PDA

View Full Version : 5 Reasons Why Vikings Will Win NFC Title Rematch



Marrdro
06-25-2010, 11:54 AM
5 Reasons Why Vikings Will Win NFC Title Rematch (http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2010/06/25/5-reasons-why-vikings-will-win-nfc-title-rematch/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NFLGridironGab+%28NFL+GridIron+Gab%29)

jargomcfargo
06-25-2010, 11:57 AM
Have to get there first. Going to be a little tougher this year.

i_bleed_purple
06-25-2010, 11:57 AM
heh heh


2. Brett Favreís Offense Outgained Drew Breesí Offense


5. Favre Is Back With Dallas In Mind:

2/5 reasons include Brett Favre... interesting.

Marrdro
06-25-2010, 11:59 AM
jargomcfargo wrote:

Have to get there first. Going to be a little tougher this year.
I think the author meant the first game, not that the Vikes and the Aints would meet again in the NFCC Game.

i_bleed_purple
06-25-2010, 12:04 PM
the only point I don'ta gree with is this one

4. Defense Is Healthier, Secondary Is Stronger. Cedric Griffin and E.J. Henderson will be back. Antoine Winfield will be fresher. Lito Sheppard was added through Free Agency and Chris Cook (2nd round pick, Virginia) via Draft. They will only help the defensive backfield. Tyrell Johnson is a year older, wiser, and will only get better. Madieu Williams has one year under his belt in Leslie Fraizerís system, he will improve.

Griffen likely won't be back, EJ won't be back. Lito hasn't really turned heads yet (Based on the fact that all we hear from minicamp is how Asher, Cook, etc. are having great practices, and Lito's still learning the scheme).

Considering Griffen played vs. the Saints last year, but probably won't this year, I don't see how our defense is better.

jargomcfargo
06-25-2010, 12:05 PM
Marrdro wrote:

jargomcfargo wrote:

Have to get there first. Going to be a little tougher this year.
I think the author meant the first game, not that the Vikes and the Aints would meet again in the NFCC Game.

Right, OK. In that case, we shall crush those girly men.

Marrdro
06-25-2010, 12:28 PM
jargomcfargo wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

jargomcfargo wrote:

Have to get there first. Going to be a little tougher this year.
I think the author meant the first game, not that the Vikes and the Aints would meet again in the NFCC Game.

Right, OK. In that case, we shall crush those girly men.
Thats the spirit.

Marrdro
06-25-2010, 12:34 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

the only point I don'ta gree with is this one

4. Defense Is Healthier, Secondary Is Stronger. Cedric Griffin and E.J. Henderson will be back. Antoine Winfield will be fresher. Lito Sheppard was added through Free Agency and Chris Cook (2nd round pick, Virginia) via Draft. They will only help the defensive backfield. Tyrell Johnson is a year older, wiser, and will only get better. Madieu Williams has one year under his belt in Leslie Fraizerís system, he will improve.

Griffen likely won't be back, EJ won't be back. Lito hasn't really turned heads yet (Based on the fact that all we hear from minicamp is how Asher, Cook, etc. are having great practices, and Lito's still learning the scheme).

At first, I wasn't to happy with the pickup of Lito, but after doing some diggning, mostly off of a post by my good friend Mars, I like what I saw.

He seems to be a good fit. Only 4 penalties last year, 35 tackles, 5 missed tackles, 1 INT is pretty good proof he can still play in the league. Again, not stellar or what I wanted but still not bad. If he can get back to the form he had in 04, 05 and 06 (Tackles and INT's), I think we might have found a nice bandaid until Griff is back.



Considering Griffen played vs. the Saints last year, but probably won't this year, I don't see how our defense is better.
Agree. I think he will get some reps this year, but traditionally, it takes 2 years to really come back from those things.

i_bleed_purple
06-25-2010, 12:40 PM
Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

the only point I don'ta gree with is this one

4. Defense Is Healthier, Secondary Is Stronger. Cedric Griffin and E.J. Henderson will be back. Antoine Winfield will be fresher. Lito Sheppard was added through Free Agency and Chris Cook (2nd round pick, Virginia) via Draft. They will only help the defensive backfield. Tyrell Johnson is a year older, wiser, and will only get better. Madieu Williams has one year under his belt in Leslie Fraizerís system, he will improve.

Griffen likely won't be back, EJ won't be back. Lito hasn't really turned heads yet (Based on the fact that all we hear from minicamp is how Asher, Cook, etc. are having great practices, and Lito's still learning the scheme).

At first, I wasn't to happy with the pickup of Lito, but after doing some diggning, mostly off of a post by my good friend Mars, I like what I saw.

He seems to be a good fit. Only 4 penalties last year, 35 tackles, 5 missed tackles, 1 INT is pretty good proof he can still play in the league. Again, not stellar or what I wanted but still not bad. If he can get back to the form he had in 04, 05 and 06 (Tackles and INT's), I think we might have found a nice bandaid until Griff is back.

I don't think he'll be bad, just not an improvement over Griff just yet. Remember, this is week one we're talking about. I think the three of them healthy is a great CB trio.



Considering Griffen played vs. the Saints last year, but probably won't this year, I don't see how our defense is better.
Agree. I think he will get some reps this year, but traditionally, it takes 2 years to really come back from those things.

