PDA

View Full Version : Vikings vs. Packers pre-game articles, thoughts & predictions



singersp
10-27-2009, 08:18 AM
Will the Real Favre Please Stand Up? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/sports/football/27fast.html?hpw)

singersp
10-27-2009, 08:20 AM
More at stake for Vikings on Sunday at Lambeau Field than Brett Favre's return (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_13647747)

singersp
10-27-2009, 09:02 AM
Vikings-Packers: Downplaying the drama begins (http://min.scout.com/2/913377.html)

singersp
10-28-2009, 07:57 AM
Next Opponent: Minnesota Vikings (http://min.scout.com/a.z?s=63&p=2&c=913411)

singersp
10-28-2009, 08:07 AM
Packers-Vikings Week 8 Dope Sheet (http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2009/10/27/5/)

singersp
10-28-2009, 08:09 AM
Brett Favre returns to Green Bay, but the heat will be on Aaron Rodgers (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-farmer-nfl28-2009oct28,0,2240826.story)

singersp
10-28-2009, 08:11 AM
Packers vs. Vikings a pivotal game with or without Favre storyline (http://www.lacrossetribune.com/sports/football/article_d6a81d76-c367-11de-a803-001cc4c03286.html)

singersp
10-28-2009, 08:15 AM
Ex-Packer Freeman: Lambeau's boos won't shake Brett Favre (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vikings/2009-10-28-brett-favre-antonio-freeman_N.htm)

Zeus
10-28-2009, 02:41 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10285330/Favre-is-right;-Packer-fans-should-'get-over-it'


Favre is right; Packer fans should 'get over it'
by Alex Marvez
Updated: October 28, 2009, 11:43 AM EDT

Neil Sedaka was right. Breaking up is hard to do.

Mind you, the old-school crooner was referencing a romantic relationship in his 1960s hit. But the same sentiment applies in the NFL when teams cut long-standing ties with veteran players.

Brett Favre's return to Green Bay will serve as another heart-wrenching example Sunday when the Minnesota Vikings roll into town.


=Z=

Marrdro
10-28-2009, 03:09 PM
"singersp" wrote:


Will the Real Favre Please Stand Up? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/sports/football/27fast.html?hpw)

Wow, can't believe this one didn't get a few on here scrambling for thier excuse lines.....

Anyway, thanks for the read my friend.
;D

singersp
10-29-2009, 08:12 AM
Vikings could be down two starters (http://min.scout.com/2/913748.html)

singersp
10-29-2009, 08:18 AM
For Favre, a Return to Lambeau (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/sports/football/29nfl.html?_r=1)

singersp
10-29-2009, 08:19 AM
Brett Favre on Lambeau return: I've heard the boos before (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-10-29-brett-favre-wednesday_N.htm)

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 08:20 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Vikings could be down two starters (http://min.scout.com/2/913748.html)


Color me silly, but I am not worried about going into PUKER land without either of them being on the field.
If we struggle in this game it won't be because of our recievers or secondary.


If you know what I mean.
;)

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 08:24 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Packers vs. Vikings a pivotal game with or without Favre storyline (http://www.lacrossetribune.com/sports/football/article_d6a81d76-c367-11de-a803-001cc4c03286.html)

Thanks for the read my friend.

I need to get off my ass and break this game down.
Didn't realize they were having all the issues with respect to reciever injuries.

The loss of Finley will help us alot of he doesn't go. ;)

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 08:29 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Next Opponent: Minnesota Vikings (http://min.scout.com/a.z?s=63&p=2&c=913411)

Thanks for the read my friend.


"We are 6-1," Leber said. "We have a tough game next week, on the road again. I think we learned a lot from being on the road here in a hostile environment. We’ll take those lessons into next week, and I think we’re going to put this game behind us pretty quickly and move onto Green Bay.

If for no other reason, the fact that we can now win on the road (and on grass) again, I am not as worried about this game.

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 08:35 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Brett Favre on Lambeau return: I've heard the boos before (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-10-29-brett-favre-wednesday_N.htm)


Thanks for the read my friend.


On Wednesday, Longwell said his friend is "in a good place" and thinks the importance of the game from a standings standpoint will help take the edge of Favre's personal storyline. Asked whether he thinks Favre will be booed, Longwell said, "I think he will. I think he should, when the game starts, because we're the opposing team. If they're cheering, I think their fans are misplaced.

Does ole Shortwell have a degree or something when it comes to psychiatry?
Seems he is always giving our current QB some sort of counsel.
::)

NodakPaul
10-29-2009, 09:17 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Brett Favre on Lambeau return: I've heard the boos before (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-10-29-brett-favre-wednesday_N.htm)


Thanks for the read My Farvish Friend.


On Wednesday, Longwell said his friend is "in a good place" and thinks the importance of the game from a standings standpoint will help take the edge of Favre's personal storyline. Asked whether he thinks Favre will be booed, Longwell said, "I think he will. I think he should, when the game starts, because we're the opposing team. If they're cheering, I think their fans are misplaced.

Does ole Shortwell have a degree or something when it comes to psychiatry?
Seems he is always giving our current QB some sort of counsel.

::)


Nope, he got a BA in English from Berkley.
He, however, is the only other one on the team who can semi-relate to Favre's situation.

I don't understand your use of smileys BTW...

marstc09
10-29-2009, 09:20 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10285330/Favre-is-right;-Packer-fans-should-'get-over-it'


Favre is right; Packer fans should 'get over it'
by Alex Marvez
Updated: October 28, 2009, 11:43 AM EDT

Neil Sedaka was right. Breaking up is hard to do.

Mind you, the old-school crooner was referencing a romantic relationship in his 1960s hit. But the same sentiment applies in the NFL when teams cut long-standing ties with veteran players.

Brett Favre's return to Green Bay will serve as another heart-wrenching example Sunday when the Minnesota Vikings roll into town.


=Z=


I can think of a couple Vikings fans that need to get over it.

marstc09
10-29-2009, 09:22 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


Thanks for the read my friend.

Still a part of me that sits back and says to myself....."Self, this whole thing was a plan set in motion by the Chiller and our current QB 2 years ago".

I am 100% convinced that we were meddling with him during the offseason with the goal of getting him on our team in 2008, not 2009.
Problem is, TT was to smart for us and traded him to the Jets in an effort to stop that, which by the way he did.

I am also 100% convinced that he only played for the Jets last year cause he knew that if he didn't, he wouldn't get to be a Viking this year.


He was?! Last time I checked BRETT FAVRE was a VIKING.

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 10:28 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Brett Favre on Lambeau return: I've heard the boos before (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-10-29-brett-favre-wednesday_N.htm)


Thanks for the read My Farvish Friend.


On Wednesday, Longwell said his friend is "in a good place" and thinks the importance of the game from a standings standpoint will help take the edge of Favre's personal storyline. Asked whether he thinks Favre will be booed, Longwell said, "I think he will. I think he should, when the game starts, because we're the opposing team. If they're cheering, I think their fans are misplaced.

Does ole Shortwell have a degree or something when it comes to psychiatry?
Seems he is always giving our current QB some sort of counsel.

::)


Nope, he got a BA in English from Berkley.
He, however, is the only other one on the team who can semi-relate to Favre's situation.

I don't understand your use of smileys BTW...



I am patiently waiting for a response

http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php/topic,51502.0.html

Good response by the way.
;D

NodakPaul
10-29-2009, 10:30 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Brett Favre on Lambeau return: I've heard the boos before (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-10-29-brett-favre-wednesday_N.htm)


Thanks for the read My Farvish Friend.


On Wednesday, Longwell said his friend is "in a good place" and thinks the importance of the game from a standings standpoint will help take the edge of Favre's personal storyline. Asked whether he thinks Favre will be booed, Longwell said, "I think he will. I think he should, when the game starts, because we're the opposing team. If they're cheering, I think their fans are misplaced.

Does ole Shortwell have a degree or something when it comes to psychiatry?
Seems he is always giving our current QB some sort of counsel.

::)


Nope, he got a BA in English from Berkley.
He, however, is the only other one on the team who can semi-relate to Favre's situation.

I don't understand your use of smileys BTW...



I am patiently waiting for a response

http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php/topic,51502.0.html

Good response by the way.

;D


Aha!
I have been so confused with your smileys for a while now.
I am bookmarking that page...

Marrdro
10-29-2009, 10:32 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Brett Favre on Lambeau return: I've heard the boos before (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-10-29-brett-favre-wednesday_N.htm)


Thanks for the read My Farvish Friend.


On Wednesday, Longwell said his friend is "in a good place" and thinks the importance of the game from a standings standpoint will help take the edge of Favre's personal storyline. Asked whether he thinks Favre will be booed, Longwell said, "I think he will. I think he should, when the game starts, because we're the opposing team. If they're cheering, I think their fans are misplaced.

Does ole Shortwell have a degree or something when it comes to psychiatry?
Seems he is always giving our current QB some sort of counsel.

::)


Nope, he got a BA in English from Berkley.
He, however, is the only other one on the team who can semi-relate to Favre's situation.

I don't understand your use of smileys BTW...



I am patiently waiting for a response

http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php/topic,51502.0.html

Good response by the way.

;D


Aha!
I have been so confused with your smileys for a while now.
I am bookmarking that page...

Maybe I should bump it.
;D

battleaxe4cheese
10-29-2009, 10:58 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:




Brett Favre on Lambeau return: I've heard the boos before (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-10-29-brett-favre-wednesday_N.htm)


Thanks for the read My Farvish Friend.


On Wednesday, Longwell said his friend is "in a good place" and thinks the importance of the game from a standings standpoint will help take the edge of Favre's personal storyline. Asked whether he thinks Favre will be booed, Longwell said, "I think he will. I think he should, when the game starts, because we're the opposing team. If they're cheering, I think their fans are misplaced.

Does ole Shortwell have a degree or something when it comes to psychiatry?
Seems he is always giving our current QB some sort of counsel.

::)


Nope, he got a BA in English from Berkley.
He, however, is the only other one on the team who can semi-relate to Favre's situation.

I don't understand your use of smileys BTW...



I am patiently waiting for a response

http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php/topic,51502.0.html

Good response by the way.

;D


Aha!
I have been so confused with your smileys for a while now.
I am bookmarking that page...

Maybe I should bump it.

;D



I don't care what they do or say, I just want to beat them. It's time to punish, pillage and pound them into dust. >:(

singersp
10-30-2009, 07:51 AM
Brett Favre prepares to wear purple at Lambeau (http://news.bostonherald.com/sports/football/other_nfl/view/20091029brett_favre_prepares_to_wear_purple_at_lambeau/srvc=home&position=recent)

singersp
10-30-2009, 07:53 AM
Percy Harvin expected back at Minnesota Vikings practice Friday (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_13669478?nclick_check=1)

singersp
10-30-2009, 07:54 AM
Icon booed, grudge renewed as Vikes and Pack feud (http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2009-10-29/icon-booed-grudge-renewed-vikes-and-pack-feud)

singersp
10-30-2009, 07:55 AM
Berrian returns to practice, Harvin sits out
(http://www.seattlepi.com/scorecard/nflnews.asp?articleID=266893)

singersp
10-30-2009, 07:56 AM
Packers may have to dig deeper to create turnovers against Vikings (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/oct/29/bc-fbn-packers-adv30mw-_-sports-1000-words/?sports&nfl)

singersp
10-30-2009, 07:57 AM
Packers passing game will test Winfield's replacements (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_13672594)

singersp
10-30-2009, 07:58 AM
Defense doesn't want to give up more big plays to Green Bay Packers
(http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20091029/PKR01/91029167/1058/Vikings-notebook--Defense-doesn-t-want-to-give-up-more-big-plays)

singersp
10-30-2009, 07:59 AM
Fox to use Favre-Cam during Vikings-Packers game
(http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sports-media30-2009oct30,0,3394101.story)

The network will have a camera dedicated to catching the movements of the current Minnesota and former Green Bay quarterback during Sunday's matchup at Lambeau Field.

ejmat
10-30-2009, 09:11 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Next Opponent: Minnesota Vikings (http://min.scout.com/a.z?s=63&p=2&c=913411)

Thanks for the read my friend.


