PDA

View Full Version : Vikings have ingredients for explosive offense



singersp
08-05-2009, 08:53 AM
Minnesota Vikings have ingredients for explosive offense (http://www.twincities.com/ci_12993014)

Pending the impact of rookie Percy Harvin and the chemistry between the quarterback and the receivers, this Vikings team has the ingredients to be an explosive offense.

By Rick Alonzo
ralonzo@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 08/05/2009 07:44:38 AM CDT

Prophet
08-05-2009, 08:56 AM
KAO!
KAO!
KAO!

V-Unit
08-05-2009, 09:14 AM
I will say, TJ adds to the potential for an explosive offense much more than Sage.

The rest of the article is pretty obvious. Berrian and Shank and probowl in the same sentence though? That's a stretch.

AngloVike
08-05-2009, 09:18 AM
Might have the ingredients but depends how they get mixed together. give to the right chef and you'll get a 5 course gastronomic meal... unfortunately we have the equivalent of Homer Simpson

hmmmmm doughnuts....

C Mac D
08-05-2009, 09:31 AM
"V" wrote:


I will say, TJ adds to the potential for an explosive offense much more than Sage.

The rest of the article is pretty obvious. Berrian and Shank and probowl in the same sentence though? That's a stretch.


You should compare Shank's numbers with the TE's that made the prowbowl last year...

i_bleed_purple
08-05-2009, 09:44 AM
"C" wrote:


"V" wrote:


I will say, TJ adds to the potential for an explosive offense much more than Sage.

The rest of the article is pretty obvious. Berrian and Shank and probowl in the same sentence though? That's a stretch.


You should compare Shank's numbers with the TE's that made the prowbowl last year...

Team










Receiving

















G GS Rec Yds Avg


Lng TD
Visanthe Shancoe

16
15
42
596
14.2
40
7
Jason Witten(starter) 16
16
81
952
11.8
42
4
Chris Cooley






16
16
83
849
10.2
28
1
Tony Gonzalez(starter) 16
16
96
1,058 11.0
35
10
Antonio Gates




16
16
60
704
11.7
34
8
Owen Daniels






16
16
70
862
12.3
35
2

3rd in TD's, and not even close in any other category.

42 receptions isn't enough to be a reliable, constant target, which seems to be what they look for in pro bowl TE's.
I'd rather have a guy who can keep moving the chains, than get a few receptions, and 7 wide open TD's.
Not discrediting him, he does well for us, but he needs a QB to get him the ball more, he needs to continue improving, and then maybe we'll talk about pro bowl.
As of right now?
No way.

Prophet
08-05-2009, 09:46 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"V" wrote:


I will say, TJ adds to the potential for an explosive offense much more than Sage.

The rest of the article is pretty obvious. Berrian and Shank and probowl in the same sentence though? That's a stretch.


You should compare Shank's numbers with the TE's that made the prowbowl last year...

Team










Receiving

















G GS Rec Yds Avg


Lng TD
Visanthe Shancoe

16
15
42
596
14.2
40
7
Jason Witten(starter) 16
16
81
952
11.8
42
4
Chris Cooley






16
16
83
849
10.2
28
1
Tony Gonzalez(starter) 16
16
96
1,058 11.0
35
10
Antonio Gates




16
16
60
704
11.7
34
8
Owen Daniels






16
16
70
862
12.3
35
2

3rd in TD's, and not even close in any other category.

42 receptions isn't enough to be a reliable, constant target, which seems to be what they look for in pro bowl TE's.
I'd rather have a guy who can keep moving the chains, than get a few receptions, and 7 wide open TD's.
Not discrediting him, he does well for us, but he needs a QB to get him the ball more, he needs to continue improving, and then maybe we'll talk about pro bowl.
As of right now?
No way.


You seem to forget that the probowl is voted on by media hacks and moronic fans.
Anything is possible.

i_bleed_purple
08-05-2009, 09:48 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"V" wrote:


I will say, TJ adds to the potential for an explosive offense much more than Sage.

The rest of the article is pretty obvious. Berrian and Shank and probowl in the same sentence though? That's a stretch.


You should compare Shank's numbers with the TE's that made the prowbowl last year...