Yeah, he'll be back, and probably start later on, but you're right, he won't be the same for a while.

bsmithberkley
06-25-2010, 01:52 PM
Marrdro wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

the only point I don'ta gree with is this one

4. Defense Is Healthier, Secondary Is Stronger. Cedric Griffin and E.J. Henderson will be back. Antoine Winfield will be fresher. Lito Sheppard was added through Free Agency and Chris Cook (2nd round pick, Virginia) via Draft. They will only help the defensive backfield. Tyrell Johnson is a year older, wiser, and will only get better. Madieu Williams has one year under his belt in Leslie Fraizerís system, he will improve.

Griffen likely won't be back, EJ won't be back. Lito hasn't really turned heads yet (Based on the fact that all we hear from minicamp is how Asher, Cook, etc. are having great practices, and Lito's still learning the scheme).

At first, I wasn't to happy with the pickup of Lito, but after doing some diggning, mostly off of a post by my good friend Mars, I like what I saw.

He seems to be a good fit. Only 4 penalties last year, 35 tackles, 5 missed tackles, 1 INT is pretty good proof he can still play in the league. Again, not stellar or what I wanted but still not bad. If he can get back to the form he had in 04, 05 and 06 (Tackles and INT's), I think we might have found a nice bandaid until Griff is back.


The more I looked at the Jet's/Lito's performance last year the more impressive it was:

With Lito as "Lead CB": 6W-2L 116yds.game 55% of teams normal passing yardage

With Lito splitting Time (injury game and first games back): 1W-2L 241yds/game 95% of normal yardage

Without Lito: 2W-3L 161 yds/game 81% of normal yardage

I converted to % of normal yardage because those Split games were against some tough Offenses.

Also, it was interesting to note that Revis was actually targeted more frequentley than Lito, while in most situations with an elite CB the number 2 CB gets the lion share of targets.

Just saying, Lito seemed to have something left in the tank last year. He may not be an elite CB anymore, but, he should be a bull as a 2nd CB or in Nickel/Dime packages

gagarr
06-27-2010, 12:21 PM
The DB's will be fine.
Lito isn't a washed up guy, he was cut because of a $10 mill roster bonus and the Jets were good at CB.

Plus, adding Cook and Allen's improvement to the mix could prove the Vikes have a better #3, which the Vikes need against a pass happy offense (like the Saints).

I'm hoping Tyrell will have a breakout season he didn't have last year.

LB's will show improvement.
I have confidence Brinkley will show improvement during an off season, knowing he will probably start again. Won't be a healthy EJ but Jasper will be better.

Greenway is in a contract year, so that provides a bit of motivation.

Front line, what can I say, best in the NFL.

gagarr
06-27-2010, 12:30 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

heh heh


2. Brett Favreís Offense Outgained Drew Breesí Offense


5. Favre Is Back With Dallas In Mind:

2/5 reasons include Brett Favre... interesting.

I think the guy didn't need Favre in either of those statements.

Vikes offense outgained the Saints. Don't get me wrong Favre played a great game, but the WR's and Shank also contributed.

And I think the whole team, FO, owners, and fans have Dallas in mind.

gagarr
06-27-2010, 12:32 PM
I'm glad the Vikes are playing the SB champs. There's nothing better than kicking the best to start a new season.

Vikes are hungry and the Saints already ate, and NO is a feast.

ejmat
06-27-2010, 12:48 PM
The most important reason is #1. -4 turnover differential. All of us know that didn't happen to the Vikings all of last year and it was a fluke in that particular game. Harvin or Berrian doesn't fumble (hell inlcude APs that was blamed on Favre in the 1st half) and it is a totally different ballgame. In fact it would have been a blowout.

Overlord
06-27-2010, 01:14 PM
The Vikes are a very talented team. It should always be pretty easy to find a few reasons to believe that they will beat a team in a given week. Most of these in the article are pretty good ones.

But the Saints are good too, and they also have plenty of reasons to think they will win: home field; pumped up getting their rings; won the last time; maybe the best qb in the league right now; etc. I also think the defending champs are undefeated in these Thursday night openers since they started doing it this way about 5 or 6 years ago. My guess is that the Saints will be slight favorites when the time comes.

It should be a great game if both teams come to play. Can't wait for the season to start. And of course I hope the Vikes rip 'em apart.

Purple Floyd
06-27-2010, 02:06 PM
Brett is the key for sure. The thought of a TJ vs Brees contest is really not something that would go in our favor.

V4L
06-27-2010, 02:13 PM
Purple Floyd wrote:

Brett is the key for sure. The thought of a TJ vs Brees contest is really not something that would go in our favor.

I think our D can stop their offense no problem

I also think we can move the ball on the regardless of who is at the helm

marstc09
06-27-2010, 04:34 PM
1. Favre
2. DT depth
3. Favre
4. Longwell
5. Favre

seaniemck7
06-27-2010, 09:52 PM
haha I love Mars' continual love for Fav-re. It makes me more optimistic since I have traditionally been on the Marrdro side of the fence regarding Farve.

As far as the article goes, it is written with some crazy purple goggles on. I do think we will win the game though. Reason 1 is NO is punch drunk with the SB win. They have so many distractions. NO is fat and happy with their SB victory. Reason 2 is the Vikes are hungry with the sting of giving that ring away. That is why they win that game.