"We are 6-1," Leber said. "We have a tough game next week, on the road again. I think we learned a lot from being on the road here in a hostile environment. We’ll take those lessons into next week, and I think we’re going to put this game behind us pretty quickly and move onto Green Bay.

If for no other reason, the fact that we can now win on the road (and on grass) again, I am not as worried about this game.


Funny thing is the reason we are able to do that is because of "our current QB" in which you keep trying to pick on or degrade every little thing he does wrong?
What's up with that?
;D

Marrdro
10-30-2009, 09:21 AM
"ejmat" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Next Opponent: Minnesota Vikings (http://min.scout.com/a.z?s=63&p=2&c=913411)

Thanks for the read My Farvish Friend.


"We are 6-1," Leber said. "We have a tough game next week, on the road again. I think we learned a lot from being on the road here in a hostile environment. We’ll take those lessons into next week, and I think we’re going to put this game behind us pretty quickly and move onto Green Bay.

If for no other reason, the fact that we can now win on the road (and on grass) again, I am not as worried about this game.


Funny thing is the reason we are able to do that is because of "our current QB" in which you keep trying to pick on or degrade every little thing he does wrong?
What's up with that?
;D

Always back to the QB as the sole reason huh?
LOL, I suspect the other cats on the roster might have a little sumpen sumpen to do with that as well.
;)

NordicNed
10-30-2009, 09:25 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Icon booed, grudge renewed as Vikes and Pack feud (http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2009-10-29/icon-booed-grudge-renewed-vikes-and-pack-feud)
I may be wrong on this one, but over the booo's, I think we will here more cheers for Brett's return than the booo's. I also expect to see a large % actaully stand and cheer him, when they come onto the field from the locker room.
Once the game acually starts, whole new ball game, they will do their best, like we would, to rattle him as a player, by being as load and rude as they can ( pack fans )
Nice read Singer.

Marrdro
10-30-2009, 09:29 AM
Time for Some Vikings' Defensive Starters to Step Up

http://vikesgeek.blogspot.com/2009/10/time-for-some-vikings-defensive.html

Prophet
10-30-2009, 09:33 AM
Seems like there are always a couple duke outs at Lambeau.
I wonder if a Vikings fan wearing a Favre jersey will get some lovin' when their former hero lights them up or if they will take out their revenge on the fan.
I would be duct taping my orifaces if I went to that game, those gol 'darnit cheeseheads are worse than porn-addicted rabbits.

ejmat
10-30-2009, 09:42 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Will the Real Favre Please Stand Up? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/sports/football/27fast.html?hpw)

Wow, can't believe this one didn't get a few on here scrambling for thier excuse lines.....

Anyway, thanks for the read my friend.

;D


Yes Singer, thanks for the good read.

Marrdro - what excuses are needed?

Marrdro
10-30-2009, 09:48 AM
Vikings-Packers Preview

http://pacifistviking.blogspot.com/2009/10/national-friday-league-week-8.html

gagarr
10-30-2009, 09:53 AM
A `Funeral 4 Favre'?

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/67201432.html


Believe it or not, Green Bay radio station 105.7 WAPL has decided to, um, "kill" their legendary QB by conducting a mock funeral for Brett Favre Friday through Sunday, when the Packers legend -- actually alive and playing very well for the archrival Vikings -- will play against his former team at Lambeau Field.


IMO, the only one being buried on Sunday with be the whole Packer organization and this is who's gonna do it.

Favre drives the hearse
LB's and DB's embalm the corps
Offensive line does crowd control
Receivers are the palLbearers
Kevin, Pat, and Edwards dig the grave
Allen puts the Packers in it.
Childress reads the eulogy
and AD POUNDS THE STAKE IN THE BLOOD SUCKERS to make sure they never come back.

Prophet
10-30-2009, 09:57 AM
"gagarr" wrote:


A `Funeral 4 Favre'?

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/67201432.html


Believe it or not, Green Bay radio station 105.7 WAPL has decided to, um, "kill" their legendary QB by conducting a mock funeral for Brett Favre Friday through Sunday, when the Packers legend -- actually alive and playing very well for the archrival Vikings -- will play against his former team at Lambeau Field.


IMO, the only one being buried on Sunday with be the whole Packer organization and this is who's gonna do it.

Favre drives the hearse
LB's and DB's embalm the corps
Offensive line does crowd control
Receivers are the palLbearers
Kevin, Pat, and Edwards dig the grave
Allen puts the Packers in it.
Childress reads the eulogy
and AD POUNDS THE STAKE IN THE BLOOD SUCKERS to make sure they never come back.


My favorite part of this matchup is that many of the Packer fans are in denial over their love for Favre.
I'm really hoping for not only a W, but a W that is obviously on the shoulders of Favre with something like 400 yds passing and 4 TDs and a rushing TD.
That would put the spike into the hearts of the Packer faithful and cause turmoil between the fans and the Packers organization.
I would thoroughly enjoy that.

gagarr
10-30-2009, 10:07 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


A `Funeral 4 Favre'?

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/67201432.html


Believe it or not, Green Bay radio station 105.7 WAPL has decided to, um, "kill" their legendary QB by conducting a mock funeral for Brett Favre Friday through Sunday, when the Packers legend -- actually alive and playing very well for the archrival Vikings -- will play against his former team at Lambeau Field.


IMO, the only one being buried on Sunday with be the whole Packer organization and this is who's gonna do it.

Favre drives the hearse
LB's and DB's embalm the corps
Offensive line does crowd control
Receivers are the palLbearers
Kevin, Pat, and Edwards dig the grave
Allen puts the Packers in it.
Childress reads the eulogy
and AD POUNDS THE STAKE IN THE BLOOD SUCKERS to make sure they never come back.


My favorite part of this matchup is that many of the Packer fans are in denial over their love for Favre.
I'm really hoping for not only a W, but a W that is obviously on the shoulders of Favre with something like 400 yds passing and 4 TDs and a rushing TD.
That would put the spike into the hearts of the Packer faithful and cause turmoil between the fans and the Packers organization.
I would thoroughly enjoy that.


IMO The way to really piss off the Packers and TT is for Favre to have a good day 250yds and NO INTs with 110+ rating and Rodgers to have a HORRIBLE day, 3INTs 0TD's and sub 70 QB rating.

Or if you can't have that, then a late drive by Favre to go ahead and Rodgers to throw a INT.

Make them to want Favre and to realize Rodgers, although a good QB, is NOT a closer and has none of the magic Favre has.

V-Unit
10-30-2009, 10:21 AM
I don't care how we win, at all.

jargomcfargo
10-30-2009, 10:44 AM
"V" wrote:


I don't care how we win, at all.


Me either.
But the most gratifying win would be a physically dominating running game with Peterson.
That's pretty much how we beat the Bears these days. They know we will run on them and they can't stop it.

I wouldn't mind seeing a defensive rout either. Pressure, sacks, and picks, with defensive scoring.

I hope we don't see a passing shootout. But if we win that way, I won't complain.

Zeus
10-30-2009, 10:46 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"V" wrote:


I don't care how we win, at all.


Me either.
But the most gratifying win would be a physically dominating running game with Peterson.


Have to disagree, Doc.
The most gratifying would be any "W" that puts the Vikings up by 2.5 games going into the BYE week at 7-1.
Doesn't matter how it happens, for me.

=Z=

C Mac D
10-30-2009, 10:52 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"V" wrote:


I don't care how we win, at all.


Me either.
But the most gratifying win would be a physically dominating running game with Peterson.


Have to disagree, Doc.
The most gratifying would be any "W" that puts the Vikings up by 2.5 games going into the BYE week at 7-1.
Doesn't matter how it happens, for me.

=Z=


+1... sweeping Green Bay for the first time since 2005 would be fine by me.

tastywaves
10-30-2009, 10:54 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Fox to use Favre-Cam during Vikings-Packers game
(http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sports-media30-2009oct30,0,3394101.story)

The network will have a camera dedicated to catching the movements of the current Minnesota and former Green Bay quarterback during Sunday's matchup at Lambeau Field.



It always sucks getting scammed, but hero worship on an athlete, especially for a grown man, is a bit pathetic, and one more comma for good measure.
Then again Terry is pretty much at an 8 year old level when it comes to intellect.


Oh, and, before the game in Minnesota, Bradshaw said, "I just don't understand Brett Favre. Once I said he was the best quarterback I've ever seen and I still believe that. He told us he was retired not once, but twice. It might have been three or four times. I lost count. . . . Why does it bother me so much? Because I watched him cry and say he had no more to give us and I believed him."

Mark_The_Viking
10-30-2009, 10:58 AM
Sweeping the PAckers would be hard to beat ;D

Marrdro
10-30-2009, 11:08 AM
"tastywaves" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Fox to use Favre-Cam during Vikings-Packers game
(http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sports-media30-2009oct30,0,3394101.story)

The network will have a camera dedicated to catching the movements of the current Minnesota and former Green Bay quarterback during Sunday's matchup at Lambeau Field.



It always sucks getting scammed, but hero worship on an athlete, especially for a grown man, is a bit pathetic, and one more comma for good measure.
Then again Terry is pretty much at an 8 year old level when it comes to intellect.


Oh, and, before the game in Minnesota, Bradshaw said, "I just don't understand Brett Favre. Once I said he was the best quarterback I've ever seen and I still believe that. He told us he was retired not once, but twice. It might have been three or four times. I lost count. . . . Why does it bother me so much? Because I watched him cry and say he had no more to give us and I believed him."



I think thier pre-game show is the biggest joke in sports media.

snowinapril
10-30-2009, 11:14 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


A `Funeral 4 Favre'?

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/67201432.html


Believe it or not, Green Bay radio station 105.7 WAPL has decided to, um, "kill" their legendary QB by conducting a mock funeral for Brett Favre Friday through Sunday, when the Packers legend -- actually alive and playing very well for the archrival Vikings -- will play against his former team at Lambeau Field.


IMO, the only one being buried on Sunday with be the whole Packer organization and this is who's gonna do it.

Favre drives the hearse
LB's and DB's embalm the corps
Offensive line does crowd control
Receivers are the palLbearers
Kevin, Pat, and Edwards dig the grave
Allen puts the Packers in it.
Childress reads the eulogy
and AD POUNDS THE STAKE IN THE BLOOD SUCKERS to make sure they never come back.


My favorite part of this matchup is that many of the Packer fans are in denial over their love for Favre.
I'm really hoping for not only a W, but a W that is obviously on the shoulders of Favre with something like 400 yds passing and 4 TDs and a rushing TD.
That would put the spike into the hearts of the Packer faithful and cause turmoil between the fans and the Packers organization.
I would thoroughly enjoy that.


I just want a W!

This game has me nervous.
The real thing riding on this game is NFL North standing, has nothing to do with Favre for me.
I hope the team is thinking the same way.


If we lose, we split the season with them.
We need the cushion.
It isn't that we need it, but this is one of those games that we should have under our belt, a feather in our cap.......
It will make the rest of the season seem easier.

Win (stake through the heart)
Vikings
7-1
GB



4-3

Lose (dogfight after our bye wk could be tied)
Vikings
6-2
GB



5-2

This is only about the W, I hope the Vikes realize this and don't get sucked into the hype.

tastywaves
10-30-2009, 11:14 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"tastywaves" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Fox to use Favre-Cam during Vikings-Packers game
(http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sports-media30-2009oct30,0,3394101.story)

The network will have a camera dedicated to catching the movements of the current Minnesota and former Green Bay quarterback during Sunday's matchup at Lambeau Field.



