Vikings' turn on top

G-FORCE wrote:

<quoted text>But Realistic! Cheese is good!!! LOL... I don't see the relivance in game planning against the Packers. For one- there is nobody in the NFL with a secondary capable of stopping the 5 WR set that Coach McCarthy employs. Green Bay has one of the top wr corps in the league... one cannot deny that. Secondly- Green Bay's running game is above average IMO with the zone blocking scheme and Ryan Grant with the rock. Thirdly, Aaron Rodgers is an above average mobile QB- take away his options, and he's on the move with no hesitation. He may not have the game experience, but he's run the #1 offense in OTA's and minicamps for 3 years now- the chemistry is there and he's a definate leader. The glimpse we got last year in preseason and against Dallas was superb. The only "if" IMO, is weather or not he can stay healthy. If he can't, and he goes down early- re-enter Favre. With all of that said about GB's offense- please remember that we also have a top 10 defense that will definately show improvement this year. So now what you say??(and this time- be realistic).

Every point you try to make is best case scenario for gb.
If you think for one moment that NFL teams will approach gb without farve the same way, just wait and find out how much the game plan will change.

There is no secondary capable of stopping McCarthy's 5 receiver set? I think someone figured out how to stop it during your last game, or did you forget?

GB has a better than average receiving corp, not on par with the best, which you seem convinced of. Remember how old Driver is, and he is by far your best receiver.

GB's running game is average, no more, no less. Strike three

Talking about Aaron you state that the chemistry is there, and that he is a definite leader. Based on what? Something you dreamed up without much imagination I presume.

Your top ten defense is actually 11th in yards allowed last year, so that is just a convenient lie to make you feel better. In addition, your defensive star cornerbacks are on their last legs, so no, your defense might not get better, they might just get worse.

There, your little charade was riddled with holes, just like your team. If you could just step outside your little packer world for a few minutes, this may become a little clearer to you.

And you tell Realistic to get real?

Blane wrote:

<quoted text>
Jay I wouldn't mind this but since I been here all I here from your Vikings fans is how great and unbeatable your team is and how the Packers will fall big after Favre retire.

I for one haven't said anything about the Vikings being unbeatable.....

and secondly, I just don't see how it's possible for the Packers to have as good of a season as last year after losing the best player the Packers have ever had in their history. How can anyone argue that?

Blane wrote:

<quoted text>
packrat you and me agree about those Vikings fans all they do is talk smack even before the season starts.

As if Packer fans don't do the same......give me a break. Believe me, it couldn't be more evident.......I don't care who's side you're on.

Packer Fan in MN wrote:

Thank you Realistic for being a little more realistic.
I for one would only turn your top two teams around.
Packers 10-6 and
Vikings 9-7.
That's three less wins for the Packers and one more for the Vikings then last year. I know you were close in x-number of games but until they prove they can grab these opportunities I cant count these games as meaning anything for them winning more next year.
On the other hand, there are very big question marks for both teams at Quarterback. Rodgers play ed in only two games of significance in the past two years. He became injured in one and pulled a muscle the next week after the other. It leads you to wonder if he will even make it through the first game without being injured.(I know this one is against the Vikings.)
Packer Fans also have no idea how Rodgers will do in managing games. 3/4 of one game certainly doesn't tell anyone much about a quarterback.
That said, I think the pieces are still in place and depth was added to many areas on the team. Thats why I still think they can win 10 games.
Concerns for the Packers will be Cornerbacks (yeah I know everyone claims that we have two of the better cornerbacks in the league but Harris has never impressed me)... and of course Quarterback.
The Vikings still haven't proved they can stop the pass...maybe they can with Allen...maybe they still can't. Dropping a player into a new system doesn't necessarily improve their play. The other big question mark is Quarterback.
Again maybe the pieces are there and your predictions about the Vikings will be correct. Maybe they wont. I will say the same for me.
Let me also say that most of these blogs are as I stated before: more about fans trying to make themselves feel good then about reality.

At least you're being "realistic".....unli ke many others. My contention is still the same....without Favre the Pack will not win 13 games in the regular season this year.

10-6 for the Pack is not an outlandish number. 10-6 is also not an outlandish number for the Vikings.

G-FORCE wrote:

<quoted text>But Realistic! Cheese is good!!! LOL... I don't see the relivance in game planning against the Packers. For one- there is nobody in the NFL with a secondary capable of stopping the 5 WR set that Coach McCarthy employs. Green Bay has one of the top wr corps in the league... one cannot deny that. Secondly- Green Bay's running game is above average IMO with the zone blocking scheme and Ryan Grant with the rock. Thirdly, Aaron Rodgers is an above average mobile QB- take away his options, and he's on the move with no hesitation. He may not have the game experience, but he's run the #1 offense in OTA's and minicamps for 3 years now- the chemistry is there and he's a definate leader. The glimpse we got last year in preseason and against Dallas was superb. The only "if" IMO, is weather or not he can stay healthy. If he can't, and he goes down early- re-enter Favre. With all of that said about GB's offense- please remember that we also have a top 10 defense that will definately show improvement this year. So now what you say??(and this time- be realistic).