Looking forward to it.

Dibbzz
06-27-2010, 11:42 PM
I have to say that we should be motivated like hell to win this game. It's not going to make last year's title loss any easier to swallow, but I think we're going to have a chip on our shoulders and come away with the win. You also have to take into consideration that this is just NFL Kickoff and not the NFC Title Game, so obviously the only real thing at stake here is to start the season off 1-0.

I really would like to see how our secondary improves in the off-season. I really hope our corners can hold their own and not have to rely on our D-line for pressure. This will be Tyrell Johnson's make-or-break year to see if he has what it takes to play safety in the NFL.

To win Week 1 I think if we can just minimize the turnovers and keep Brees and Co. off the field we'll win. Like I said, this isn't for a trip to the big dance, but it will be a nationally televised game nonetheless and it would be nice if we can actually show up. Last year when we played on National TV we kinda stunk up the joint so hopefully this year we can kick the year off right and get a big win in the spotlight.

Purple Floyd
06-28-2010, 08:03 AM
V4L wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

Brett is the key for sure. The thought of a TJ vs Brees contest is really not something that would go in our favor.

I think our D can stop their offense no problem

I also think we can move the ball on the regardless of who is at the helm

Don't know for certain but I don't think they will be that easy to stop. The way to stop them is to put up lots of points and make them one dimensional. With Jackson we need to be great defensively and make no mistakes because he is too conservative and doesn't have the firepower to keep us in the game if it becomes a shootout.

gagarr
06-28-2010, 09:01 AM
Purple Floyd wrote:

V4L wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

Brett is the key for sure. The thought of a TJ vs Brees contest is really not something that would go in our favor.

I think our D can stop their offense no problem

I also think we can move the ball on the regardless of who is at the helm

Don't know for certain but I don't think they will be that easy to stop. The way to stop them is to put up lots of points and make them one dimensional. With Jackson we need to be great defensively and make no mistakes because he is too conservative and doesn't have the firepower to keep us in the game if it becomes a shootout.

The best way to stop it from becoming a shootout is to control the tempo and be effective at running the ball. AD had 122yds 4.9 avg against them, might be because they were going whole hog at Favre every play. But that doesn't say the Vikes can't control the tempo and keep the NO offense off the field.

I'm not a TJ fan, but I also haven't seen him in awhile. He could suprise us the next time we do. He also brings a dimension Favre doesn't in running the ball. With the blitzes they sent at Favre TJ could gain some serious yds.

Purple Floyd
06-28-2010, 06:54 PM
gagarr wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

V4L wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

Brett is the key for sure. The thought of a TJ vs Brees contest is really not something that would go in our favor.

I think our D can stop their offense no problem

I also think we can move the ball on the regardless of who is at the helm

Don't know for certain but I don't think they will be that easy to stop. The way to stop them is to put up lots of points and make them one dimensional. With Jackson we need to be great defensively and make no mistakes because he is too conservative and doesn't have the firepower to keep us in the game if it becomes a shootout.

The best way to stop it from becoming a shootout is to control the tempo and be effective at running the ball. AD had 122yds 4.9 avg against them, might be because they were going whole hog at Favre every play. But that doesn't say the Vikes can't control the tempo and keep the NO offense off the field.

I'm not a TJ fan, but I also haven't seen him in awhile. He could suprise us the next time we do. He also brings a dimension Favre doesn't in running the ball. With the blitzes they sent at Favre TJ could gain some serious yds.

I haven't seen Tim Couch in a while either but I am guessing he wouldn't surprise me with improved play.Yes, controlling the ball does slow down the tempo, but that works when you are ahead. When you fall behind or fail to cash in on opportunities it is less useful as we have seen from Jackson in the past. I have no desire to roll the dice again.

so-cal vike
06-28-2010, 07:53 PM
marstc09 wrote:

1. Favre
2. DT depth
3. Favre
4. Longwell
5. Favre

Those are 5 great reasons why the Vikings will put a whoopin' on the Saints, and I don't have an argument with any of them. What I find troubling though, is reasons 1, 3, and 5 are the exact reasons why the Vikings will not win the Super Bowl.

Go figure.

ejmat
06-28-2010, 07:57 PM
so-cal vike wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

1. Favre
2. DT depth
3. Favre
4. Longwell
5. Favre

Those are 5 great reasons why the Vikings will put a whoopin' on the Saints, and I don't have an argument with any of them. What I find troubling though, is reasons 1, 3, and 5 are the exact reasons why the Vikings will not win the Super Bowl.

Go figure.

You may be right but 1, 3 & 5 may give us the best chance to get there. Strange how this works isn't it? :laugh:

so-cal vike
06-28-2010, 08:43 PM
True, but as I stated in another topic... Getting to the Super Bowl and winning the Super Bowl are two different things.

I hope I'm proven wrong.

12purplepride28
06-28-2010, 11:04 PM
gagarr wrote:
I'm not a TJ fan, but I also haven't seen him in awhile. He could suprise us the next time we do. He also brings a dimension Favre doesn't in running the ball. With the blitzes they sent at Favre TJ could gain some serious yds.


Ya and with the blitzes the iggles sent he should have gotten serious yards

Tad7
06-28-2010, 11:17 PM
It's just another regular season game.

12purplepride28
06-28-2010, 11:38 PM
Tad7 wrote:

It's just another regular season game.