It always sucks getting scammed, but hero worship on an athlete, especially for a grown man, is a bit pathetic, and one more comma for good measure.
Then again Terry is pretty much at an 8 year old level when it comes to intellect.


Oh, and, before the game in Minnesota, Bradshaw said, "I just don't understand Brett Favre. Once I said he was the best quarterback I've ever seen and I still believe that. He told us he was retired not once, but twice. It might have been three or four times. I lost count. . . . Why does it bother me so much? Because I watched him cry and say he had no more to give us and I believed him."



I think thier pre-game show is the biggest joke in sports media.


Yea, but unfortunately, it seems to work for their ratings.
They tell the viewers what they want to hear, what they've been hearing all week by other so called experts.

V-Unit
10-30-2009, 11:15 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"V" wrote:


I don't care how we win, at all.


Me either.
But the most gratifying win would be a physically dominating running game with Peterson.


Have to disagree, Doc.
The most gratifying would be any "W" that puts the Vikings up by 2.5 games going into the BYE week at 7-1.
Doesn't matter how it happens, for me.

=Z=


Asking for anything more than a W when facing a legit Packers team at Lambeau is ridiculous. We haven't won there since 2005.

jargomcfargo
10-30-2009, 11:17 AM
Huge game. I'm also looking to keep pace with the top NFC teams.
If we are fortunate enough to make it there, I would like the NFC championship game in our dome.

NodakPaul
10-30-2009, 11:26 AM
"NordicNed" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Icon booed, grudge renewed as Vikes and Pack feud (http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2009-10-29/icon-booed-grudge-renewed-vikes-and-pack-feud)
I may be wrong on this one, but over the booo's, I think we will here more cheers for Brett's return than the booo's. I also expect to see a large % actaully stand and cheer him, when they come onto the field from the locker room.
Once the game acually starts, whole new ball game, they will do their best, like we would, to rattle him as a player, by being as load and rude as they can ( pack fans )
Nice read Singer.



We'll see.
I do remember when Moss came back to the dome - he was given a standing ovation.
But the circumstances un der which he left were considerably different.

When Favre goes back to Labeau, I expect to hear nothing but thunderous booing.
Yes, there will be some people cheering for him.
In fact, there will likely be a fair number of Vikings fans who have managed to make their way over there.
But the majority of the fans will be the Green Bay faithful, most of who view Favre as a traitor.

NodakPaul
10-30-2009, 11:27 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


Huge game. I'm also looking to keep pace with the top NFC teams.
If we are fortunate enough to make it there, I would like the NFC championship game in our dome.


+1.

And if the football gods so choose to bestow that upon us, I plan on being there AND in Miami. :)

Zeus
10-30-2009, 11:30 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


Huge game. I'm also looking to keep pace with the top NFC teams.
If we are fortunate enough to make it there, I would like the NFC championship game in our dome.


Going to need New Orleans to come down to Earth a bit for that to happen.

=Z=

C Mac D
10-30-2009, 11:31 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


Huge game. I'm also looking to keep pace with the top NFC teams.
If we are fortunate enough to make it there, I would like the NFC championship game in our dome.


Going to need New Orleans to come down to Earth a bit for that to happen.

=Z=


That's a crazy sentence... who would have thought.

gagarr
10-30-2009, 11:37 AM
"V" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"V" wrote:


I don't care how we win, at all.


Me either.
But the most gratifying win would be a physically dominating running game with Peterson.


Have to disagree, Doc.
The most gratifying would be any "W" that puts the Vikings up by 2.5 games going into the BYE week at 7-1.
Doesn't matter how it happens, for me.

=Z=


Asking for anything more than a W when facing a legit Packers team at Lambeau is ridiculous. We haven't won there since 2005.


Of course I think a win is most important, duh.
I'm a cherry on type kinda guy.

I just don't like the way they are treating Favre, he took the Packers from a long period of being losers, back to the prominence they once had.
IMO, they owe him some respect and should be concentrating on beating the Vikes and NOT on burying Favre.

Thus, for some payback it would be nice for Favre to be integral in burying the Pack this week and Rodgers to be mostly to blame for the loss to put it to Ted Thompson.

NodakPaul
10-30-2009, 11:47 AM
I ahve been thinking about this alot, and while I agree that it is a big game for the Vikings, I think it is a MUCH bigger game for the Packers.

All the presure will be on the Packers because a loss is much more catastrophic for them.


If we win, we get a 2.5 game lead in the NFC North and win the tie breaker.
After the bye, we will likely be 2 games up with 8 to play (I assume Green Bay will beat Tampa Bay).
That is a LOT of room for them to make up.

If we lose, we will likely come out of the bye tied.
Our schedule is slightly easier than theirs after the bye.
Yeah, a loss would suck, but we would still be very much in the running for the NFC North Championship.
And our schedule after week 9 is slightly easier than Green Bay's.

Green Bay has everything to lose in this game.
They are absolutely going to be feeling the pressure more.

jargomcfargo
10-30-2009, 11:48 AM
"gagarr" wrote:


"V" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"V" wrote:


I don't care how we win, at all.


Me either.
But the most gratifying win would be a physically dominating running game with Peterson.


Have to disagree, Doc.
The most gratifying would be any "W" that puts the Vikings up by 2.5 games going into the BYE week at 7-1.
Doesn't matter how it happens, for me.

=Z=


Asking for anything more than a W when facing a legit Packers team at Lambeau is ridiculous. We haven't won there since 2005.


Of course I think a win is most important, duh.
I'm a cherry on type kinda guy.

I just don't like the way they are treating Favre, he took the Packers from a long period of being losers, back to the prominence they once had.
IMO, they owe him some respect and should be concentrating on beating the Vikes and NOT on burying Favre.

Thus, for some payback it would be nice for Favre to be integral in burying the Pack this week and Rodgers to be mostly to blame for the loss to put it to Ted Thompson.




Right on. Everybody just wants that win. But there is nothing wrong with looking for a little whipped cream and a cherry to go with it.

If this Vikings team is the superbowl caliber team people think it is, it should be able to sweep the Packers and move on to bigger and better things.
Losing to the Packers will raise questions of legitimacy to our superbowl aspirations and lead us down a much more difficult path to attain that goal.

Huge game. I just want a W. But I won't turn down the cherry on top if it comes with it.

Zeus
10-30-2009, 11:51 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


Huge game. I just want a W. But I won't turn down the cherry on top if it comes with it.


Spit or swallow, you're still getting what you want.
With ya, Doc.

=Z=

jargomcfargo
10-30-2009, 11:59 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


I ahve been thinking about this alot, and while I agree that it is a big game for the Vikings, I think it is a MUCH bigger game for the Packers.

All the presure will be on the Packers because a loss is much more catastrophic for them.


If we win, we get a 2.5 game lead in the NFC North and win the tie breaker.
After the bye, we will likely be 2 games up with 8 to play (I assume Green Bay will beat Tampa Bay).
That is a LOT of room for them to make up.

If we lose, we will likely come out of the bye tied.
Our schedule is slightly easier than theirs after the bye.
Yeah, a loss would suck, but we would still be very much in the running for the NFC North Championship.
And our schedule after week 9 is slightly easier than Green Bay's.

Green Bay has everything to lose in this game.
They are absolutely going to be feeling the pressure more.


It is a bit of a 'must win' game for the Packers. It's been historically very difficult to beat a team that 'must win' in their own stadium.
I think the Vikings do win, if they maintain focus.

Surely the Vikings realize this opportunity to essentially put Green Bay away for the season.

slavinator
10-30-2009, 12:05 PM
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2009/1001/nfl_g_bfavre1_200.jpg

Hey Pack Fans!
I'm coming to rip your hearts out this weekend...................Oh
and say Hello to my little Friend!

http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/image_pictures/0715/3131/10133_feature.jpg

Braddock
10-30-2009, 12:13 PM
All this talk about cherries makes me hungry for a ice cream sundae. yummy...

What were we talking about again? Cherries?

molineviking
10-30-2009, 01:10 PM
There's no doubt this will be a very tough game, At Lambeau, Rodgers, Driver, and now Grant are all playing good, But I think if we can get the running game going right away, and Allen is his usual self, we can win, Of course I'd like to say we'll crush them and it will be one sided but we know it's gonna be a battle, what I find odd is the flip floppy "Sports Experts" who proclaimed us a possible Super Bowl contender when we got #4, Then we go 6-0 against weak competition (record wise) and are called pretenders, (Wouldn't any SB contender be expected to go 5-1 or 6-0 against inferior comp?) Basically two spectacular defensive plays were the difference in the Steeler game, And the "Experts" said we're for real, now other than Mark Schlereth, I can't think of one sports personality who picked us to win, Didn't we beat the same team one month ago? We have a great RB, great D-line, above average QB, LB's and Receivers, but get very little respect IMO. The best comment I keep hearing is that Rodgers will have a better game this time, Huh? I thought 26/37 384yds was pretty good, And last, can Rodgers take another 6+ sack game? He's already leading the league in being sacked.



My worthless prediction-Minn. 35 GB 27

vikinggreg
10-30-2009, 02:00 PM
32-23 Vikings

Rodgers will be getting sacked and I smell a safety, and it smells like victory ;)

Aaron is still behind a suspect line and needs to be faster in his reads and release. Allen, Robison, Edwards and the Williamses will be putt'n some bruises on him.

JeffSeimon
10-30-2009, 02:09 PM
I see Chester having a big day...Vikings 38 Pack 23

gagarr
10-30-2009, 02:22 PM
Finley is injured and he had the big day last time.
As long as the safeties/LB step up and take away the check downs the DL will have a second or two more to sack Rodgers.
Along with the 8 sacks last time the Vikes had 9 QB hurriesthat could easily be sacks if it wasn't for Rodgers hitting his 3rd read checkdowns.

A 10+ sack game isn't out of the question, lets just hope they get a couple strips or Rodgers starts to force it for INT's.

Vikes D gives us the W, 27-17.

Formo
10-30-2009, 02:49 PM
I predicted the Vikings lose this one..
33-34.
Mason Crosby doesn't miss the game ending FG this time around.

But, I'm also praying I'm wrong.
=)

V4L
10-30-2009, 03:13 PM
Well they played us close last time and easily could have won at our home

Rodgers has been playing lights out.. Their D is coming around FAST

We are startin to play better as well.. I see this one very very close

For some reason I see a sloppy game with either team kicking a game winning FG with 17 seconds left

Im gonna say Ryan Longwell due to the purple shades and optimism

Vikes 20
Pack 17

gagarr
10-30-2009, 03:14 PM
"Formo" wrote:


I predicted the Vikings lose this one..
33-34.
Mason Crosby doesn't miss the game ending FG this time around.

But, I'm also praying I'm wrong.
=)


Crosby won't miss the game winning FG, but it won't come to that because AD won't fumble resulting in a TD.

IMO the game wasn't as close at the 30-23 score shows, GB hasn't done anything.

Their 2 losses are Cinny and us, with winning records
Their 4 wins are Bears, Rams, Lions, Browns with combined record of 5-21.
Take out the Bears which they won only because Cutler stunk it up and their opponents were 2-18.

Lambeau isn't sacred, Cinny beat them there, Vikes will too.

ejmat
10-30-2009, 04:14 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


Huge game. I'm also looking to keep pace with the top NFC teams.
If we are fortunate enough to make it there, I would like the NFC championship game in our dome.


+1.

