Vikings Message Board.Com

Jordysghost wrote: Um, no. Not. even. close.

Packers could have started Rodgers day one and likely nothing would be different. The idea Favre hogging the spotlight made a difference is ludicrous. Should Brady have sat longer? Should the Seahawks have left Wilson on the bench to "learn the game"? We had to put up with "developing" TJoke, Ponder, Webb. We have had a half dozen "developmental" guys every preseason this same silly conversation comes up.

Demi wrote: Packers could have started Rodgers day one and likely nothing would be different. The idea Favre hogging the spotlight made a difference is ludicrous. Should Brady have sat longer? Should the Seahawks have left Wilson on the bench to "learn the game"? We had to put up with "developing" TJoke, Ponder, Webb. We have had a half dozen "developmental" guys every preseason this same silly conversation comes up.

Incorrect, Rodgers was nothing short terrible his first two or three preseasons and that was against 2nd and 3rd stringers, McCarthy had to completely change his throwing motion and mechanics. Not all QBs would benefit from sitting, but some do. Mark Brunnell, Matt Hasslebeck, Kurt Warner, that is three guys right there that made major strides in development from the time they came into the league to the time they became quality starters in the NFL.

So you have had some guys that didn't develop, that doesn't in the slightest mean that QBs dont develop, even guys who do start right away develop, they typically dont come out shooting and in their prime their first season. Are you really saying that Rodgers, Manning, Brees, Rivers, Rothlisberger havent developed into better players since coming into the league.

Are you really saying that Rodgers, Manning, Brees, Rivers, Rothlisberger havent developed into better players since coming into the league.

No, I'm saying if they were named the starters day 1, they'd be right where they are now. And all of them had the talent in the first place. They weren't undrafted free agents that a team spend a few years working with and using a roster spot on.

808vikingsfan wrote: Don't really care what happened in Buffalo. There are more factors than just who is the better QB, look what happen here in Minnesota in 2013.

Contracts aside, if Bridgewater goes down for the season in week 1, I'd take Cassel over Hill any day of the week. Not saying I don't like Hill, he's a good backup. I just think Cassel can be very effective given the right cast.

You may continue shaking your head.

I will continue shaking my head since he got cut today. Couldn't beat out 2 guys that don't even belong on a football field. I don't buy the "given the right cast" thing. Our offensive line isn't the strongest and neither is Buffalo's. We both have good RBs and both have decent WR's. The casts aren't all that different. Bottom line is, he's obviously declining and declining quick.

Weren't there a few out there that thought the Cassel trade was a dumb move?? Yeah since we got a 5th round pick for nothing and saved money in the end.

Well I wasnt sure where to put this. The first round of week 1 picks are in, these ones coming from the good folks at CBS. Take a look, I think you will be pleasantly surprised! Let the Vikings hype train roll on. Maybe we can get a separate thread for weekly predictions/picks?

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/features/w ... aight-up/1

Quite frankly, if we lose to the 49ers it will be an immensely deflating loss. This is one of those games that we have to win if we want to make the playoffs.

I kind of get the same feeling that I had last year @ the rams to start the season. Ive been browsing 49er forums and its almost unanimous that the vikings will be an easy win for them. Last year the rams fans didn't think much of the Vikings either and since they were at home they were dead set that it would be a win. We all know the result 34-6, and one of the better games for us, if not the best (patterson run, smith pick 6) to watch. I have a similar feeling this year. I think we win to the tune of 33-12, and show 49ers who the vikings are.

MichViking wrote:I kind of get the same feeling that I had last year @ the rams to start the season. Ive been browsing 49er forums and its almost unanimous that the vikings will be an easy win for them. Last year the rams fans didn't think much of the Vikings either and since they were at home they were dead set that it would be a win. We all know the result 34-6, and one of the better games for us, if not the best (patterson run, smith pick 6) to watch. I have a similar feeling this year. I think we win to the tune of 33-12, and show 49ers who the vikings are.

Yeah, some of those Rams threads were pretty funny to read. If you come across any good 49er ones, link them here. Who was it that did the threads last year about what others were saying and links to other fourms? Those were great

Crax wrote: Yeah, some of those Rams threads were pretty funny to read. If you come across any good 49er ones, link them here. Who was it that did the threads last year about what others were saying and links to other fourms? Those were great

frosted did those! Hopefully he has time to do them again this year.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/niner ... ys/page12/

A fun read. But it was started in like june or something, may want to fast forward. Also there is this annoying poster named DANADA whose only real contributions seem to be WOOOOOOO every day.

Demi wrote: No, I'm saying if they were named the starters day 1, they'd be right where they are now. And all of them had the talent in the first place. They weren't undrafted free agents that a team spend a few years working with and using a roster spot on.

Warner didnt tear up the Arena Football League like he teared up the NFL, Rodgers looked terrible until he came in off the bench for Favre in the middle of 2007 in a game against the Cowboys, and Steve Young started day one for the the Buccaneers and crapped the bed, before eventually becoming a Hall of Famer.

I think those 3 players alone prove my point sufficiently enough.

DK Sweets wrote:Quite frankly, if we lose to the 49ers it will be an immensely deflating loss. This is one of those games that we have to win if we want to make the playoffs.

The first game of the season is far from a must win to get into the playoffs.

Jordysghost wrote: The first game of the season is far from a must win to get into the playoffs.

Its not about it being the first game of the season. It's about the 49ers being one of the softer teams in our schedule.

MichViking wrote:http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/niner ... ys/page12/

A fun read. But it was started in like june or something, may want to fast forward. Also there is this annoying poster named DANADA whose only real contributions seem to be WOOOOOOO every day.

I clicked the link just to see how bad DANADA was. You weren't kidding. Literally, all they do is post "woooooo"

DK Sweets wrote:Its not about it being the first game of the season. It's about the 49ers being one of the softer teams in our schedule.

Even if they were the worst team in the league, which they are not, it still wouldnt make or break the Vikings season, or playoff hopes.