Technically, yes. But in reality we all know it means a lot more to both teams. The saints want to prove the better team won last year and the Vikings want to prove that the better team lost. Not to mention how important it is to teams to start off hot. In reality, its a lot more than just "any" regular season game.

reyez
07-02-2010, 12:11 PM
Don't forget Brees is on the Madden cover that should be 1 of the 5 reasons we will win.

centja1
07-21-2010, 05:26 PM
V4L wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

Brett is the key for sure. The thought of a TJ vs Brees contest is really not something that would go in our favor.

I think our D can stop their offense no problem

I also think we can move the ball on the regardless of who is at the helm

the last time the vikings didn't have favre under center they didn't move the ball very well against the saints in the superdome

midgensa
07-21-2010, 05:51 PM
centja1 wrote:

V4L wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

Brett is the key for sure. The thought of a TJ vs Brees contest is really not something that would go in our favor.

I think our D can stop their offense no problem

I also think we can move the ball on the regardless of who is at the helm

the last time the vikings didn't have favre under center they didn't move the ball very well against the saints in the superdome

Huh? You mean the game where Gus frickin Frerotte beat them? The Vikings had 270 yards of offense that game.

Nothing to write home about, but definitely not "having trouble moving the ball"

ejmat
07-21-2010, 05:51 PM
centja1 wrote:

V4L wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

Brett is the key for sure. The thought of a TJ vs Brees contest is really not something that would go in our favor.

I think our D can stop their offense no problem

I also think we can move the ball on the regardless of who is at the helm

the last time the vikings didn't have favre under center they didn't move the ball very well against the saints in the superdome

Somewhat like the last time the Vikings played the Saints in the superdome. The Saints didn't move the ball very well either.

centja1
07-21-2010, 05:59 PM
midgensa wrote:

centja1 wrote:

V4L wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

Brett is the key for sure. The thought of a TJ vs Brees contest is really not something that would go in our favor.

I think our D can stop their offense no problem

I also think we can move the ball on the regardless of who is at the helm

the last time the vikings didn't have favre under center they didn't move the ball very well against the saints in the superdome

Huh? You mean the game where Gus frickin Frerotte beat them? The Vikings had 270 yards of offense that game.

Nothing to write home about, but definitely not "having trouble moving the ball"

well, i agree, but the post i quoted said the vikings d would stop the saints offense "no problem and we can move the ball regardless of who is at the helm".

giving up 375 yards and gaining 270 is the exact opposite of what that guy said

V4L
07-21-2010, 07:11 PM
centja1 wrote:

midgensa wrote:

centja1 wrote:

V4L wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

Brett is the key for sure. The thought of a TJ vs Brees contest is really not something that would go in our favor.

I think our D can stop their offense no problem

I also think we can move the ball on the regardless of who is at the helm

the last time the vikings didn't have favre under center they didn't move the ball very well against the saints in the superdome

Huh? You mean the game where Gus frickin Frerotte beat them? The Vikings had 270 yards of offense that game.

Nothing to write home about, but definitely not "having trouble moving the ball"

well, i agree, but the post i quoted said the vikings d would stop the saints offense "no problem and we can move the ball regardless of who is at the helm".

giving up 375 yards and gaining 270 is the exact opposite of what that guy said


Keep in mind Sidney rice is now a legit target

Shank has emerged as well

And Percy is a good slot WR

We are a much different offense after 2 years

I still feel we can beat them with T-jack

centja1
07-22-2010, 03:03 AM
V4L wrote:

centja1 wrote:

midgensa wrote:

centja1 wrote:

V4L wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

Brett is the key for sure. The thought of a TJ vs Brees contest is really not something that would go in our favor.

I think our D can stop their offense no problem

I also think we can move the ball on the regardless of who is at the helm

the last time the vikings didn't have favre under center they didn't move the ball very well against the saints in the superdome

Huh? You mean the game where Gus frickin Frerotte beat them? The Vikings had 270 yards of offense that game.

Nothing to write home about, but definitely not "having trouble moving the ball"

well, i agree, but the post i quoted said the vikings d would stop the saints offense "no problem and we can move the ball regardless of who is at the helm".

giving up 375 yards and gaining 270 is the exact opposite of what that guy said


Keep in mind Sidney rice is now a legit target

Shank has emerged as well

And Percy is a good slot WR

We are a much different offense after 2 years

I still feel we can beat them with T-jack

keep in mind that the saints were an 8-8 team 2 years ago....a lot of what you say about the receivers is due to having a very good QB....i don't know if rice, shank and harvin are as good with t-jack as they are with favre. you have to admit that favre completed some unbelievable passes in the NFCCG that i don't think tavaris would have even attempted.

at some point you have to admit #4 brought the vikes from 9-7 to 12-4 and that he is crucial to their chances on 9/9.

Mark_The_Viking
07-22-2010, 06:45 AM
centja1 wrote:

V4L wrote:

centja1 wrote:

midgensa wrote:

centja1 wrote:

V4L wrote:

Purple Floyd wrote:

Brett is the key for sure. The thought of a TJ vs Brees contest is really not something that would go in our favor.

