole yesterday. The rest of the time he spent running into the line with someone in his grill.
I don't think any player should be judged by one game. Yes, I agree that he's probably slower than the 24-year old version of himself, but it'll take a few more games of under performing for me to think he has hit the wall.

Norv Zimmer wrote:The Packers are 22nd in receiving! Win!

Only because we were also 14th in rushing.

IrishViking wrote:He needs an offense built around him to excel.

That's just it: he doesn't need an offense built around him to excel. What he really needs (and has desperately needed most of his career) is a more balanced offense that doesn't make him the first, second and third priority of every defense the Vikings face. How is this not obvious?

He's played for one Vikings team in 9+ years that had a genuinely good QB and passing game. He had a great season that year and the team had one of their most successful seasons. He also did quite well as a receiver that year.

The problem isn't that Peterson needs the Vikings offense to be one-dimensional so he can succeed. The problem is the Vikings offense IS one-dimensional and that makes it more difficult for Peterson, and the team, to succeed. Way too many people look at this situation and try to make the tail wag the dog.

Jordysghost wrote: Your hyperbolic post isn't even accurate, Rodgers stats absolutely destroyed Hill's. Aside from that, the Vikes D hasn't shown nearly the pedigree that Rodgers has to make this even a remotely comparable thing. Im not even understanding completely, the Packers O played undoubtedly better then the Vikes did this most recent game, running and passing.

The fact that you think this is even remotely simillar to discussions of the Packers D in comparison to the Vikings D just goes to show how disillusioned you are, I don't think you understand how silly it is to say 'The Packers were only that good on D because of they're passing game' when our passing game was 25th in the league.

Hyperbolic remarks are no substitute for on field statistics, I get it, you want the Vikings D to be significantly better then the Packers despite the statistics not bearing that out at all, but making silly comments isn't going to make that happen.

You sir, have been trolled.

The best part of this Trolling is that I actually got you to attempt to put fourth some sort of rambling thought that links the Vikings Defensive Performance to Rogers. I mean really, how is that even remotely coherent? The whole point of my post was to point out absurdity by being absurd. By the way, my stats were total offense. I didn't say anything about defense.

Have a nice day.

mansquatch wrote: You sir, have been trolled.

The best part of this Trolling is that I actually got you to attempt to put fourth some sort of rambling thought that links the Vikings Defensive Performance to Rogers. I mean really, how is that even remotely coherent? The whole point of my post was to point out absurdity by being absurd. By the way, my stats were total offense. I didn't say anything about defense.

Have a nice day.

I love SPAM. It is so delicious fried up and served with over easy eggs and toast. One of my favorite breakfasts.

mansquatch wrote: You sir, have been trolled.

The best part of this Trolling is that I actually got you to attempt to put fourth some sort of rambling thought that links the Vikings Defensive Performance to Rogers. I mean really, how is that even remotely coherent? The whole point of my post was to point out absurdity by being absurd. By the way, my stats were total offense. I didn't say anything about defense.

Have a nice day.

... and on that note, I'm going to step in with this:

I understand the temptation to bait Jordy because he's a Packers fan and I understand why Jordy took that obvious bait like a hungry Packer pike but this thread is about the Vikes/Titans game. I've been hearing from people who are frustrated by how often threads are turning into Packers-related discussions. This is the Vikings section of the board so although it's fine if the Packers (or any other team) come up once in a while, threads here should be primarily focused on the Vikings. Since the two teams are playing this week, there will be threads devoted specifically to discussion of the upcoming matchup and we'll have ample opportunity to discuss the Vikes and GB. However, Jordy, please try to keep Packer discussion in those threads or NFL Talk and kept to a minimum elsewhere in the Vikings section (it's not off limits, just keep it in check). Vikings fans: help our Packer fan guest out by not baiting him or making potentially thread-derailing comments about the Packers that will inevitably tempt Jordy to reply.

Nobody did anything wrong here. There's no need to reply to this either. That will just push this thread off-topic. Please, everyone, just remember the board is set up as it is for a reason. There's Vikings Talk, NFL, Talk, etc. because that's supposed to help readers know what they'll get in each section.

Thanks. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Mansquatch did something wrong...... he made me hungry for spam when he probably knows that I am working and have no way to get any spam right now.

Cmon Jordy.... Do you actually believe he was being serious when saying that Hills stats were better than Rodgers so therefore Hill>Rodgers? You seem like you are trying to pick a fight out of nothing now.

P.S. I love SPAM

I thought the adjustments at halftime Zimmer made for the D, was the difference in the game. That and some great Defensive plays. When guys like Kendricks can pick off a ball and return it for a TD, we can win a lot of games. And our D is loaded with stars. Turnovers just kill the opponents when you get 7 points out of one. I dont trust our offensive to score right now.

Our offense did enough to help give us the win. But we are going to need more from then next week if we dont want to get embarrassed at our new home next week. OTOH, if we can run the ball effectively, we have a great chance at being 2-0.

Patterson sparked a little life into the team in the second half, hope he gets more touches.

I dont trust Walsh, at all. He has some kind of mind games going on, and when we need him, he's going to disappoint. I also dont like locke as punter, wish they had competition.

Our run blocking is our biggest concern right now. And its a big one.

IMO

Diggs and Theilen were most effective receivers

Hill had a couple of bad throws, but played like a decent back up

Norv Turner needs to go as our OC .. too stubborn .. if they overloading the box throw
the ball. Why run Peterson into a wall play after play.. If they aren't defending the
pass.. then pass the ball...

jackal wrote:IMO

Diggs and Theilen were most effective receivers

Hill had a couple of bad throws, but played like a decent back up

Norv Turner needs to go as our OC .. too stubborn .. if they overloading the box throw
the ball. Why run Peterson into a wall play after play.. If they aren't defending the
pass.. then pass the ball...

I completely agree, Norv is not doing a good job calling plays.... I think I could call a game better TBH. But, I also think Hill should have been audible happy seeing 10 people in the box. But nope, he would still hand it off and Peterson would run into 8 people.

Jordysghost wrote: And who do you guys have? At all?

Again, I don't think having no depth at WR around him would improve his statistical production anyway, on the contrary, I think it would hurt it, but really, who do the Vikes have at WR?

The difference is, Treadwell has to compete with Johnson who has been in this offense for 3 years and knows it inside and out. Braxton Miller is a rookie and Strong struggled to get playing time last year behind Cecil Shorts so what does that tell you about their WR corps? We have an outside stud in Diggs and another guy that has been in the system for 3 years. Houston has one of those in Hopkins and nothing beyond that. So I'll refer back to what I said originally that Houston has zero depth at WR. So with Fuller getting time early doesnt means crap to me.

Norv Zimmer wrote:I completely agree, Norv is not doing a good job calling plays.... I think I could call a game better TBH. But, I also think Hill should have been audible happy seeing 10 people in the box. But nope, he would still hand it off and Peterson would run into 8 people.

I wonder if he was given the option to audible out of those plays. He's a veteran so I don't see why they'd hold that option back but sometimes coaches do that.

There's something to be said for continuing to run and keeping the defense honest but when it's as futile as it was yesterday, I wish the Vikings would do more. Personally, that's the kind of game where I would have loved to see them attack the perimeter of the defense with WR screens, quick outs, etc. Let some of the more nimble receivers pick up some RAC yardage!