And if the football gods so choose to bestow that upon us, I plan on being there AND in Miami. :)


I'm waiting for ya Nodak

echizen20
10-30-2009, 11:46 PM
I predict the Vikings will win 34-17.
AP will rush for over 100 yards, Favre will have 200+ yards with 2-3 td and 0 interceptions.
Rodgers will get his stats 300+ yards and 1 or 2 TD, hell also get sacked 5-8 times, grant wont get more than 80 yards rushing, Vikings D will step it up, they will let Rodgers get his yards but will stop them in the endzone.
When the game is finished, teddy and Mccarthy will go congratulate Favre, Favre will then point at Teddy's belly and ask "huh whats this?" Teddy looks down and says wha, huh?
Favre then does a Stone Cold Stunner on Teddy and raises his hands like this t(~.~)t in front of all the fans.
Mccarthy then rips off his packer jacket and you see him wearing a Vikings jacket.
Yup, i predict all that.
All the hype going into this game must have the perfect ending like this.

thorshammer
10-31-2009, 12:47 AM
I think we win this one since we actually dominated the last game. Farve usually turns up big in this type of game. JA is a beast. AD is due for a big game. PH is due. I think Oden will be with us. I think we win going away in this one. The mistakes got out of the way last week. 34 - 23 Vikes.

Sajid28
10-31-2009, 12:49 AM
"gagarr" wrote:


"Formo" wrote:


I predicted the Vikings lose this one..
33-34.
Mason Crosby doesn't miss the game ending FG this time around.

But, I'm also praying I'm wrong.
=)


Crosby won't miss the game winning FG, but it won't come to that because AD won't fumble resulting in a TD.

IMO the game wasn't as close at the 30-23 score shows, GB hasn't done anything.

Their 2 losses are Cinny and us, with winning records
Their 4 wins are Bears, Rams, Lions, Browns with combined record of 5-21.
Take out the Bears which they won only because Cutler stunk it up and their opponents were 2-18.

Lambeau isn't sacred, Cinny beat them there, Vikes will too.


I hope favre plays pissed. it seemed when he played the pack the first time around, he played mad. if he can play the same game he did last time, AP tears it up and our Dline knocks A.Rodgers on his ass all day, this game is ours.

echizen20
10-31-2009, 02:29 AM
"echizen20" wrote:


I predict the Vikings will win 34-17.
AP will rush for over 100 yards, Favre will have 200+ yards with 2-3 td and 0 interceptions.
Rodgers will get his stats 300+ yards and 1 or 2 TD, hell also get sacked 5-8 times, grant wont get more than 80 yards rushing, Vikings D will step it up, they will let Rodgers get his yards but will stop them in the endzone.
When the game is finished, teddy and Mccarthy will go congratulate Favre, Favre will then point at Teddy's belly and ask "huh whats this?" Teddy looks down and says wha, huh?
Favre then does a Stone Cold Stunner on Teddy and raises his hands like this t(~.~)t in front of all the fans.
Mccarthy then rips off his packer jacket and you see him wearing a Vikings jacket.
Yup, i predict all that.
All the hype going into this game must have the perfect ending like this.


And then after the game, Favre goes to Teddy's office and notices that he's in the crapper and yells out, "Hey Ted, your playboy magazine is finally in" and then this happens.






http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/stunner9.gif (http://www.purplepride.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/images/stunner9.gif)

gagarr
10-31-2009, 09:47 AM
"Sajid28" wrote:


"gagarr" wrote:


"Formo" wrote:


I predicted the Vikings lose this one..
33-34.
Mason Crosby doesn't miss the game ending FG this time around.

But, I'm also praying I'm wrong.
=)


Crosby won't miss the game winning FG, but it won't come to that because AD won't fumble resulting in a TD.

IMO the game wasn't as close at the 30-23 score shows, GB hasn't done anything.

Their 2 losses are Cinny and us, with winning records
Their 4 wins are Bears, Rams, Lions, Browns with combined record of 5-21.
Take out the Bears which they won only because Cutler stunk it up and their opponents were 2-18.

Lambeau isn't sacred, Cinny beat them there, Vikes will too.


I hope favre plays pissed. it seemed when he played the pack the first time around, he played mad. if he can play the same game he did last time, AP tears it up and our Dline knocks A.Rodgers on his jiggly butt all day, this game is ours.


Agreed!
I think the GB fans will cut their own throats by booing Favre.
IMO that will piss him off and he will show them one of his best games in Lambeau.

dfosterf
10-31-2009, 11:44 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


I ahve been thinking about this alot, and while I agree that it is a big game for the Vikings, I think it is a MUCH bigger game for the Packers.

All the presure will be on the Packers because a loss is much more catastrophic for them.


If we win, we get a 2.5 game lead in the NFC North and win the tie breaker.
After the bye, we will likely be 2 games up with 8 to play (I assume Green Bay will beat Tampa Bay).
That is a LOT of room for them to make up.

If we lose, we will likely come out of the bye tied.
Our schedule is slightly easier than theirs after the bye.
Yeah, a loss would suck, but we would still be very much in the running for the NFC North Championship.
And our schedule after week 9 is slightly easier than Green Bay's.

Green Bay has everything to lose in this game.
They are absolutely going to be feeling the pressure more.


It is a bit of a 'must win' game for the Packers. It's been historically very difficult to beat a team that 'must win' in their own stadium.
I think the Vikings do win, if they maintain focus.

Surely the Vikings realize this opportunity to essentially put Green Bay away for the season.


I agree with all of that.


I don't know who will win.
There are a lot of variables going into this game for my team.
For me, it boils down to one thing.
Can our reconfigured offensive line protect Aaron Rodgers enough, or will it revert to failing, as it did the first time around?


We have crushed a couple of tomato cans.
I don't know what value to assign to those wins. You just lost a very well-played and tough game.
It sure helped my cause, but I'm not confusing that with the fact that you could have just as easily won that game in a very tough place to do so.

You are very hard to beat in your house this year...especially if it's the Packers making the attempt.
I have to wonder what it must have been like down on that field for my team...noise, snap-count, etc.

The pressure is on the Pack.


I think our season WILL be decided Sunday, if we lose.

I also think we are better than many here think we are, going into this game.


We do not suck at home, against the Minnesota Vikings.

Go Pack!

snowinapril
10-31-2009, 12:11 PM
"dfosterf" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


I ahve been thinking about this alot, and while I agree that it is a big game for the Vikings, I think it is a MUCH bigger game for the Packers.

All the presure will be on the Packers because a loss is much more catastrophic for them.


If we win, we get a 2.5 game lead in the NFC North and win the tie breaker.
After the bye, we will likely be 2 games up with 8 to play (I assume Green Bay will beat Tampa Bay).
That is a LOT of room for them to make up.

If we lose, we will likely come out of the bye tied.
Our schedule is slightly easier than theirs after the bye.
Yeah, a loss would suck, but we would still be very much in the running for the NFC North Championship.
And our schedule after week 9 is slightly easier than Green Bay's.

Green Bay has everything to lose in this game.
They are absolutely going to be feeling the pressure more.


It is a bit of a 'must win' game for the Packers. It's been historically very difficult to beat a team that 'must win' in their own stadium.
I think the Vikings do win, if they maintain focus.

Surely the Vikings realize this opportunity to essentially put Green Bay away for the season.


I agree with all of that.


I don't know who will win.
There are a lot of variables going into this game for my team.
For me, it boils down to one thing.
Can our reconfigured offensive line protect Aaron Rodgers enough, or will it revert to failing, as it did the first time around?


We have crushed a couple of tomato cans.
I don't know what value to assign to those wins. You just lost a very well-played and tough game.
It sure helped my cause, but I'm not confusing that with the fact that you could have just as easily won that game in a very tough place to do so.

You are very hard to beat in your house this year...especially if it's the Packers making the attempt.
I have to wonder what it must have been like down on that field for my team...noise, snap-count, etc.

The pressure is on the Pack.


I think our season WILL be decided Sunday, if we lose.

I also think we are better than many here think we are, going into this game.


We do not suck at home, against the Minnesota Vikings.

Go Pack!



Good Posts Guys!

It seems to me that turn overs have played major parts in the games in Lamb-Blow.
I think it will be the same again.
We need to protect the ball.
The team that does that the best wins.


GB's D has been looking tough since we played in the dome.
Are they tough enough to get pressure on BF and make him throw some pick to the DBs.

I think we are the same pressure D we were but minus AW.
The Steelers did NOT attack our DBs like the Packers will.
In the Steelers game, it was a S that messed up, not the CBs, let Wallace score on missed tackle.
They are not going to get run yards against us, they will just go ahead and pass.
We got to come up big with the front four with pressure and forced fumbles.

Both offenses are potent, that is a toss up.

Defense and Turn Overs!

nailhead77
10-31-2009, 12:38 PM
I cant wait to see how this team responds to a tough loss.
I think both offenses will play well.
The key to me is whether or not the D can figure out a way to stop the 3rd and mediums.

I dont care if they didnt give up a sack last week...........they didnt play us last week!

I don think we can get away with allowing another 350+ passing.



...............and when we get to the 1/2 yrd line keep giving it to AD!

or if you want to mix it up.............Try Chester.
This team should NEVER throw the ball from inside the 1.

ejmat
10-31-2009, 03:46 PM
"nailhead77" wrote:


I cant wait to see how this team responds to a tough loss.
I think both offenses will play well.
The key to me is whether or not the D can figure out a way to stop the 3rd and mediums.

I dont care if they didnt give up a sack last week...........they didnt play us last week!

I don think we can get away with allowing another 350+ passing.



...............and when we get to the 1/2 yrd line keep giving it to AD!

or if you want to mix it up.............Try Chester.

This team should NEVER throw the ball from inside the 1.


Did't they do that and score a TD in a previous game this year?
There is nothing wrong with throwing from the 1.
I do agree thee is nothing wrong with giving it to AP either but never throwing form the 1?
Really?
Besides wasn't Chester the one that tipped the pass in the air last game that ended the comeback?


We can sit here and second guess all we want.
The bottom line is this team has been successful this year in both facets of running and passing.
There is nothing wrong with doing either whether on the 1 or the 50.

Purple Floyd
10-31-2009, 04:03 PM
"dfosterf" wrote:


"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


I ahve been thinking about this alot, and while I agree that it is a big game for the Vikings, I think it is a MUCH bigger game for the Packers.

All the presure will be on the Packers because a loss is much more catastrophic for them.


If we win, we get a 2.5 game lead in the NFC North and win the tie breaker.
After the bye, we will likely be 2 games up with 8 to play (I assume Green Bay will beat Tampa Bay).
That is a LOT of room for them to make up.

If we lose, we will likely come out of the bye tied.
Our schedule is slightly easier than theirs after the bye.
Yeah, a loss would suck, but we would still be very much in the running for the NFC North Championship.
And our schedule after week 9 is slightly easier than Green Bay's.

Green Bay has everything to lose in this game.
They are absolutely going to be feeling the pressure more.


It is a bit of a 'must win' game for the Packers. It's been historically very difficult to beat a team that 'must win' in their own stadium.
I think the Vikings do win, if they maintain focus.

Surely the Vikings realize this opportunity to essentially put Green Bay away for the season.


I agree with all of that.


I don't know who will win.
There are a lot of variables going into this game for my team.
For me, it boils down to one thing.
Can our reconfigured offensive line protect Aaron Rodgers enough, or will it revert to failing, as it did the first time around?


We have crushed a couple of tomato cans.
I don't know what value to assign to those wins. You just lost a very well-played and tough game.
It sure helped my cause, but I'm not confusing that with the fact that you could have just as easily won that game in a very tough place to do so.

You are very hard to beat in your house this year...especially if it's the Packers making the attempt.
I have to wonder what it must have been like down on that field for my team...noise, snap-count, etc.

The pressure is on the Pack.


I think our season WILL be decided Sunday, if we lose.

I also think we are better than many here think we are, going into this game.


We do not suck at home, against the Minnesota Vikings.

Go Pack!








Your team has an explosive element in the offense that is really carrying the team. IMO they are really limited when they need to grind it out and that is going to be the key in the game. If our secondary can eliminate the big plays by the Packers and force them to run the ball and to shorter pass completions the Vikings will win.

If Frazier decides to play the corners 15 yards off the line and puts the safeties in bad spots then it could be a long night for the purple and gold.

In the end I feel
the pass rush of the Vikings will be too much for Rodgers and that remade line and that will create sacks and turnovers that will propel the vikings to Victory. Brett will do just enough to win and we walk out of there 7-1.