I think our D can stop their offense no problem

I also think we can move the ball on the regardless of who is at the helm

the last time the vikings didn't have favre under center they didn't move the ball very well against the saints in the superdome

Huh? You mean the game where Gus frickin Frerotte beat them? The Vikings had 270 yards of offense that game.

Nothing to write home about, but definitely not "having trouble moving the ball"

well, i agree, but the post i quoted said the vikings d would stop the saints offense "no problem and we can move the ball regardless of who is at the helm".

giving up 375 yards and gaining 270 is the exact opposite of what that guy said


Keep in mind Sidney rice is now a legit target

Shank has emerged as well

And Percy is a good slot WR

We are a much different offense after 2 years

I still feel we can beat them with T-jack

keep in mind that the saints were an 8-8 team 2 years ago....a lot of what you say about the receivers is due to having a very good QB....i don't know if rice, shank and harvin are as good with t-jack as they are with favre. you have to admit that favre completed some unbelievable passes in the NFCCG that i don't think tavaris would have even attempted.

at some point you have to admit #4 brought the vikes from 9-7 to 12-4 and that he is crucial to their chances on 9/9.

Isn't that the big debate really?

How much of the receivers success last year was down to them, the O line and or Brett Favre?

If we play with TJack we may well get the answer! IMHO I think the majority of cases it was #4. I think it will be tough to beat the Saints in September regardless of who is at the helm. we can move the ball but I think we still have question marks over our pass coverage and that's what Brees excels at. Bush may not be an issue as off filed problems may well be affecting his run up to the start of the season.

I think our chances are better with Brett as first he will want to make up for the loss and second he will not want to lose on a bad decision. I'm not syaying that the whole team doesn't have something to prove but I think for him it's a little more personal.

Zeus
07-22-2010, 09:53 AM
centja1 wrote:

at some point you have to admit #4 brought the vikes from 9-7 to 12-4 and that he is crucial to their chances on 9/9.

The Vikings were 10-6 with the two-headed monster of Gus/Tarvaris under center in 2008.

=Z=

centja1
07-22-2010, 01:36 PM
Zeus wrote:

centja1 wrote:

at some point you have to admit #4 brought the vikes from 9-7 to 12-4 and that he is crucial to their chances on 9/9.

The Vikings were 10-6 with the two-headed monster of Gus/Tarvaris under center in 2008.

=Z=

yeah, i missed the record, but i've always felt it's fair to say that the 2008 team reached its potential and the QB position was the one position that had the ability to be drastically upgraded (maybe safety as well).

centja1
07-22-2010, 01:38 PM
Zeus wrote:

centja1 wrote:

at some point you have to admit #4 brought the vikes from 9-7 to 12-4 and that he is crucial to their chances on 9/9.

The Vikings were 10-6 with the two-headed monster of Gus/Tarvaris under center in 2008.

=Z=

yeah, i missed the record, but i've always felt it's fair to say that the 2008 team reached its potential and the QB position was the one position that had the ability to be drastically upgraded (maybe safety as well).

i_bleed_purple
07-22-2010, 01:39 PM
lol@ our safety's being upgraded. TJ is a downgrade from Sharper.

centja1
07-22-2010, 01:44 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

lol@ our safety's being upgraded. TJ is a downgrade from Sharper.

i meant there was room to upgrade from sharper.....i didn't mean that it was successful! lol

i_bleed_purple
07-22-2010, 01:47 PM
oh, well, Sharper wasn't our weak link at safety anyway. No safety has thrived in our Cover-2, the only Cover-2 teams who have had excellent safeties didn't play the Cover-2 the way we do (Bob Sanders/John Lynch)

dfosterf
07-22-2010, 02:12 PM
Has anyone noticed that it has taken Barney over a half of a year-and counting--according to him (lol)...

...To recover from the last time the Vikes played the Saints?




:P

jargomcfargo
07-22-2010, 02:45 PM
dfosterf wrote:

Has anyone noticed that it has taken Barney over a half of a year-and counting--according to him (lol)...

...To recover from the last time the Vikes played the Saints?




:P

No I hadn't noticed. Is that unique or something?

Nobody on the Vikings will recover from that loss until they meet again.
Too bad it will be less meaningful this time.

dfosterf
07-22-2010, 05:05 PM
I'm not talking about the "We could have/should have won the game" -- "Not over"--- heck, both fans and players have that after many games, especially playoff losses.

I am speaking of Brett not over that game physically.
He got pounded. I think we can all agree on that. I don't see anyone factoring that into their prognostication regarding the rematch.

I would submit that even IF Brent comes back, and even IF Chilly and co. address the "why" Barney got so badly beat up in that game and make the appropriate adjustments...

The old guy could very easily be rather "jumpy" in that game, plus he's put on 14 lbs. (Jim Rome just called him a former gun-slinger and current grub-slinger, lol)

"Bad Brett", to the cognoscenti--- I don't recall you folks having seen that in purple...

...yet.

Ya at least gotta consider the thought. We all play it on paper, but I saw that purple leg...I'm just sayin'...

tastywaves
07-22-2010, 05:16 PM
dfosterf wrote:

I'm not talking about the "We could have/should have won the game" -- "Not over"--- heck, both fans and players have that after many games, especially playoff losses.

I am speaking of Brett not over that game physically.
He got pounded. I think we can all agree on that. I don't see anyone factoring that into their prognostication regarding the rematch.