Team










Receiving

















G GS Rec Yds Avg


Lng TD
Visanthe Shancoe

16
15
42
596
14.2
40
7
Jason Witten(starter) 16
16
81
952
11.8
42
4
Chris Cooley






16
16
83
849
10.2
28
1
Tony Gonzalez(starter) 16
16
96
1,058 11.0
35
10
Antonio Gates




16
16
60
704
11.7
34
8
Owen Daniels






16
16
70
862
12.3
35
2

3rd in TD's, and not even close in any other category.

42 receptions isn't enough to be a reliable, constant target, which seems to be what they look for in pro bowl TE's.
I'd rather have a guy who can keep moving the chains, than get a few receptions, and 7 wide open TD's.
Not discrediting him, he does well for us, but he needs a QB to get him the ball more, he needs to continue improving, and then maybe we'll talk about pro bowl.
As of right now?
No way.


You seem to forget that the probowl is voted on by media hacks and moronic fans.
Anything is possible.


which is why Shank certainly won't be going.
Tony will be a lock for the next 3-4 years, whether his skill warrants it or not, as well as Gates.
Witten will probably also be in, based on the fact he's been productive for a long time, and is a cowboy.
The pro bowl is a joke, and will continue to be a joke until they take away the fans vote.(which will never happen)

Prophet
08-05-2009, 09:52 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"V" wrote:


I will say, TJ adds to the potential for an explosive offense much more than Sage.

The rest of the article is pretty obvious. Berrian and Shank and probowl in the same sentence though? That's a stretch.


You should compare Shank's numbers with the TE's that made the prowbowl last year...

Team










Receiving

















G GS Rec Yds Avg


Lng TD
Visanthe Shancoe

16
15
42
596
14.2
40
7
Jason Witten(starter) 16
16
81
952
11.8
42
4
Chris Cooley






16
16
83
849
10.2
28
1
Tony Gonzalez(starter) 16
16
96
1,058 11.0
35
10
Antonio Gates




16
16
60
704
11.7
34
8
Owen Daniels






16
16
70
862
12.3
35
2

3rd in TD's, and not even close in any other category.

42 receptions isn't enough to be a reliable, constant target, which seems to be what they look for in pro bowl TE's.
I'd rather have a guy who can keep moving the chains, than get a few receptions, and 7 wide open TD's.
Not discrediting him, he does well for us, but he needs a QB to get him the ball more, he needs to continue improving, and then maybe we'll talk about pro bowl.
As of right now?
No way.


You seem to forget that the probowl is voted on by media hacks and moronic fans.
Anything is possible.


which is why Shank certainly won't be going.
Tony will be a lock for the next 3-4 years, whether his skill warrants it or not, as well as Gates.
Witten will probably also be in, based on the fact he's been productive for a long time, and is a cowboy.
The pro bowl is a joke, and will continue to be a joke until they take away the fans vote.(which will never happen)


I agree that the probowl is a joke.
The discussion makes more sense if it's related to the HOF and the arguments become much more clear cut.

i_bleed_purple
08-05-2009, 09:54 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"C" wrote:




I will say, TJ adds to the potential for an explosive offense much more than Sage.

The rest of the article is pretty obvious. Berrian and Shank and probowl in the same sentence though? That's a stretch.


You should compare Shank's numbers with the TE's that made the prowbowl last year...

Team










Receiving

















G GS Rec Yds Avg


Lng TD
Visanthe Shancoe

16
15
42
596
14.2
40
7
Jason Witten(starter) 16
16
81
952
11.8
42
4
Chris Cooley






16
16
83
849
10.2
28
1
Tony Gonzalez(starter) 16
16
96
1,058 11.0
35
10
Antonio Gates




16
16
60
704
11.7
34
8
Owen Daniels






16
16
70
862
12.3
35
2

3rd in TD's, and not even close in any other category.

42 receptions isn't enough to be a reliable, constant target, which seems to be what they look for in pro bowl TE's.
I'd rather have a guy who can keep moving the chains, than get a few receptions, and 7 wide open TD's.
Not discrediting him, he does well for us, but he needs a QB to get him the ball more, he needs to continue improving, and then maybe we'll talk about pro bowl.
As of right now?
No way.