You saw a game where the gameplan was changed already. It was the NFC Championship. They didn't have to worry about Favre so much because it was so cold that throwing the ball would be risky, and we all know the outcome, so they keyed in on Grant, and he had one of his worse games.

Will the Packers face stacked boxes like we do? No, unlikely. You can bet your bum they're going to face a helluva lot more blitzes though since that seems to be what you do against young QBs. Rodgers is going to face pressure he hasn't seen before, no arguing that. Personally, I hope he flounders. Realistically, I can't say which way it'll be. But, to be honest, the Dallas game really wasn't that impressive for him. He got his TD, and then he got shut off.

G-FORCE wrote:

<quoted text>But Realistic! Cheese is good!!! LOL... I don't see the relivance in game planning against the Packers. For one- there is nobody in the NFL with a secondary capable of stopping the 5 WR set that Coach McCarthy employs. Green Bay has one of the top wr corps in the league... one cannot deny that. Secondly- Green Bay's running game is above average IMO with the zone blocking scheme and Ryan Grant with the rock. Thirdly, Aaron Rodgers is an above average mobile QB- take away his options, and he's on the move with no hesitation. He may not have the game experience, but he's run the #1 offense in OTA's and minicamps for 3 years now- the chemistry is there and he's a definate leader. The glimpse we got last year in preseason and against Dallas was superb. The only "if" IMO, is weather or not he can stay healthy. If he can't, and he goes down early- re-enter Favre. With all of that said about GB's offense- please remember that we also have a top 10 defense that will definately show improvement this year. So now what you say??(and this time- be realistic).

Ok G-Force even though others have already pointed out the holes in your obviously biased and flawed logic with your team, I have to respond just because you are asking me to be more realistic.

First off, if you actually think game planning is relevant in football, then you obviously have no clue how the game works. The best way to stop you so called "best" 5 wr set, is to put pressure on the qb, which Rodgers will see a lot because he's young and doesn't have starting experience. If your qb keeps getting hit or sacked(ala what the Giants did to your team and the Pats) the passing game becomes non-existant. Teams will definitely game plan differently against GB, and the true test for Rodgers/Grant and the rest of the offense will be how they handle it.

Ssecondly, your "above average" running game was only that because defenses were more worried about stopping Favre that they didn't concentrate on the run as much. We'll see how "above avg." they are when defenses will be keying on it because of the inexperience of Rodgers.

Third, all your opinions of Rodgers is based on plays he's made against backups, practice squads and teams that originally concentrated on stopping Favre. Then if that's the case, we can say all qb's are going to be good or great. Why do you think Bollinger does better when he comes in as a backup than he does as a starter? Answer because of the defensive philosophy that is designed to stop the other qb and their skills, not that of the backups. Sure Rodgers can be a good qb, but you can't base it off of running the team in practice, preseason games or coming in as a replacement due injury or garbage time. Again this shows your lack of football knowledge.

So that's what I have to say and that is realistic because it given with a unbiased point of view and with an understanding of how the GAME of football works. Now I ask you to take off your green and gold glasses and give a "realistic"/unbiased view of your team using football knowledge, that is if you can. I'll be waiting, but I definitely won't hold my breath while waiting.

Jay,

I could live with the Packers being 10-6.

That said, it is unlikely there will be two 10-6 teams in the division.

I think it is going to be a fun year.

For everyone that thinks game plans will change, they probably will.

Note however, that the Packers still have at least one pro bowl receiver if not several.(I know only one went last year...I just think the Packers receiving core is one of the better ones in the NFL.)

The Packers last year had no running game the first half of the season. They won there games almost exclusively on short passes (and if anyone cares to remember, the receivers had the most yards after catch of any team in the league...That's not Farve...that's the receivers.)

The short passing game is the type of passing game that Rodgers can excel at and it doesn't give defenses time to harass the quarterback. I won't put a lot on his playing time. Note however that he isnt the type of quarterback who is going to have happy feet and hold onto the football...I think what I've seen of him so far bears this out.

Finally, the Packers over the next year will be playing with a chip on their shoulders. They will be out to prove that Farve wasn't their entire team.

Still, I don't see them winning 13 games. That, for everyone who doesnt know it, ties the Packers highest total of wins for any season going back almost 90 years.

OK,

I'll shut up now.

This is mostly a Vikings blog and really it aught to be about your team.

As I stated before, I think they have improved.

It may be that they win 10 games or it may not.

Frosty wrote:

<quoted text>
But, to be honest, the Dallas game really wasn't that impressive for him. He got his TD, and then he got shut off.

you obviously didn't watch the game, or you are an idiot. in 1 half he threw for 201 yards on 18 for 26 (69%) with a QB rating of 105. at one point in the game he had 12 straight completions.