I would submit that even IF Brent comes back, and even IF Chilly and co. address the "why" Barney got so badly beat up in that game and make the appropriate adjustments...

The old guy could very easily be rather "jumpy" in that game, plus he's put on 14 lbs. (Jim Rome just called him a former gun-slinger and current grub-slinger, lol)

"Bad Brett", to the cognoscenti--- I don't recall you folks having seen that in purple...

...yet.

Ya at least gotta consider the thought. We all play it on paper, but I saw that purple leg...I'm just sayin'...

Only Marrdro has seen it to this point.

The old grub slinger might be a bit creaky yet going into NO (as will many players...especially with Chilly's soft training camps :dry:), but I have a feeling the rust will come off pretty quick. Whether on one leg or two.

centja1
07-22-2010, 06:12 PM
i hadn't really thought about him being jumpy back there, especially if he takes one on the chin very early on. I don't know that it's gonna bother #4 any because I would wager that he's looked like that after several games in his career (not many) and I imagine that it takes a lot to rattle him at this point. I suppose taking perfect shot as he's releasing the ball turns into a pick 6 as the crowd goes nuts could unhinge him, but i doubt it. I'll bet the Saints are gonna try, though.

I have been spending my time thinking about the different scenarios concerning the fact that the saints aren't very likely to come out and play as poorly as they did in January while the Vikings are not very likely to come out and play their best game of the year (turnovers aside).

jargomcfargo
07-23-2010, 09:50 AM
dfosterf wrote:

I'm not talking about the "We could have/should have won the game" -- "Not over"--- heck, both fans and players have that after many games, especially playoff losses.

I am speaking of Brett not over that game physically.
He got pounded. I think we can all agree on that. I don't see anyone factoring that into their prognostication regarding the rematch.

I would submit that even IF Brent comes back, and even IF Chilly and co. address the "why" Barney got so badly beat up in that game and make the appropriate adjustments...

The old guy could very easily be rather "jumpy" in that game, plus he's put on 14 lbs. (Jim Rome just called him a former gun-slinger and current grub-slinger, lol)

"Bad Brett", to the cognoscenti--- I don't recall you folks having seen that in purple...

...yet.

Ya at least gotta consider the thought. We all play it on paper, but I saw that purple leg...I'm just sayin'...

First of all Rome is a Favre hater and a Rodgers crotch sniffer.Rogers is often a guest on Rome's radio show.

Favre is still rehabing from his ankle surgery which happened about 9 weeks ago. That's not unusual.

What I expect is for Favre to announce that he won't be coming back the day before camp opens.

Two weeks later when training camp breaks, he will have that talk with his daughter on the back porch, and return.

Isn't that his M.O., or am I missing something?

i_bleed_purple
07-23-2010, 10:02 AM
jargomcfargo wrote:

dfosterf wrote:

I'm not talking about the "We could have/should have won the game" -- "Not over"--- heck, both fans and players have that after many games, especially playoff losses.

I am speaking of Brett not over that game physically.
He got pounded. I think we can all agree on that. I don't see anyone factoring that into their prognostication regarding the rematch.

I would submit that even IF Brent comes back, and even IF Chilly and co. address the "why" Barney got so badly beat up in that game and make the appropriate adjustments...

The old guy could very easily be rather "jumpy" in that game, plus he's put on 14 lbs. (Jim Rome just called him a former gun-slinger and current grub-slinger, lol)

"Bad Brett", to the cognoscenti--- I don't recall you folks having seen that in purple...

...yet.

Ya at least gotta consider the thought. We all play it on paper, but I saw that purple leg...I'm just sayin'...

First of all Rome is a Favre hater and a Rodgers crotch sniffer.Rogers is often a guest on Rome's radio show.

Favre is still rehabing from his ankle surgery which happened about 9 weeks ago. That's not unusual.

What I expect is for Favre to announce that he won't be coming back the day before camp opens.

Two weeks later when training camp breaks, he will have that talk with his daughter on the back porch, and return.

Isn't that his M.O., or am I missing something?

Hmm.. an actual doctors take, or some 'yutz' behind a computer. I think I'll follow the doctors thoughts when he said 9 weeks to rehab isn't unusual.

birdman
07-23-2010, 11:01 AM
Saints only chance is to hit Favre early and often to force turnovers. I'd counter with a big dose of AP on draw plays and very short passes early on to establish a rhythm.

Rockmolder
07-23-2010, 11:10 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

jargomcfargo wrote:

dfosterf wrote:

I'm not talking about the "We could have/should have won the game" -- "Not over"--- heck, both fans and players have that after many games, especially playoff losses.

I am speaking of Brett not over that game physically.
He got pounded. I think we can all agree on that. I don't see anyone factoring that into their prognostication regarding the rematch.

I would submit that even IF Brent comes back, and even IF Chilly and co. address the "why" Barney got so badly beat up in that game and make the appropriate adjustments...

The old guy could very easily be rather "jumpy" in that game, plus he's put on 14 lbs. (Jim Rome just called him a former gun-slinger and current grub-slinger, lol)

"Bad Brett", to the cognoscenti--- I don't recall you folks having seen that in purple...

...yet.

Ya at least gotta consider the thought. We all play it on paper, but I saw that purple leg...I'm just sayin'...

First of all Rome is a Favre hater and a Rodgers crotch sniffer.Rogers is often a guest on Rome's radio show.