You seem to forget that the probowl is voted on by media hacks and moronic fans.
Anything is possible.


which is why Shank certainly won't be going.
Tony will be a lock for the next 3-4 years, whether his skill warrants it or not, as well as Gates.
Witten will probably also be in, based on the fact he's been productive for a long time, and is a cowboy.
The pro bowl is a joke, and will continue to be a joke until they take away the fans vote.(which will never happen)


I agree that the probowl is a joke.
The discussion makes more sense if it's related to the HOF and the arguments become much more clear cut.


yes, at least the HOF uses strict guidelines and requirements to always ensure all of the best players get in fairly.

Prophet
08-05-2009, 09:55 AM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:






I will say, TJ adds to the potential for an explosive offense much more than Sage.

The rest of the article is pretty obvious. Berrian and Shank and probowl in the same sentence though? That's a stretch.


You should compare Shank's numbers with the TE's that made the prowbowl last year...

Team










Receiving

















G GS Rec Yds Avg


Lng TD
Visanthe Shancoe

16
15
42
596
14.2
40
7
Jason Witten(starter) 16
16
81
952
11.8
42
4
Chris Cooley






16
16
83
849
10.2
28
1
Tony Gonzalez(starter) 16
16
96
1,058 11.0
35
10
Antonio Gates




16
16
60
704
11.7
34
8
Owen Daniels






16
16
70
862
12.3
35
2

3rd in TD's, and not even close in any other category.

42 receptions isn't enough to be a reliable, constant target, which seems to be what they look for in pro bowl TE's.
I'd rather have a guy who can keep moving the chains, than get a few receptions, and 7 wide open TD's.
Not discrediting him, he does well for us, but he needs a QB to get him the ball more, he needs to continue improving, and then maybe we'll talk about pro bowl.
As of right now?
No way.


You seem to forget that the probowl is voted on by media hacks and moronic fans.
Anything is possible.


which is why Shank certainly won't be going.
Tony will be a lock for the next 3-4 years, whether his skill warrants it or not, as well as Gates.
Witten will probably also be in, based on the fact he's been productive for a long time, and is a cowboy.
The pro bowl is a joke, and will continue to be a joke until they take away the fans vote.(which will never happen)


I agree that the probowl is a joke.
The discussion makes more sense if it's related to the HOF and the arguments become much more clear cut.


yes, at least the HOF uses strict guidelines and requirements to always ensure all of the best players get in fairly.



Yes, there is never favoritism or people that get snuffed that should be in.

i_bleed_purple
08-05-2009, 10:03 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:








I will say, TJ adds to the potential for an explosive offense much more than Sage.

The rest of the article is pretty obvious. Berrian and Shank and probowl in the same sentence though? That's a stretch.


You should compare Shank's numbers with the TE's that made the prowbowl last year...

Team










Receiving

















G GS Rec Yds Avg


Lng TD
Visanthe Shancoe

16
15
42
596
14.2
40
7
Jason Witten(starter) 16
16
81
952
11.8
42
4
Chris Cooley






16
16
83
849
10.2
28
1
Tony Gonzalez(starter) 16
16
96
1,058 11.0
35
10
Antonio Gates




16
16
60
704
11.7
34
8
Owen Daniels






16
16
70
862
12.3
35
2

3rd in TD's, and not even close in any other category.

42 receptions isn't enough to be a reliable, constant target, which seems to be what they look for in pro bowl TE's.
I'd rather have a guy who can keep moving the chains, than get a few receptions, and 7 wide open TD's.
Not discrediting him, he does well for us, but he needs a QB to get him the ball more, he needs to continue improving, and then maybe we'll talk about pro bowl.
As of right now?
No way.


You seem to forget that the probowl is voted on by media hacks and moronic fans.
Anything is possible.


which is why Shank certainly won't be going.
Tony will be a lock for the next 3-4 years, whether his skill warrants it or not, as well as Gates.
Witten will probably also be in, based on the fact he's been productive for a long time, and is a cowboy.
The pro bowl is a joke, and will continue to be a joke until they take away the fans vote.(which will never happen)


I agree that the probowl is a joke.
The discussion makes more sense if it's related to the HOF and the arguments become much more clear cut.


yes, at least the HOF uses strict guidelines and requirements to always ensure all of the best players get in fairly.