ThorSPL
10-31-2009, 04:17 PM
I posted it elsewhere but this link could fit in here:

http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/2009/08-FOX-L.html

Purple Floyd
10-31-2009, 04:21 PM
"ThorSPL" wrote:


I posted it elsewhere but this link could fit in here:

http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/2009/08-FOX-L.html



Holy schnikies.

With all of that coverage I sincerely hope Childress remembers to change out of the dress and wipe the lipstick
off his lips before he gets off the plane.

V4L
10-31-2009, 04:23 PM
Hahaha holy smokes people will be watching!!!

happy camper
10-31-2009, 05:11 PM
Our D vs their O worries me. We did well against the Steelers O last week but I think the Packers may have learned a thing or two by watching the game tapes of the past game and a half without Winfield. I expect the Packers to be able to succeed against our D. So I hope we score at least 30 points.

I'm not going to predict a winner, but I will predict this:

if (vikingsScore >= 30)

vikingsWin = true;
else

vikingsWin = false;

dfosterf
10-31-2009, 05:21 PM
I'd also like to put in a shoutout for all of the pre-game hype.

There is something for everyone.


NFLN has been showing all those Brett Favre games.

Why, just now I got to see Antonio steal that game from you guys (2000 our house) for like the 5th time this weekend, lol

This was all pre-Barney, of course.

;D

i_bleed_purple
10-31-2009, 05:22 PM
"dfosterf" wrote:


I'd also like to put in a shoutout for all of the pre-game hype.

There is something for everyone.


NFLN has been showing all those Brett Favre games.

Why, just now I got to see Antonio steal that game from you guys (2000 our house) for like the 5th time this weekend, lol

This was all pre-Barney, of course.

;D






what a coincidence, they also showed the game where Paul Edinger kicked a 56 yarded to beat you guys.

NavyVik
10-31-2009, 05:25 PM
"ThorSPL" wrote:


I posted it elsewhere but this link could fit in here:

http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/2009/08-FOX-L.html



No FOX afternoon game in California.
I hate the Chargers and Raiders.
Looks like a sports bar for me.

jargomcfargo
10-31-2009, 09:57 PM
My prediction.

It will be very dark in Wisconsin at the conclusion of this game!

RK.
10-31-2009, 10:03 PM
I think the Vikes kick their cheese in this game.
34-13

singersp
11-01-2009, 09:38 AM
Injuries factor into Lambeau matchup (http://min.scout.com/2/914533.html)

singersp
11-01-2009, 09:39 AM
Featured Matchup: Vikings at Packers (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/FantasySourceBlitz/entry/view/41009/featured_matchup_vikings_at_packers)

singersp
11-01-2009, 09:50 AM
NFL: Winfield out as Vikings, Packers count injuries (http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/150620/group/Sports/)

singersp
11-01-2009, 09:50 AM
Packers poised for revenge (http://www.lvrj.com/sports/packers-poised-for-revenge-67906612.html)

singersp
11-01-2009, 09:53 AM
Vikings showdown puts McCarthy in the spotlight (http://onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/mccarthyspotlight.html?20692)

singersp
11-01-2009, 09:56 AM
Sid Hartman: Vikings have had big road wins over Pack (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/67408617.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiU9PmP:QiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

singersp
11-01-2009, 09:59 AM
Vikings at Packers: Four focus (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/67756257.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvckD_V_jEyhD:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU)

dfosterf
11-01-2009, 10:20 AM
"singersp" wrote:


Injuries factor into Lambeau matchup (http://min.scout.com/2/914533.html)



Most Packer fans that I know prefer Lang over Cliffy.
Cliffy has been a liability.
False starts, holding.
Personally, I think he is done.
Done, done.
This game, if Lang holds his own, might just decide that. Lang is a bit undersized, weight-wise, and he is tall (6'4")...not exactly your prototypical LT.
I know we played some tomato cans, but imo, his INDIVIDUAL match-up was pretty tough last week against the Brownies, and he had a stellar game.
This will be the matchup that I as a Packer fan, and you as Vikings fans, should watch very carefully right from the get-go, imo.

I think you are going to see us TRY and run right at JA, this kid has excellent technique, and I THINK we are going to also do some lead blocking with our rook FB... (Quinn Johnson) http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/67850992.htmlhis techniques are a work in progress (the FB)--but there is no doubt that he is a punishing lead blocker.
Watch for these things.

molineviking
11-01-2009, 10:23 AM
When is the ridiculous Packer gay love fest gonna end???????? Every damn NFL pre game show on is, "The only way the Vikings can win is Favre plays the perfect game" or "Rodgers will have a huge game" and "The Packers O Line will circle the wagon and protect Rodgers" C'mon!!! WE BEAT THEM THE LAST TIME WE PLAYED!!!! How have all these brain dead former players forgot that? or the fact that our D-Line dominated them?
Rodgers was sacked 8 times? It's like we're a 1-6 team playing the Patriots in 07, We have a better RB, Better Defense, Better O-line, Is the fact the game is in Green Bay gonna make all the difference in the world? It won't be cold, If anyone will be playing with inspiration it'll be Favre, Rodgers should be running for his life the whole game, I've never heard so much negativity about a 6-1 team from the so called experts, Most of which are given a job because they played the game, not because they actually have any talent at reporting,-(Hello Irvin and Keyshon, two idiots who can barely speak English),




I now am hoping for a 42-6 game, Stupid experts!!!!!!!!

singersp
11-01-2009, 10:28 AM
Green Bay can’t believe it: Favre lives! (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/68069357.html)

singersp
11-01-2009, 10:30 AM
'Traitor Jack' Morris knows the hell Favre will have to endure (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_13686666?)

singersp
11-01-2009, 10:31 AM
Favre's teammates want to win this one for Brett, and themselves, too (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_13685879?)

singersp
11-01-2009, 10:32 AM
Bluster aside, it's really about NFC North (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_13686654?)

singersp
11-01-2009, 10:32 AM
Former Steelers star Woodson knows Favre's Green Bay homecoming won't be easy (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_13686550?)

singersp
11-01-2009, 10:33 AM
SEAN JENSEN'S COUNTDOWN TO KICKOFF (http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_13685996?)

singersp
11-01-2009, 10:35 AM
Extra! Extra! Star Tribune covers Favre's arrival (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/68063787.html)

dfosterf
11-01-2009, 10:36 AM
"molineviking" wrote:



When is the ridiculous Packer g*y love fest gonna end???????? Every gol 'darnit NFL pre game show on is, "The only way the Vikings can win is Favre plays the perfect game" or "Rodgers will have a huge game" and "The Packers O Line will circle the wagon and protect Rodgers" C'mon!!! WE BEAT THEM THE LAST TIME WE PLAYED!!!! How have all these brain dead former players forgot that? or the fact that our D-Line dominated them?
Rodgers was sacked 8 times? It's like we're a 1-6 team playing the Patriots in 07, We have a better RB, Better Defense, Better O-line, Is the fact the game is in Green Bay gonna make all the difference in the world? It won't be cold, If anyone will be playing with inspiration it'll be Favre, Rodgers should be running for his life the whole game, I've never heard so much negativity about a 6-1 team from the so called experts, Most of which are given a job because they played the game, not because they actually have any talent at reporting,-(Hello Irvin and Keyshon, two idiots who can barely speak English),




I now am hoping for a 42-6 game, Stupid experts!!!!!!!!






;D See Vikings "America's Team" thread.


As one of your colleagues put it, the Pack has a fanbase of idiotic homer yada yada yada (I forget the entire rant)

I think it includes announcers and "experts" ... It can also be due to ratings, or research on such matters.

I think it's a sentimental thing.


Plus you are evil.
(OK, a little editorializing, lol)

ejmat
11-01-2009, 10:37 AM
"molineviking" wrote:



When is the ridiculous Packer gay love fest gonna end???????? Every damn NFL pre game show on is, "The only way the Vikings can win is Favre plays the perfect game" or "Rodgers will have a huge game" and "The Packers O Line will circle the wagon and protect Rodgers" C'mon!!! WE BEAT THEM THE LAST TIME WE PLAYED!!!! How have all these brain dead former players forgot that? or the fact that our D-Line dominated them?
Rodgers was sacked 8 times? It's like we're a 1-6 team playing the Patriots in 07, We have a better RB, Better Defense, Better O-line, Is the fact the game is in Green Bay gonna make all the difference in the world? It won't be cold, If anyone will be playing with inspiration it'll be Favre, Rodgers should be running for his life the whole game, I've never heard so much negativity about a 6-1 team from the so called experts, Most of which are given a job because they played the game, not because they actually have any talent at reporting,-(Hello Irvin and Keyshon, two idiots who can barely speak English),




I now am hoping for a 42-6 game, Stupid experts!!!!!!!!






Yeah I've seen that too.
What people forget about is that the Vikings kicked their ass that game.
The score wasn't even close till the end.
The Packers are a good team and can beat any team in the NFL but the lack of respect the Vikings get is absurd imo.


It still doesn't bother me all that much.
So called experts have been wrong before and they will be wrong again.
They are looking at the fact the Vikings lost last game.
Hardly any of them are taking into consideration that the Vikings actually beat the Steelers' ass in their own home offensively and defensively.
They are only looking at the score.
Don't let it get to you.
Let them think what they want.
Let the Vikings do what they do best on the field.

singersp
11-01-2009, 10:45 AM
Vikings Team Report (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=teamreports-2009-nfl-min&prov=sportsxchange&type=team_report)

singersp
11-01-2009, 10:48 AM
Follow Favre Bowl with Favre Cam (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10304388/NFL-on-FOX:-Follow-Favre-Bowl-with-Favre-Cam)

molineviking
11-01-2009, 10:53 AM
Yeah I've seen that too.
What people forget about is that the Vikings kicked their ass that game.
The score wasn't even close till the end.
The Packers are a good team and can beat any team in the NFL but the lack of respect the Vikings get is absurd imo.


It still doesn't bother me all that much.
So called experts have been wrong before and they will be wrong again.
They are looking at the fact the Vikings lost last game.
Hardly any of them are taking into consideration that the Vikings actually beat the Steelers' ass in their own home offensively and defensively.
They are only looking at the score.
Don't let it get to you.
Let them think what they want.
Let the Vikings do what they do best on the field.
Quote from ejmat




I'm not actually that bothered by it, Just find it hard to only hear these clowns predict a Pack win, Yet seem to have amnesia when it comes to their last meeting, I'm pretty sure all our players played all their players, But now all their players have improved, and we have what? stagnated? gotten worse? Absolutely no logic to back up their predictions, e.g.-their O-line having holes in it, AP had a bad day, Doubt it happens twice against the same team. It's like we have no chance to win. This is gonna be a long 5 hour wait.

VikingLance
11-01-2009, 11:36 AM
I have been waiting for this game since that unfortunate int last Sunday.
(Actually, I've been ready since we put them away the first time.)
The Vikings, while perhaps starting off slowly and having 2 very unfortunate turnovers, have played well on the road.
I could be wrong, but as far as I know, AW is still out.
The CB committee played very well last week, and must continue to do so today.

I think AP is dying to have a 100+ yd game against GB, and I think it is going to happen today.
I also think the offense continues on it's 30+ points (would've been if not for the turnovers) per game pace they are on.
The defense?
No reason not to think we can't
have at least 5 sacks today.
A forced fumble for 6 would be nice.
A couple pick 6's would be nice.
I think we will see successful pressure by the front 4.
While I would love nothing more than a blowout at lamblow, I think it will be a close one
-Fuck it, this is Green Bay, It's my prediction and I can say what I want.



AP- 236 yds, 3TD's
Rice- 3rd 100+ yd game in a row, 1st 200+ yard game.
2 TD's
Favre- 300+ yds in the game, 5 TD's in the air and runs for one more.
Longwell kicks a 47 yarder just for spite.
PH runs 2 KO back
Vikings earn over 1000 yds total offense.