Favre is still rehabing from his ankle surgery which happened about 9 weeks ago. That's not unusual.

What I expect is for Favre to announce that he won't be coming back the day before camp opens.

Two weeks later when training camp breaks, he will have that talk with his daughter on the back porch, and return.

Isn't that his M.O., or am I missing something?

Hmm.. an actual doctors take, or some 'yutz' behind a computer. I think I'll follow the doctors thoughts when he said 9 weeks to rehab isn't unusual.

Maybe he's implying that the game had more of a mental effect on him, rather than that that leg will still hurt when the season comes around.

He got hit hard by that team and there's no reason to believe they'll go softer on him this time. And he gained a bad 14 lbs, which won't help his movability in the pocket.

That's stuff that might haunt you in the back of your mind and make you throw that ball away a little earlier that you'd like.

i_bleed_purple
07-23-2010, 11:12 AM
Do you really think after 19 years, that one game will be the one to rattle him?

I don't. He's gotten up and played through worse. And I don't think 14 lbs will affect him as much as you do. He'll drop a good part of that for the season, and its not like he runs very much.

jargomcfargo
07-23-2010, 11:18 AM
Rockmolder wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

jargomcfargo wrote:

dfosterf wrote:

I'm not talking about the "We could have/should have won the game" -- "Not over"--- heck, both fans and players have that after many games, especially playoff losses.

I am speaking of Brett not over that game physically.
He got pounded. I think we can all agree on that. I don't see anyone factoring that into their prognostication regarding the rematch.

I would submit that even IF Brent comes back, and even IF Chilly and co. address the "why" Barney got so badly beat up in that game and make the appropriate adjustments...

The old guy could very easily be rather "jumpy" in that game, plus he's put on 14 lbs. (Jim Rome just called him a former gun-slinger and current grub-slinger, lol)

"Bad Brett", to the cognoscenti--- I don't recall you folks having seen that in purple...

...yet.

Ya at least gotta consider the thought. We all play it on paper, but I saw that purple leg...I'm just sayin'...

First of all Rome is a Favre hater and a Rodgers crotch sniffer.Rogers is often a guest on Rome's radio show.

Favre is still rehabing from his ankle surgery which happened about 9 weeks ago. That's not unusual.

What I expect is for Favre to announce that he won't be coming back the day before camp opens.

Two weeks later when training camp breaks, he will have that talk with his daughter on the back porch, and return.

Isn't that his M.O., or am I missing something?

Hmm.. an actual doctors take, or some 'yutz' behind a computer. I think I'll follow the doctors thoughts when he said 9 weeks to rehab isn't unusual.

Maybe he's implying that the game had more of a mental effect on him, rather than that that leg will still hurt when the season comes around.

He got hit hard by that team and there's no reason to believe they'll go softer on him this time. And he gained a bad 14 lbs, which won't help his movability in the pocket.

That's stuff that might haunt you in the back of your mind and make you throw that ball away a little earlier that you'd like.

20 years experience tells me that's wishfull thinking.
If he's concerned about taking the hits, he won't come back.
That scenario is more likely IMO.
If he comes back, he will be fine.

ejmat
07-23-2010, 01:00 PM
jargomcfargo wrote:

Rockmolder wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

jargomcfargo wrote:

dfosterf wrote:

I'm not talking about the "We could have/should have won the game" -- "Not over"--- heck, both fans and players have that after many games, especially playoff losses.

I am speaking of Brett not over that game physically.
He got pounded. I think we can all agree on that. I don't see anyone factoring that into their prognostication regarding the rematch.

I would submit that even IF Brent comes back, and even IF Chilly and co. address the "why" Barney got so badly beat up in that game and make the appropriate adjustments...

The old guy could very easily be rather "jumpy" in that game, plus he's put on 14 lbs. (Jim Rome just called him a former gun-slinger and current grub-slinger, lol)

"Bad Brett", to the cognoscenti--- I don't recall you folks having seen that in purple...

...yet.

Ya at least gotta consider the thought. We all play it on paper, but I saw that purple leg...I'm just sayin'...

First of all Rome is a Favre hater and a Rodgers crotch sniffer.Rogers is often a guest on Rome's radio show.

Favre is still rehabing from his ankle surgery which happened about 9 weeks ago. That's not unusual.

What I expect is for Favre to announce that he won't be coming back the day before camp opens.

Two weeks later when training camp breaks, he will have that talk with his daughter on the back porch, and return.

Isn't that his M.O., or am I missing something?

Hmm.. an actual doctors take, or some 'yutz' behind a computer. I think I'll follow the doctors thoughts when he said 9 weeks to rehab isn't unusual.

Maybe he's implying that the game had more of a mental effect on him, rather than that that leg will still hurt when the season comes around.

He got hit hard by that team and there's no reason to believe they'll go softer on him this time. And he gained a bad 14 lbs, which won't help his movability in the pocket.

That's stuff that might haunt you in the back of your mind and make you throw that ball away a little earlier that you'd like.

20 years experience tells me that's wishfull thinking.
If he's concerned about taking the hits, he won't come back.
That scenario is more likely IMO.
If he comes back, he will be fine.

I agree. It's not like it is the first game Favre was beaten and battered. Hell the Vikings kicked his butt several games as a Packer. He came right back and kicked the Vikings butts.