Yes, there is never favoritism or people that get snuffed that should be in.


never.
That is how the Pro bowl should be voted on.
Take away the coaches, players and fans votes, and give a panel of 32 team representatives to vote on a pro bowl.
Of course including a few older representatives to ensure some of the leagues earliest players aren't forgotten.

V-Unit
08-05-2009, 12:39 PM
OK come on people. First of all, while pro bowl is a joke, it isn't a TOTAL joke. 75% of the players there deserve to be there. Secondly, it is much easier to gage skill positions as opposed to linemen. Gates, Witten, and Gonzales will make the pro bowl if they deserve it, they are by no means grandfathered in.

"32 team representatives?" WHAT A JOKE. That just turns into 32 selected members of the media, all of whom are biased.

So ballyhoo the pro bowl as a measure of performace all you want, but the bottom line is that pro bowl players are guys who had good, if not great seasons. Sometimes it is a special year for a roleplayer, sometimes it is a down year for a great player.

A much bigger problem with the pro bowl is WHEN the selection takes place.

i_bleed_purple
08-05-2009, 12:58 PM
"V" wrote:



"32 team representatives?" WHAT A JOKE. That just turns into 32 selected members of the media, all of whom are biased.




that whole exchange between me and Prophet was a mockery of the current system, and was not to be taken any other way.

The Dropper
08-05-2009, 02:00 PM
Oh, I don't know that Shancoe couldn't get voted in the probowl.

I think Shank's Shank alone would garner a considerable amount of votes if he were to have another strategic locker room towel malfunction.

Purple Floyd
08-05-2009, 02:03 PM
The ingredients may be there, but I am afraid the cook is going to spoil the broth.

Yfz01
08-05-2009, 02:47 PM
I love the Pro Bowl... It still has really good players playing in it... often times the best players.
Obviously sometimes they miss on a player but that's going to happen with the fan vote / bias.
I will continue to watch it.
Hopefully they switch it to after the Superbowl though... pretty lame to have it the week before the Superbowl so our Vikings players wont be allowed to play.

jmcdon00
08-05-2009, 03:07 PM
"The" wrote:


Oh, I don't know that Shancoe couldn't get voted in the probowl.

I think Shank's Shank alone would garner a considerable amount of votes if he were to have another strategic locker room towel malfunction.

lmao, I'm pretty sure most of the voters are straight men, still couldn't hurt though.

i_bleed_purple
08-05-2009, 03:14 PM
"Yfz01" wrote:


I love the Pro Bowl... It still has really good players playing in it...


really good players who could care less about the game.
There are some, (Sean taylor, AD, Owens) who take it seriously, but for the most part, they're in it for a free trip to Hawaii and the recognition.


It all started going downhill when they got rid of the skills competition.
that was the best part, far better than the game itself.

Oh, and with it being played before the superbowl, you can expect a lot of players won't be playing in it anymore.

jorgie
08-05-2009, 05:16 PM
"singersp" wrote:


Minnesota Vikings have ingredients for explosive offense (http://www.twincities.com/ci_12993014)

Pending the impact of rookie Percy Harvin and the chemistry between the quarterback and the receivers, this Vikings team has the ingredients to be an explosive offense.

By Rick Alonzo
ralonzo@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 08/05/2009 07:44:38 AM CDT


Did uyou notice? Percy's contract was rejecyted by the NFL.

i_bleed_purple
08-05-2009, 05:19 PM
"jorgie" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


Minnesota Vikings have ingredients for explosive offense (http://www.twincities.com/ci_12993014)

Pending the impact of rookie Percy Harvin and the chemistry between the quarterback and the receivers, this Vikings team has the ingredients to be an explosive offense.

By Rick Alonzo
ralonzo@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 08/05/2009 07:44:38 AM CDT


Did uyou notice? Percy's contract was rejecyted by the NFL.


yeah, They said likely the issue was bad wording in the contract.
Its not keeping him out of camp, I'd expect it will be cleared up in the next couple of days.... either that or Rob is really getting too creative with those clauses in the contracts...