VIKINGS -
58
PACKERS-
23

molineviking
11-01-2009, 11:45 AM
"VikingLance" wrote:


I have been waiting for this game since that unfortunate int last Sunday.
(Actually, I've been ready since we put them away the first time.)
The Vikings, while perhaps starting off slowly and having 2 very unfortunate turnovers, have played well on the road.

I could be wrong, but as far as I know, AW is still out.
The CB committee played very well last week, and must continue to do so today.

I think AP is dying to have a 100+ yd game against GB, and I think it is going to happen today.
I also think the offense continues on it's 30+ points (would've been if not for the turnovers) per game pace they are on.
The defense?
No reason not to think we can't
have at least 5 sacks today.
A forced fumble for 6 would be nice.
A couple pick 6's would be nice.

I think we will see successful pressure by the front 4.
While I would love nothing more than a blowout at lamblow, I think it will be a close one
-Fuck it, this is Green Bay, It's my prediction and I can say what I want.



AP- 236 yds, 3TD's
Rice- 3rd 100+ yd game in a row, 1st 200+ yard game.
2 TD's
Favre- 300+ yds in the game, 5 TD's in the air and runs for one more.
Longwell kicks a 47 yarder just for spite.
PH runs 2 KO back
Vikings earn over 1000 yds total offense.

VIKINGS -
58
PACKERS-
23



You are a wise man,




These stats would probably mean the experts would only predict a 10 pt win for the Pack next game.

shockzilla
11-01-2009, 11:46 AM
Vikings 37
Packers 28

dfosterf
11-01-2009, 11:50 AM
I am doing yardwork up until gametime.


I just want to say good luck in the sense of no injuries to anyone, I hope you all have a game that you can look back upon with great pride win or (preferably to a great degree) lose.


I think this whole Barney returns to Lamblow has been great for both teams, the NFL, etc.
It has been a fun week, all things considered.

Good (not great) luck this afternoon!

As always, I have enjoyed the banter.


I will look forward to a settlement of a certain signature bet with V4L---one way or the other.


In the event of a Vikes win, kindly give me until tomorrow to settle up.

You understand.

;D

VikingLance
11-01-2009, 11:57 AM
"molineviking" wrote:


"VikingLance" wrote:


I have been waiting for this game since that unfortunate int last Sunday.
(Actually, I've been ready since we put them away the first time.)
The Vikings, while perhaps starting off slowly and having 2 very unfortunate turnovers, have played well on the road.

I could be wrong, but as far as I know, AW is still out.
The CB committee played very well last week, and must continue to do so today.

I think AP is dying to have a 100+ yd game against GB, and I think it is going to happen today.
I also think the offense continues on it's 30+ points (would've been if not for the turnovers) per game pace they are on.
The defense?
No reason not to think we can't
have at least 5 sacks today.
A forced fumble for 6 would be nice.
A couple pick 6's would be nice.

I think we will see successful pressure by the front 4.
While I would love nothing more than a blowout at lamblow, I think it will be a close one
-Fuck it, this is Green Bay, It's my prediction and I can say what I want.



AP- 236 yds, 3TD's
Rice- 3rd 100+ yd game in a row, 1st 200+ yard game.
2 TD's
Favre- 300+ yds in the game, 5 TD's in the air and runs for one more.
Longwell kicks a 47 yarder just for spite.
PH runs 2 KO back
Vikings earn over 1000 yds total offense.

VIKINGS -
58
PACKERS-
23




You are a wise man,




These stats would probably mean the experts would only predict a 10 pt win for the Pack next game.




isn't that the truth....

Eldin
11-01-2009, 12:18 PM
Anybody see the preview for this game on ESPN Sunday NFL Countdown?
I just turned it on about 15 minutes ago.
I saw a segment with the guy named Fuzzy Thurston and his daughter.
It just sickened me.
Holy crap, some people really see this as "betrayal" and have imputed it with a level of seriousness and significance that simply should not be given to something as trivial as football.
And this is from a HUGE football fan.
Wow.
Give.
Me.
A.
Break.
The guy's daughter was about to cry because "Favre didn't feel the way about the Packers she thought he did"
:'(

BBQ Platypus
11-01-2009, 12:21 PM
"Eldin" wrote:


Anybody see the preview for this game on ESPN Sunday NFL Countdown?
I just turned it on about 15 minutes ago.
I saw a segment with the guy named Fuzzy Thurston and his daughter.
It just sickened me.
Holy crap, some people really see this as "betrayal" and have imputed it with a level of seriousness and significance that simply should not be given to something as trivial as football.
And this is from a HUGE football fan.
Wow.
Give.
Me.
A.
Break.
The guy's daughter was about to cry because "Favre didn't feel the way about the Packers she thought he did"
:'(


+1.
This is just ri-friggin'-diculous.

There isn't any doubt in my mind that this whole "betrayal" and "revenge" angle is a fabrication of the media.
They're making this huge deal out of something that is ultimately inconsequential.
You'd think he'd sold out to the Taliban or something.

Eldin
11-01-2009, 12:26 PM
I think what made it so disgusting (and disturbing) to me was the fact that the guy could barely talk.
To use a cliche, he seemed like somebody who has "bigger fish to fry" and more important things to stress over.
I guess I admire his passion in the face of adversity, but it was disturbing too.

snowinapril
11-01-2009, 12:36 PM
"BBQ" wrote:


"Eldin" wrote:


Anybody see the preview for this game on ESPN Sunday NFL Countdown?
I just turned it on about 15 minutes ago.
I saw a segment with the guy named Fuzzy Thurston and his daughter.
It just sickened me.
Holy crap, some people really see this as "betrayal" and have imputed it with a level of seriousness and significance that simply should not be given to something as trivial as football.
And this is from a HUGE football fan.
Wow.
Give.
Me.
A.
Break.
The guy's daughter was about to cry because "Favre didn't feel the way about the Packers she thought he did"
:'(


+1.
This is just ri-friggin'-diculous.

There isn't any doubt in my mind that this whole "betrayal" and "revenge" angle is a fabrication of the media.
They're making this huge deal out of something that is ultimately inconsequential.
You'd think he'd sold out to the Taliban or something.


It isn't the media that did the Flip Flop friday......

It wasn't the media that decided to have a funeral with the ephigy of Favre in the coffin.
It was sick and disturbing.



Favre says he just wants to be respected for what he has done in GB!
If I was him, that would be disturbing for me and somewhat conflicting.
Flip flop friday is ok, the renaming BF Blvd for the week is ok, but the funeral is going beyond the limits of being tactful.

V-Unit
11-01-2009, 12:58 PM
Another week. Another Dandy. Should be fun.

molineviking
11-01-2009, 01:06 PM
"singersp" wrote:


Will the Real Favre Please Stand Up? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/sports/football/27fast.html?hpw)
"singersp" wrote:


Follow Favre Bowl with Favre Cam (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10304388/NFL-on-FOX:-Follow-Favre-Bowl-with-Favre-Cam)
"singersp" wrote:


Vikings Team Report (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=teamreports-2009-nfl-min&prov=sportsxchange&type=team_report)
"singersp" wrote:


Extra! Extra! Star Tribune covers Favre's arrival (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/68063787.html)



Singer you are a Viking story researching machine!! :)

singersp
11-01-2009, 01:13 PM
"molineviking" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Will the Real Favre Please Stand Up? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/sports/football/27fast.html?hpw)
"singersp" wrote:


Follow Favre Bowl with Favre Cam (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10304388/NFL-on-FOX:-Follow-Favre-Bowl-with-Favre-Cam)
"singersp" wrote:


Vikings Team Report (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=teamreports-2009-nfl-min&prov=sportsxchange&type=team_report)
"singersp" wrote:


Extra! Extra! Star Tribune covers Favre's arrival (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/68063787.html)



Singer you are a Viking story researching machine!! :)


Thanx, but most here already know that.
;)

I do understand that you are new here.

molineviking
11-01-2009, 04:46 PM
Seriously what a bunch of whining crybabies in Green Bay!!!! Lets boo, Without Favre, The Packers would have been bottom feeders in the 90's like they were in the 70's and 80's when they had 3 seasons above .500, yes 3 out of 20, They should be thanking him the rest of his life.

JeffSeimon
11-01-2009, 05:36 PM
"molineviking" wrote:




Seriously what a bunch of whining crybabies in Green Bay!!!! Lets boo, Without Favre, The Packers would have been bottom feeders in the 90's like they were in the 70's and 80's when they had 3 seasons above .500, yes 3 out of 20, They should be thanking him the rest of his life.




+1!

Sannop
11-01-2009, 05:59 PM
"molineviking" wrote:




Seriously what a bunch of whining crybabies in Green Bay!!!! Lets boo, Without Favre, The Packers would have been bottom feeders in the 90's like they were in the 70's and 80's when they had 3 seasons above .500, yes 3 out of 20, They should be thanking him the rest of his life.




You highlight Exactly why I am following #4

I owe him TONS as a pack fan

molineviking
11-01-2009, 06:34 PM
"Sannop" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:




Seriously what a bunch of whining crybabies in Green Bay!!!! Lets boo, Without Favre, The Packers would have been bottom feeders in the 90's like they were in the 70's and 80's when they had 3 seasons above .500, yes 3 out of 20, They should be thanking him the rest of his life.




You highlight Exactly why I am following #4

I owe him TONS as a pack fan



Real Packer fans don't hate Favre, they probably dislike Thompson more, They went 13-3 and then told him no, even with the Pack, I never hated him, he was a warrior, and earned respect, of course I wanted him to retire so we'd have a better chance.

ThorSPL
11-01-2009, 08:49 PM
"molineviking" wrote:


"Sannop" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:




Seriously what a bunch of whining crybabies in Green Bay!!!! Lets boo, Without Favre, The Packers would have been bottom feeders in the 90's like they were in the 70's and 80's when they had 3 seasons above .500, yes 3 out of 20, They should be thanking him the rest of his life.




You highlight Exactly why I am following #4

I owe him TONS as a pack fan



Real Packer fans don't hate Favre, they probably dislike Thompson more, They went 13-3 and then told him no, even with the Pack, I never hated him, he was a warrior, and earned respect, of course I wanted him to retire so we'd have a better chance.


In their position, I would have seriously had to consider making that same decision.... they had their #1 draft pick having not started and due for a contract.
He'd have hightailed it out of there in a heartbeat and they'd be screwed long-term.... plus they groomed a good QB for someone else.
Yeah, in the short-term it hurts them, but I think it was what you'd have to do... they really should've tried to extend Rodgers another year or two a few years back... though hindsight is 20/20.

shockzilla
11-01-2009, 08:53 PM
"shockzilla" wrote:


Vikings 37
Packers 28


Not to BRAG or anything, but SOMEONE was pretty close with their prediction!!!

;D ;D ;D

Rockmolder
11-01-2009, 09:02 PM
"ThorSPL" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:


"Sannop" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:




Seriously what a bunch of whining crybabies in Green Bay!!!! Lets boo, Without Favre, The Packers would have been bottom feeders in the 90's like they were in the 70's and 80's when they had 3 seasons above .500, yes 3 out of 20, They should be thanking him the rest of his life.




You highlight Exactly why I am following #4

I owe him TONS as a pack fan



Real Packer fans don't hate Favre, they probably dislike Thompson more, They went 13-3 and then told him no, even with the Pack, I never hated him, he was a warrior, and earned respect, of course I wanted him to retire so we'd have a better chance.


In their position, I would have seriously had to consider making that same decision.... they had their #1 draft pick having not started and due for a contract.
He'd have hightailed it out of there in a heartbeat and they'd be screwed long-term.... plus they groomed a good QB for someone else.
Yeah, in the short-term it hurts them, but I think it was what you'd have to do... they really should've tried to extend Rodgers another year or two a few years back... though hindsight is 20/20.