What may be in the back of his mind is that he is a biut older now and may not be able to take as much. However, I suppose he is going to have to be hit one time to rule out that theory.

tastywaves
07-23-2010, 02:16 PM
ejmat wrote:

jargomcfargo wrote:

Rockmolder wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

jargomcfargo wrote:

dfosterf wrote:

I'm not talking about the "We could have/should have won the game" -- "Not over"--- heck, both fans and players have that after many games, especially playoff losses.

I am speaking of Brett not over that game physically.
He got pounded. I think we can all agree on that. I don't see anyone factoring that into their prognostication regarding the rematch.

I would submit that even IF Brent comes back, and even IF Chilly and co. address the "why" Barney got so badly beat up in that game and make the appropriate adjustments...

The old guy could very easily be rather "jumpy" in that game, plus he's put on 14 lbs. (Jim Rome just called him a former gun-slinger and current grub-slinger, lol)

"Bad Brett", to the cognoscenti--- I don't recall you folks having seen that in purple...

...yet.

Ya at least gotta consider the thought. We all play it on paper, but I saw that purple leg...I'm just sayin'...

First of all Rome is a Favre hater and a Rodgers crotch sniffer.Rogers is often a guest on Rome's radio show.

Favre is still rehabing from his ankle surgery which happened about 9 weeks ago. That's not unusual.

What I expect is for Favre to announce that he won't be coming back the day before camp opens.

Two weeks later when training camp breaks, he will have that talk with his daughter on the back porch, and return.

Isn't that his M.O., or am I missing something?

Hmm.. an actual doctors take, or some 'yutz' behind a computer. I think I'll follow the doctors thoughts when he said 9 weeks to rehab isn't unusual.

Maybe he's implying that the game had more of a mental effect on him, rather than that that leg will still hurt when the season comes around.

He got hit hard by that team and there's no reason to believe they'll go softer on him this time. And he gained a bad 14 lbs, which won't help his movability in the pocket.

That's stuff that might haunt you in the back of your mind and make you throw that ball away a little earlier that you'd like.

20 years experience tells me that's wishfull thinking.
If he's concerned about taking the hits, he won't come back.
That scenario is more likely IMO.
If he comes back, he will be fine.

I agree. It's not like it is the first game Favre was beaten and battered. Hell the Vikings kicked his butt several games as a Packer. He came right back and kicked the Vikings butts.

What may be in the back of his mind is that he is a biut older now and may not be able to take as much. However, I suppose he is going to have to be hit one time to rule out that theory.

Come game time, he's only thinking one thing...Brett Favre is great, time to add to my legacy.

dfosterf
07-23-2010, 03:01 PM
Ahh, you're probably right.

Still, in my mind's eye this is what I'm seein'..

http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp207/dfosterf/2010Barney.png

:P

midgensa
07-23-2010, 03:56 PM
I think the suggestions that the NFC Championship game actually rattled Favre because of the hits are off. I don't think his PLAY will be affected by it when he returns.

I do think that the way his body has healed from it has maybe influenced whether he really wants to come back or not. But once he is on the field, I don't think it will really cross his mind.

I personally think that if he comes back (and he will) that he will be fired up for this contest because of the last game and because of all the preseason trash talk. I think he will be focused and ready to go ... much more so than he was in Cleveland to begin last season.

Marrdro
07-25-2010, 01:14 PM
seaniemck7 wrote:

haha I love Mars' continual love for Fav-re. It makes me more optimistic since I have traditionally been on the Marrdro side of the fence regarding Farve.

As far as the article goes, it is written with some crazy purple goggles on. I do think we will win the game though. Reason 1 is NO is punch drunk with the SB win. They have so many distractions. NO is fat and happy with their SB victory. Reason 2 is the Vikes are hungry with the sting of giving that ring away. That is why they win that game.

Looking forward to it.
Atleast he is consistent. Just wait until he starts trying to shove EX Cardinal players down our throats. ;)

On a side note, I like that they added Mcray back into the fold, but I don't think Sharp (and that secondary) is/are gonna be the contributor he/they was/were last year. If it wasn't for the big play, that defense would have looked like shit as everybody moved the ball on them.

What is everybody gonna do around here if the Noodle does come back and he isn't ready and they run TJ out there for the first couple of games....... :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :laugh:

Marrdro
07-25-2010, 01:16 PM
jargomcfargo wrote:

First of all Rome is a Favre hater and a Rodgers crotch sniffer.Rogers is often a guest on Rome's radio show.

Never was a Rome fan. Maybe I should start listening to him some more/again. :laugh:

Marrdro
07-25-2010, 01:19 PM
gagarr wrote:

The best way to stop it from becoming a shootout is to control the tempo and be effective at running the ball. AD had 122yds 4.9 avg against them, might be because they were going whole hog at Favre every play. But that doesn't say the Vikes can't control the tempo and keep the NO offense off the field.

I'm not a TJ fan, but I also haven't seen him in awhile. He could suprise us the next time we do. He also brings a dimension Favre doesn't in running the ball. With the blitzes they sent at Favre TJ could gain some serious yds.
Excellent post my friend, on all points....

AD all day with a bit of TJ to Shanc/El Syd/PH/BB. Who the hell needs the Noodle?

Surely not the Vikings. ;)