Actually, now that I think about it, its probably something involving a substance abuse clause ;)

Json
08-05-2009, 05:48 PM
yeah, They said likely the issue was bad wording in the contract.
Its not keeping him out of camp, I'd expect it will be cleared up in the next couple of days.... either that or Rob is really getting too creative with those clauses in the contracts...

Actually, now that I think about it, its probably something involving a substance abuse clause Wink

After the poison pill scenario, I have "straight" man love for our boy Robby!

i_bleed_purple
08-05-2009, 05:49 PM
"Json" wrote:




yeah, They said likely the issue was bad wording in the contract.
Its not keeping him out of camp, I'd expect it will be cleared up in the next couple of days.... either that or Rob is really getting too creative with those clauses in the contracts...

Actually, now that I think about it, its probably something involving a substance abuse clause Wink

After the poison pill scenario, I have "straight" man love for our boy Robby!



until that backfired with us on Burleson and sent us to Offensive hell for the next couple of seasons.

V4L
08-05-2009, 05:50 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Json" wrote:




yeah, They said likely the issue was bad wording in the contract.
Its not keeping him out of camp, I'd expect it will be cleared up in the next couple of days.... either that or Rob is really getting too creative with those clauses in the contracts...

Actually, now that I think about it, its probably something involving a substance abuse clause Wink

After the poison pill scenario, I have "straight" man love for our boy Robby!



until that backfired with us on Burleson and sent us to Offensive hell for the next couple of seasons.



Hahaha

vikinggreg
08-05-2009, 05:56 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Json" wrote:




yeah, They said likely the issue was bad wording in the contract.
Its not keeping him out of camp, I'd expect it will be cleared up in the next couple of days.... either that or Rob is really getting too creative with those clauses in the contracts...

Actually, now that I think about it, its probably something involving a substance abuse clause Wink

After the poison pill scenario, I have "straight" man love for our boy Robby!



until that backfired with us on Burleson and sent us to Offensive hell for the next couple of seasons.


The offense needed way more than Burleson back then, he didn't exactly light the world on fire in Seattle and they have a QB.

Vikes_King
08-05-2009, 05:56 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Json" wrote:




yeah, They said likely the issue was bad wording in the contract.
Its not keeping him out of camp, I'd expect it will be cleared up in the next couple of days.... either that or Rob is really getting too creative with those clauses in the contracts...

Actually, now that I think about it, its probably something involving a substance abuse clause Wink

After the poison pill scenario, I have "straight" man love for our boy Robby!



until that backfired with us on Burleson and sent us to Offensive hell for the next couple of seasons.


Yea?
What has Burleson done since?


P.S., Harvin's contract has already been fixed

i_bleed_purple
08-05-2009, 05:58 PM
"Vikes_King" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Json" wrote:




yeah, They said likely the issue was bad wording in the contract.
Its not keeping him out of camp, I'd expect it will be cleared up in the next couple of days.... either that or Rob is really getting too creative with those clauses in the contracts...

Actually, now that I think about it, its probably something involving a substance abuse clause Wink

After the poison pill scenario, I have "straight" man love for our boy Robby!



until that backfired with us on Burleson and sent us to Offensive hell for the next couple of seasons.


Yea?
What has Burleson done since?


P.S., Harvin's contract has already been fixed


that offense as a hwole has done nothing.

Burleson was playing well for us, whene he left, we had Robinson, which would have been fine except he got busted for DUI, which left us with nobody.
You can't pretend losing Burleson was a good thing.


p.s. did you hear what the issue with harvin's contract was?

Vikes_King
08-05-2009, 06:01 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Vikes_King" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Json" wrote:




yeah, They said likely the issue was bad wording in the contract.
Its not keeping him out of camp, I'd expect it will be cleared up in the next couple of days.... either that or Rob is really getting too creative with those clauses in the contracts...

Actually, now that I think about it, its probably something involving a substance abuse clause Wink

After the poison pill scenario, I have "straight" man love for our boy Robby!



until that backfired with us on Burleson and sent us to Offensive hell for the next couple of seasons.