OBTW!

against the same dallas team, TJack threw for 72 yards completing 6 of 19. and please don't tell me dallas was gameplanning for the vikings passing game...

anonymous wrote:

OBTW!
against the same dallas team, TJack threw for 72 yards completing 6 of 19. and please don't tell me dallas was gameplanning for the vikings passing game...

no, but they knew what QB they were playing.

anonymous wrote:

OBTW!
against the same dallas team, TJack threw for 72 yards completing 6 of 19. and please don't tell me dallas was gameplanning for the vikings passing game...

They probably did game plan a little bit for our passing game, every team does. But of course their main area of concern was towards our running game, but like Josh said, they knew what qb was starting the game and planned towards that qb's abilities. LIke I've said on here before, why do you think Bollinger does better when he comes in as a backup compared to coming in as the starter? Also if Rodgers performed so well, and your team was so great why couldn't he bring them back to a victory? Sure he got all those stats, but the most important stat was getting a w and he couldn't do that, especially after Dallas adjusted to him being in the game.

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
you obviously didn't watch the game, or you are an idiot. in 1 half he threw for 201 yards on 18 for 26 (69%) with a QB rating of 105. at one point in the game he had 12 straight completions.

Aww, 201 yards. That's good. Shame that, as it's been said time and time again, he came into a game where no one was expecting him and Dallas was playing sloppy at that point. You cannot tell me that Dallas was on it'a A-game after Favre left.

And while throwing the short passes gives little time to harass the QBs, it does let you focus more on disrupting the recievers' routes which buys yourself a little more time.

you packer fans are just jealous that your team is about to be dethroaned from the top in the division. so your just living it out and enjoying while you still have it because you all know that you will no longer be there on after september 8 on monday night football. aaron rodgers is going to look like a tackling dummy sitting in the pocket for jared allen. so enjoy it while you can packer fans. its gonna be a great season.

So let me get this straight: Vegas and the horny men fans say the Pack are 3-4 wins weaker without Favre. Ok. Are the Vikings 3-4 wins better with Jared Allen? I guess the poor Chiefs are going to go 0-16 then. BTW, ARod is not immobile. If you say that, you haven't watched him play.

normallylikeyellow wrote:

So let me get this straight: Vegas and the horny men fans say the Pack are 3-4 wins weaker without Favre. Ok. Are the Vikings 3-4 wins better with Jared Allen? I guess the poor Chiefs are going to go 0-16 then. BTW, ARod is not immobile. If you say that, you haven't watched him play.

I agree the Pack without Favre are probably 3-4 wins weaker, but the Vikes are 1-2 wins stronger with the addition of Allen, Williams, Tapeh and Berrian. I don't know who said we would be that many wins better, but with the math above puts my predictions right where I said the would be, Vikes 10-6, Pack 9-7. As for Rodgers not being mobile, yeah he can run better than Favre, but the question is when he does can he create the opportunities like Favre did? Can he be accurate on the run? There is just too many questions surrounding Rodgers right now that haven't been answered that a lot of you Pack fans don't seem to realize.

Sensible post there, Realistic. Quite plausible.

40for60 wrote:

<quoted text>
You can predict all you want about Rodgers, fact is, you have nothing to back it up with. I can predict that he will be the worst QB in the NFL this year, and have nothing more to hang my hat on than you.
The pack's last game? Home field advantage with gusty winds on frozen lameblow. Oh, I forgot, the Giants were a really good team....
Farve gave you 6 wins all on his own last year.
Rodgers will give you a migraine, and the bottom of the NFC North.

Well what happend to the vikings in the playoffs. Oh ya i forgot they did not make it. There qb sucks the o-line it bad and there CBs arent that great. Green Bay lost farve and williams they replaced them with harrel, jolly, for farve they have Rodgers and Brohm.

Big Rod wrote:

<quoted text>
Well what happend to the vikings in the playoffs. Oh ya i forgot they did not make it. There qb sucks the o-line it bad and there CBs arent that great. Green Bay lost farve and williams they replaced them with harrel, jolly, for farve they have Rodgers and Brohm.

typical packer fan. they have one of the best o-lines in the league, it is kind of hard to cover WR's when there is nobody rushing the QB and you have to cover them forever, and replacing favre with rodgers and brohm, lol. they have maybe 3 quarters of nfl game between them. rodgers couldnt even stay healthy as a backup so why will he as a starter. you talk about t-jack sucking then i am going to give you a little football lesson 101 ok. i have said time after time again but you packer fans dont get it. he only had five games that he less than a 80.0 QB rating. he also had probably the worst recieving duo in the league. they dropped the ball 50% of the time. his best reciever was sidney rice. he was only a rookie so you cant expect much out of a rookie WR. robert ferguson is an ok vet who is on the downside of his career, bobby wade sucks, troy williamson was horrible and was overhyped since he came into the league, im glad hes gone. t-jack was also only a division 1AA player at alabama state. he has only been the league for two years and last year was his first year starting. he also didnt have the opportunity to sit behind favre for 3 years like rodgers and learn from him. t-jack sat behind brad johnson for a season. wow, i bet he learned a lot there. he was just thrown onto the field. it usually takes about three years for a QB to learn and develop before he begins to excel. peyton manning wasnt that good his rookie year and now hes the best in the league.