Wow. Wow. Wow.

I'm pretty sure that Rodgers wouldn't have had resigned. We had the luxury of making this move, as is evident right now. You had no choice if you wanted a QB, though. Same for the Jets.

I still think that we made the right move and I still don't hate Ted Thompson.

And stop saying that Favre turned around the goddamn team. Lynn Dickey was a great QB, but got nowhere. Like the 2004 Packers, really. Reggie White and the Nr. 1 defense might've had something to do with the turn around as well.

I still credit Ron Wolf more than Favre. Don't get me wrong, he was a great QB, but he was just a QB.

And maybe he was boo'd because he wiggled himself out of a contract with the Jets to play with our biggest rivals. Like just QB-ing the Vikings wouldn't be enough for anyone. I'm pretty sure that Daunte got boo'd quite a bit as well, at Lambeau.

Sannop
11-01-2009, 09:17 PM
"Rockmolder" wrote:


"ThorSPL" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:


"Sannop" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:




Seriously what a bunch of whining crybabies in Green Bay!!!! Lets boo, Without Favre, The Packers would have been bottom feeders in the 90's like they were in the 70's and 80's when they had 3 seasons above .500, yes 3 out of 20, They should be thanking him the rest of his life.




You highlight Exactly why I am following #4

I owe him TONS as a pack fan



Real Packer fans don't hate Favre, they probably dislike Thompson more, They went 13-3 and then told him no, even with the Pack, I never hated him, he was a warrior, and earned respect, of course I wanted him to retire so we'd have a better chance.


In their position, I would have seriously had to consider making that same decision.... they had their #1 draft pick having not started and due for a contract.
He'd have hightailed it out of there in a heartbeat and they'd be screwed long-term.... plus they groomed a good QB for someone else.
Yeah, in the short-term it hurts them, but I think it was what you'd have to do... they really should've tried to extend Rodgers another year or two a few years back... though hindsight is 20/20.


Wow. Wow. Wow.

I'm pretty sure that Rodgers wouldn't have had resigned. We had the luxury of making this move, as is evident right now. You had no choice if you wanted a QB, though. Same for the Jets.

I still think that we made the right move and I still don't hate Ted Thompson.

And stop saying that Favre turned around the goddamn team. Lynn Dickey was a great QB, but got nowhere. Like the 2004 Packers, really. Reggie White and the Nr. 1 defense might've had something to do with the turn around as well.

I still credit Ron Wolf more than Favre. Don't get me wrong, he was a great QB, but he was just a QB.

And maybe he was boo'd because he wiggled himself out of a contract with the Jets to play with our biggest rivals. Like just QB-ing the Vikings wouldn't be enough for anyone. I'm pretty sure that Daunte got boo'd quite a bit as well, at Lambeau.


::)

Rockmolder
11-01-2009, 09:20 PM
"Sannop" wrote:


"Rockmolder" wrote:


"ThorSPL" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:


"Sannop" wrote:






Seriously what a bunch of whining crybabies in Green Bay!!!! Lets boo, Without Favre, The Packers would have been bottom feeders in the 90's like they were in the 70's and 80's when they had 3 seasons above .500, yes 3 out of 20, They should be thanking him the rest of his life.




You highlight Exactly why I am following #4

I owe him TONS as a pack fan



Real Packer fans don't hate Favre, they probably dislike Thompson more, They went 13-3 and then told him no, even with the Pack, I never hated him, he was a warrior, and earned respect, of course I wanted him to retire so we'd have a better chance.


In their position, I would have seriously had to consider making that same decision.... they had their #1 draft pick having not started and due for a contract.
He'd have hightailed it out of there in a heartbeat and they'd be screwed long-term.... plus they groomed a good QB for someone else.
Yeah, in the short-term it hurts them, but I think it was what you'd have to do... they really should've tried to extend Rodgers another year or two a few years back... though hindsight is 20/20.


Wow. Wow. Wow.

I'm pretty sure that Rodgers wouldn't have had resigned. We had the luxury of making this move, as is evident right now. You had no choice if you wanted a QB, though. Same for the Jets.

I still think that we made the right move and I still don't hate Ted Thompson.

And stop saying that Favre turned around the goddamn team. Lynn Dickey was a great QB, but got nowhere. Like the 2004 Packers, really. Reggie White and the Nr. 1 defense might've had something to do with the turn around as well.

I still credit Ron Wolf more than Favre. Don't get me wrong, he was a great QB, but he was just a QB.

And maybe he was boo'd because he wiggled himself out of a contract with the Jets to play with our biggest rivals. Like just QB-ing the Vikings wouldn't be enough for anyone. I'm pretty sure that Daunte got boo'd quite a bit as well, at Lambeau.


::)


In Marrdro language, that'd mean he'd be waiting for a reply. Since that seems quite impossible in this case, I'm going to go with you thinking I'm ignorant.

Please, shed your light upon me and dazzle me with your knowledge.

RK.
11-01-2009, 10:17 PM
"shockzilla" wrote:


"shockzilla" wrote:


Vikings 37
Packers 28


Not to BRAG or anything, but SOMEONE was pretty close with their prediction!!!

;D ;D ;D

Nice Shock
;D

I don't get all this packer whinning about Favre playing for us.
You don't hear Viking fans whinning about Culpeper playing for the Lions do ya?
;D

jargomcfargo
11-01-2009, 10:20 PM
"Rockmolder" wrote:


"ThorSPL" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:


"Sannop" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:




Seriously what a bunch of whining crybabies in Green Bay!!!! Lets boo, Without Favre, The Packers would have been bottom feeders in the 90's like they were in the 70's and 80's when they had 3 seasons above .500, yes 3 out of 20, They should be thanking him the rest of his life.




You highlight Exactly why I am following #4

I owe him TONS as a pack fan



Real Packer fans don't hate Favre, they probably dislike Thompson more, They went 13-3 and then told him no, even with the Pack, I never hated him, he was a warrior, and earned respect, of course I wanted him to retire so we'd have a better chance.


In their position, I would have seriously had to consider making that same decision.... they had their #1 draft pick having not started and due for a contract.
He'd have hightailed it out of there in a heartbeat and they'd be screwed long-term.... plus they groomed a good QB for someone else.
Yeah, in the short-term it hurts them, but I think it was what you'd have to do... they really should've tried to extend Rodgers another year or two a few years back... though hindsight is 20/20.


Wow. Wow. Wow.

I'm pretty sure that Rodgers wouldn't have had resigned. We had the luxury of making this move, as is evident right now. You had no choice if you wanted a QB, though. Same for the Jets.

I still think that we made the right move and I still don't hate Ted Thompson.

And stop saying that Favre turned around the goddamn team. Lynn Dickey was a great QB, but got nowhere. Like the 2004 Packers, really. Reggie White and the Nr. 1 defense might've had something to do with the turn around as well.

I still credit Ron Wolf more than Favre. Don't get me wrong, he was a great QB, but he was just a QB.

And maybe he was boo'd because he wiggled himself out of a contract with the Jets to play with our biggest rivals. Like just QB-ing the Vikings wouldn't be enough for anyone. I'm pretty sure that Daunte got boo'd quite a bit as well, at Lambeau.


Actually I agree with you regarding Brent!
But You truly should at least acknowledge Ted made a mistake.
Honestly, if you guys had kept Favre, you would have been the NFCN champs last year and this.

V4L
11-01-2009, 10:57 PM
"Sannop" wrote:


"Rockmolder" wrote:


"ThorSPL" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:


"Sannop" wrote:






Seriously what a bunch of whining crybabies in Green Bay!!!! Lets boo, Without Favre, The Packers would have been bottom feeders in the 90's like they were in the 70's and 80's when they had 3 seasons above .500, yes 3 out of 20, They should be thanking him the rest of his life.




You highlight Exactly why I am following #4

I owe him TONS as a pack fan



Real Packer fans don't hate Favre, they probably dislike Thompson more, They went 13-3 and then told him no, even with the Pack, I never hated him, he was a warrior, and earned respect, of course I wanted him to retire so we'd have a better chance.


In their position, I would have seriously had to consider making that same decision.... they had their #1 draft pick having not started and due for a contract.
He'd have hightailed it out of there in a heartbeat and they'd be screwed long-term.... plus they groomed a good QB for someone else.
Yeah, in the short-term it hurts them, but I think it was what you'd have to do... they really should've tried to extend Rodgers another year or two a few years back... though hindsight is 20/20.


Wow. Wow. Wow.

I'm pretty sure that Rodgers wouldn't have had resigned. We had the luxury of making this move, as is evident right now. You had no choice if you wanted a QB, though. Same for the Jets.

I still think that we made the right move and I still don't hate Ted Thompson.

And stop saying that Favre turned around the goddamn team. Lynn Dickey was a great QB, but got nowhere. Like the 2004 Packers, really. Reggie White and the Nr. 1 defense might've had something to do with the turn around as well.

I still credit Ron Wolf more than Favre. Don't get me wrong, he was a great QB, but he was just a QB.

And maybe he was boo'd because he wiggled himself out of a contract with the Jets to play with our biggest rivals. Like just QB-ing the Vikings wouldn't be enough for anyone. I'm pretty sure that Daunte got boo'd quite a bit as well, at Lambeau.


::)



Child please

ejmat
11-02-2009, 06:30 AM
"Rockmolder" wrote:


"ThorSPL" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:


"Sannop" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:




Seriously what a bunch of whining crybabies in Green Bay!!!! Lets boo, Without Favre, The Packers would have been bottom feeders in the 90's like they were in the 70's and 80's when they had 3 seasons above .500, yes 3 out of 20, They should be thanking him the rest of his life.




You highlight Exactly why I am following #4

I owe him TONS as a pack fan



Real Packer fans don't hate Favre, they probably dislike Thompson more, They went 13-3 and then told him no, even with the Pack, I never hated him, he was a warrior, and earned respect, of course I wanted him to retire so we'd have a better chance.


In their position, I would have seriously had to consider making that same decision.... they had their #1 draft pick having not started and due for a contract.
He'd have hightailed it out of there in a heartbeat and they'd be screwed long-term.... plus they groomed a good QB for someone else.
Yeah, in the short-term it hurts them, but I think it was what you'd have to do... they really should've tried to extend Rodgers another year or two a few years back... though hindsight is 20/20.


Wow. Wow. Wow.

I'm pretty sure that Rodgers wouldn't have had resigned. We had the luxury of making this move, as is evident right now. You had no choice if you wanted a QB, though. Same for the Jets.

I still think that we made the right move and I still don't hate Ted Thompson.

And stop saying that Favre turned around the goddamn team. Lynn Dickey was a great QB, but got nowhere. Like the 2004 Packers, really. Reggie White and the Nr. 1 defense might've had something to do with the turn around as well.

I still credit Ron Wolf more than Favre. Don't get me wrong, he was a great QB, but he was just a QB.

And maybe he was boo'd because he wiggled himself out of a contract with the Jets to play with our biggest rivals. Like just QB-ing the Vikings wouldn't be enough for anyone. I'm pretty sure that Daunte got boo'd quite a bit as well, at Lambeau.


Good post Rock but the comparison of Daunte to Brett Favre is like comparing a basketball to a golf ball.

I can understand the Packer fans being disgruntled with Favre.
However, remember that they (the FO) are the ones that kicked him out of there and basically told / asked him to retire.
In fact, they tried to bribe him.
Favre said from the beginning he wanted to play in MN but TT wouldn't let that happen.
Instead he made a clause in the contract that would screw the Jets if they were to trade Favre.
I saw the writing on the wall last year.
The Jets organization flat out told Favre if he didn't like it there they would do whatever he wanted after the season.
Well, he didn't like it there and the Jets released him from the contract.
The Green Bay mayor and fans want to hold funerals and mandate flip-flop and waffle days is funny but it shows me that they still do care and didn't want to let him go.
If they liked Rodgers as much as they say they do this shouldn't be a problem at all.

