Vikings Message Board.Com

In what was already a terrible season, we squander a 16 point lead in the 4th quarter against our hated rival without there best player on the field.

Just awful.

Jeffbleedspurple wrote:Could of been worst

Making Matt Flynn look like Aaron Rodgers was still out there playing was worse enough.

What a joke. The team comes in fired up with a depleted secondary puts up good numbers and DOES NOT LOSE, AND NOTHING BUT NEGATIVE CRAP

King James wrote: Making Matt Flynn look like Aaron Rodgers was still out there playing was worse enough.

I don't know about that, he looked pretty pedestrian to me.

Purple bruise wrote:What a joke. The team comes in fired up with a depleted secondary puts up good numbers and DOES NOT LOSE, AND NOTHING BUT NEGATIVE CRAP

I'm sorry, but are you happy with a tie? It's better than losing, but barely, considering how we came to that tie.

We blew it. Nothing to be positive about concerning the score. It's more of a neutral feeling for most, I'd guess.

Purple bruise wrote:What a joke. The team comes in fired up with a depleted secondary puts up good numbers and DOES NOT LOSE, AND NOTHING BUT NEGATIVE CRAP

LOL , and numbers mean what exactly?

The tie does NOTHING for us, nothing.

The only point to the rest of the season is playing the spoiler, the Packers won't have Rodgers out forever, and they need as many losses as they can get before he comes back.

We should have won, blowing a 16 point lead to the third string QB in the 4th is pathetic. This helps the Packers much more then it hurts them.

Jeffbleedspurple wrote: Hahaha!! Flynn didn't look that good

Lord knows I wish we had a QB who would bring us back from a 16 point deficit in the 4th.

Purpnation wrote:
Lord knows I wish we had a QB who would bring us back from a 16 point deficit in the 4th.

BINGO!

Purpnation wrote:This helps the Packers much more then it hurts them.

I don't think I'd go that far. Unless the Bears and/or the Lions get a tie later this year, this will be as good as a loss for the Pack. They will be one game behind the Bears/Lions. Of course, if they keep tanking, its not going to matter anyway...

I'm convinced that at the end of the game, the coaches just have no idea what to do, either offensively or defensively. The last Vikings drive a field goal would have won it. I hate running on first down but the Vikings do it all the time, yeah I know AP, but it would help if they would throw on other downs besides third down. It never should have come to that anyways. Fourth quarter three and outs along with the Vikings prevent defense (which from now on I will refer to as the "sieve defense") is all too familiar this season. How can this coaching staff keep their jobs.

MelanieMFunk wrote: I'm sorry, but are you happy with a tie? It's better than losing, but barely, considering how we came to that tie.

We blew it. Nothing to be positive about concerning the score. It's more of a neutral feeling for most, I'd guess.

Well no I of course would have preferred a win. But going into Puker Land and getting a tie (which might cost them the play offs) watching the o-line play better than they have most of the year, watching AD and Toby tear it up, seeing ther potential come alive in Rhodes, watching great special teams play, and get ready to puke on this but Ponder played a very good game and if not for four crucial drops (l Wright, 2 Patterson and Jenninghs, which would have given them a huge first down) they could have won.
Kudos for the coaches getting them up to play with nothing to win and playing in frigid weather.

Just Me wrote: I don't think I'd go that far. Unless the Bears and/or the Lions get a tie later this year, this will be as good as a loss for the Pack. They will be one game behind the Bears/Lions. Of course, if they keep tanking, its not going to matter anyway...

Problem is, with a loss they still would only be a game out of first place, and I hate to say it, but its obvious that there recent losing streak is all a product of the Rodgers injury.

My point is, Rodgers is probably going to come back within these next two weeks, the Packers need all the losses they can get until he comes back, because, unfortunately, I don't even trust the Lions to beat the Packers regardless of Rodgers playing or not.

Best spin I saw on this all day - it doesn't help the Packers in their playoff hopes, and it doesn't hurt us too much for our high draft pick dreams.

Works for me. Would've LOVED a win, but in the end, not losing is far better than losing.

Purpnation wrote:
My point is, Rodgers is probably going to come back within these next two weeks, the Packers need all the losses they can get until he comes back, because, unfortunately, I don't even trust the Lions to beat the Packers regardless of Rodgers playing or not.

Who cares what Rodgers does? It's pretty clear that the Packers aren't a complete team to make a deep run in the playoffs. They can take the division...that's about as valid as the Giants taking the division at this point - the NFC North SUCKS.