Yea?
What has Burleson done since?


P.S., Harvin's contract has already been fixed


that offense as a hwole has done nothing.

Burleson was playing well for us, whene he left, we had Robinson, which would have been fine except he got busted for DUI, which left us with nobody.
You can't pretend losing Burleson was a good thing.


p.s. did you hear what the issue with harvin's contract was?


Oh I know, I was hoping Burleson was going to be a stud, with Robinson as a #2 guy.
Either way, both are pretty much done w/ their careers now.


The Harvin thing was no big deal, just a small itty bitty thingy


In other developments today, the NFL approved the deal between the Vikings and Harvin after the two sides tweaked the five-year contract signed by the first-round draft pick.

Earlier this week, the NFL Management Council had disapproved the contract because of a minor issue that violated the collective bargaining agreement, but the Vikings and Harvin's agent, Joel Segal, quickly resolved the matter. The issue didn't keep Harvin from the practice field.

jmcdon00
08-05-2009, 06:10 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Vikes_King" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Json" wrote:




yeah, They said likely the issue was bad wording in the contract.
Its not keeping him out of camp, I'd expect it will be cleared up in the next couple of days.... either that or Rob is really getting too creative with those clauses in the contracts...

Actually, now that I think about it, its probably something involving a substance abuse clause Wink

After the poison pill scenario, I have "straight" man love for our boy Robby!



until that backfired with us on Burleson and sent us to Offensive hell for the next couple of seasons.


Yea?
What has Burleson done since?


P.S., Harvin's contract has already been fixed


that offense as a hwole has done nothing.

Burleson was playing well for us, whene he left, we had Robinson, which would have been fine except he got busted for DUI, which left us with nobody.
You can't pretend losing Burleson was a good thing.


p.s. did you hear what the issue with harvin's contract was?

We atleast got a 3rd round pick for compensation, which we used to aquire Tjack.
Burleson did catch 9td 694yds in only 12 games in 07 plus caught 10 passes for 97 yards in the playoffs. In 08 he was having a great season opener(5catches 60yards 1td) before being injured for the season. He's only 27 and I suspect he will have a good season in 09. His biggest problem is health.

Vikes_King
08-05-2009, 06:18 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Vikes_King" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"Json" wrote:




yeah, They said likely the issue was bad wording in the contract.
Its not keeping him out of camp, I'd expect it will be cleared up in the next couple of days.... either that or Rob is really getting too creative with those clauses in the contracts...

Actually, now that I think about it, its probably something involving a substance abuse clause Wink

After the poison pill scenario, I have "straight" man love for our boy Robby!



until that backfired with us on Burleson and sent us to Offensive hell for the next couple of seasons.


Yea?
What has Burleson done since?


P.S., Harvin's contract has already been fixed


that offense as a hwole has done nothing.

Burleson was playing well for us, whene he left, we had Robinson, which would have been fine except he got busted for DUI, which left us with nobody.
You can't pretend losing Burleson was a good thing.


p.s. did you hear what the issue with harvin's contract was?

We atleast got a 3rd round pick for compensation, which we used to aquire Tjack.
Burleson did catch 9td 694yds in only 12 games in 07 plus caught 10 passes for 97 yards in the playoffs. In 08 he was having a great season opener(5catches 60yards 1td) before being injured for the season. He's only 27 and I suspect he will have a good season in 09. His biggest problem is health.


Or.. you could just me trash talk him because he's a Seahawk and they stole him and T.J.

Jerk.

jorgie
08-06-2009, 07:51 PM
Who is going to be the new QB? They sure don't have one now!!

Caine
08-06-2009, 08:05 PM
"jorgie" wrote:


Who is going to be the new QB? They sure don't have one now!!


Whichever one sucks the least....or sucks the best....depending upon who you ask.

Caine

Marrdro
08-07-2009, 07:19 AM
Yet again, the sports hacks screw the pooch and miss a excellent opportunity to write an excellent article.

I for one would have started with this as my headline.....

Minnesota Vikings have ingredients for explosive offense and defense........

When was the last time we could say that my friends?
::)