Marrdro
11-02-2009, 07:54 AM
"Rockmolder" wrote:


"Sannop" wrote:


"Rockmolder" wrote:


"ThorSPL" wrote:


"molineviking" wrote:








Seriously what a bunch of whining crybabies in Green Bay!!!! Lets boo, Without Favre, The Packers would have been bottom feeders in the 90's like they were in the 70's and 80's when they had 3 seasons above .500, yes 3 out of 20, They should be thanking him the rest of his life.




You highlight Exactly why I am following #4

I owe him TONS as a pack fan



Real Packer fans don't hate Favre, they probably dislike Thompson more, They went 13-3 and then told him no, even with the Pack, I never hated him, he was a warrior, and earned respect, of course I wanted him to retire so we'd have a better chance.


In their position, I would have seriously had to consider making that same decision.... they had their #1 draft pick having not started and due for a contract.
He'd have hightailed it out of there in a heartbeat and they'd be screwed long-term.... plus they groomed a good QB for someone else.
Yeah, in the short-term it hurts them, but I think it was what you'd have to do... they really should've tried to extend Rodgers another year or two a few years back... though hindsight is 20/20.


Wow. Wow. Wow.

I'm pretty sure that Rodgers wouldn't have had resigned. We had the luxury of making this move, as is evident right now. You had no choice if you wanted a QB, though. Same for the Jets.

I still think that we made the right move and I still don't hate Ted Thompson.

And stop saying that Favre turned around the goddamn team. Lynn Dickey was a great QB, but got nowhere. Like the 2004 Packers, really. Reggie White and the Nr. 1 defense might've had something to do with the turn around as well.

I still credit Ron Wolf more than Favre. Don't get me wrong, he was a great QB, but he was just a QB.

And maybe he was boo'd because he wiggled himself out of a contract with the Jets to play with our biggest rivals. Like just QB-ing the Vikings wouldn't be enough for anyone. I'm pretty sure that Daunte got boo'd quite a bit as well, at Lambeau.


::)


In Marrdro language, that'd mean he'd be waiting for a reply. Since that seems quite impossible in this case, I'm going to go with you thinking I'm ignorant.

Please, shed your light upon me and dazzle me with your knowledge.

Easy big fella.
Rise above it, rise above it.
We both know were you two break out on the spread sheet.
;)

Prophet
11-02-2009, 12:04 PM
"RK." wrote:


"shockzilla" wrote:


"shockzilla" wrote:


Vikings 37
Packers 28


Not to BRAG or anything, but SOMEONE was pretty close with their prediction!!!

;D ;D ;D

Nice Shock
;D

I don't get all this packer whinning about Favre playing for us.
You don't hear Viking fans whinning about Culpeper playing for the Lions do ya?

;D


lol.
Good point.

Rockmolder
11-02-2009, 12:25 PM
Firstly jargomcfargo.

I don't think that Ted made a mistake by letting Favre go. He might've made a mistake by trusting our D-line in the shape it was. Rodgers played great. He was head to head with Favre, untill Favre had his break down. With his experience factored in, he was the better of the two at the beginning of the season. Taking in all the factors, I still think we made the right move.

Now for the biggest difference. In the 2007 season, our D-line was our biggest strength on defense. Kampman - Pickett - Williams/Jolly - Jenkins on 'normal' downs made for a great starting D-line. On passing downs we had an amazing D-line, if you ask me. Kampman - Williams - Jenkins - KGB. That defense did a lot for the team. And of course we had a pretty good offense, as well.

In 2008, we still had that pretty good offense. We traded away Corey Williams for a 2nd, though. Seeing that we had Jolly on regular downs and Jenkins moving in on passing downs, that didn't matter too much. Good trade. Once the season started, though, it became obvious that KGB couldn't get to the QB anymore. Getting a little shalow here, but at least Jenkins could get to the QB, as well. Then, after a few games, Jenkins went down with a season ending injury, leaving us with 3rd round rookie DE/OLB Jeremy Thompson and Michael Montgomery. Needless to say, we couldn't get a whole lot of pressure anymore.

In 2007, we ranked 2nd in yards per game and 4th in total points scored, while our defense was ranked 11th in yards per game and 6th in total points scored on.

In 2008, we ranked 8th in yards per game and 5th in total points scored, while our defense was ranked 20th in yards per game and 11th in total points scored on.

Makes quite a difference on the defensive side. If you can't get any pressure, you're doomed. Especially when your QB keeps getting you in front by 4, only to see his defense give up big play after big play to get the other team a TD. Still shiver when I think of that game against Carolina.

Secondly, ejmat.

I get what you're saying. I wouldn't have boo'd, but I wouldn't have applauded him, either. I mean, on one side, we're the ones that let him go. No matter what happened to lead to his release, he's free to find a new team. On the other side, he wiggled himself out of a contract with the Jets to join our most hated rivals.

It's a little more complicated than that, but you get my point. There's something to be said by both sides. Most people in that stadium just saw him as 'Brett the traitor', though.

jargomcfargo
11-02-2009, 12:46 PM
I think Rodgers will be a good qb once he gains more experience. I would agree Ted didn't surround him with talent. But he suffers from what a lot of young inexperienced qb's suffer from.
He tries to make a play on every single pass. That leads to holding the ball too long at times.
How else could he get run down and sacked, outside the pocket, without managing to simply dump the ball off.
I simply can't believe how far those defenders run to sack him at times. Seems he could have thrown the ball away avoiding the sack, but doesn't.
Inexperience.
He will be much better when/if Ted gets him some protection.

The defense is another story. Not so sure Dom is all he was billed to be.

Marrdro
11-02-2009, 01:05 PM
"Rockmolder" wrote:


Firstly jargomcfargo.

I don't think that Ted made a mistake by letting Favre go. He might've made a mistake by trusting our D-line in the shape it was. Rodgers played great. He was head to head with Favre, untill Favre had his break down. With his experience factored in, he was the better of the two at the beginning of the season. Taking in all the factors, I still think we made the right move.

Now for the biggest difference. In the 2007 season, our D-line was our biggest strength on defense. Kampman - Pickett - Williams/Jolly - Jenkins on 'normal' downs made for a great starting D-line. On passing downs we had an amazing D-line, if you ask me. Kampman - Williams - Jenkins - KGB. That defense did a lot for the team. And of course we had a pretty good offense, as well.

In 2008, we still had that pretty good offense. We traded away Corey Williams for a 2nd, though. Seeing that we had Jolly on regular downs and Jenkins moving in on passing downs, that didn't matter too much. Good trade. Once the season started, though, it became obvious that KGB couldn't get to the QB anymore. Getting a little shalow here, but at least Jenkins could get to the QB, as well. Then, after a few games, Jenkins went down with a season ending injury, leaving us with 3rd round rookie DE/OLB Jeremy Thompson and Michael Montgomery. Needless to say, we couldn't get a whole lot of pressure anymore.

In 2007, we ranked 2nd in yards per game and 4th in total points scored, while our defense was ranked 11th in yards per game and 6th in total points scored on.

In 2008, we ranked 8th in yards per game and 5th in total points scored, while our defense was ranked 20th in yards per game and 11th in total points scored on.

Makes quite a difference on the defensive side. If you can't get any pressure, you're doomed. Especially when your QB keeps getting you in front by 4, only to see his defense give up big play after big play to get the other team a TD. Still shiver when I think of that game against Carolina.

Secondly, ejmat.

I get what you're saying. I wouldn't have boo'd, but I wouldn't have applauded him, either. I mean, on one side, we're the ones that let him go. No matter what happened to lead to his release, he's free to find a new team. On the other side, he wiggled himself out of a contract with the Jets to join our most hated rivals.

It's a little more complicated than that, but you get my point. There's something to be said by both sides. Most people in that stadium just saw him as 'Brett the traitor', though.

Well, not quite great, but his play was admirable.

As we've seen with Culter and Orton.
You take a QB that has proven he can win and put him on a team without a supporting cast and you will find that in most cases he will fail, or atleast not play up to par.
Hell for that matter, isn't our current QB having his best year ever (or pretty close to it)?
Maybe it has as much to do with the team around him as it does to his physical prowess.

In the end, it appears he is better of a Viking as the team is what he was looking for and Rodgers is a better fit for the PUKERS as he is young and they can rebuild around him, if TT has the brains to get it done.


....snip...., on one side, we're the ones that let him go. No matter what happened to lead to his release, he's free to find a new team. On the other side, he wiggled himself out of a contract with the Jets to join our most hated rivals.

And by the way, I think this plan has been in the works starting with the accusations that our staff was meddling.
;)

ejmat
11-02-2009, 11:23 PM
"Rockmolder" wrote:


Firstly jargomcfargo.

I don't think that Ted made a mistake by letting Favre go. He might've made a mistake by trusting our D-line in the shape it was. Rodgers played great. He was head to head with Favre, untill Favre had his break down. With his experience factored in, he was the better of the two at the beginning of the season. Taking in all the factors, I still think we made the right move.

Now for the biggest difference. In the 2007 season, our D-line was our biggest strength on defense. Kampman - Pickett - Williams/Jolly - Jenkins on 'normal' downs made for a great starting D-line. On passing downs we had an amazing D-line, if you ask me. Kampman - Williams - Jenkins - KGB. That defense did a lot for the team. And of course we had a pretty good offense, as well.

In 2008, we still had that pretty good offense. We traded away Corey Williams for a 2nd, though. Seeing that we had Jolly on regular downs and Jenkins moving in on passing downs, that didn't matter too much. Good trade. Once the season started, though, it became obvious that KGB couldn't get to the QB anymore. Getting a little shalow here, but at least Jenkins could get to the QB, as well. Then, after a few games, Jenkins went down with a season ending injury, leaving us with 3rd round rookie DE/OLB Jeremy Thompson and Michael Montgomery. Needless to say, we couldn't get a whole lot of pressure anymore.

In 2007, we ranked 2nd in yards per game and 4th in total points scored, while our defense was ranked 11th in yards per game and 6th in total points scored on.

In 2008, we ranked 8th in yards per game and 5th in total points scored, while our defense was ranked 20th in yards per game and 11th in total points scored on.

Makes quite a difference on the defensive side. If you can't get any pressure, you're doomed. Especially when your QB keeps getting you in front by 4, only to see his defense give up big play after big play to get the other team a TD. Still shiver when I think of that game against Carolina.

Secondly, ejmat.

I get what you're saying. I wouldn't have boo'd, but I wouldn't have applauded him, either. I mean, on one side, we're the ones that let him go. No matter what happened to lead to his release, he's free to find a new team. On the other side, he wiggled himself out of a contract with the Jets to join our most hated rivals.

It's a little more complicated than that, but you get my point. There's something to be said by both sides. Most people in that stadium just saw him as 'Brett the traitor', though.


I get your point of view too.
I can see both sides of the story.
But let's look at the situation.
The Packers obviously didn't want him anymore.
Favre still wanted to play.
At this stage in his career he wanted to go to a team that had a chance to win a superbowl.
As we all know the Vikes are pretty talented and many believe (including me for the past 2 years) that they were a QB away from being a superbowl contender.
I am sure Favre knows that too.
Then he thought the Vikings would be a good fit because of the offense they run.
No one can blame Favre for wanting to go to the Vikings.
Next, he is close to Darrell Bevell.
He is comfortable with him and the offense.
Unfortunately they happen to be rivals with the Packers and that is why Packer fans are making such a big deal about this.


I agree with you in that Packer fans have the right to see it anyway they want to.
They could either boo him or applaud him.
Favre was a big part of changing that team from terrible to a playoff calibur team every year (except 1).
Even as a Packer I admired Favre.
I hated when we played him but I loved watching him play.
He is what football is all about.
He loves to play the game and that says a lot especailly in this era of play for the money.
The money is nice but Favre is one of those guys that just loves to play football.
Everyone has to admire that.