Vikings' turn on top

G-FORCE wrote:

This just in from ESPN.com :
"Brett Favre's agent, Bus Cook, just released the following statement: "Brett wants permission from the Packers organization to seek a trade to the Minnesota Vikings, who are prepared to offer Green Bay their first round draft picks in 2009, 2010, 2011 AND their 4th round picks for the next decade."
When asked why on earth Favre would want to play for a division rival, Cook responded with: "It's very simple actually. Brett wants to get as far away from professional football as possible."

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.

normallylikeyellow wrote:

Best O line? I wish. Maybe before we let 3 Pro Bowlers walk as free agents. We have 2 good tackles, but it's been musical chairs in between for 3 seasons--and the tackles are getting "experienced," so to speak. This is why the Pack keep picking O linemen. As for Super Bowl contenders--yeah, we all knew the Giants would win, right? In the NFC, you never know... whoever gets hot. The two teams under radar are the Seahawks (how I can't imagine) and the Eagles (check out their schedule). Aside from a road game at Seattle and their division foes, they've got PIT, STL, ATL, CLE, and ARI all at home, plus a road date in SF & CIN. They could play .500 in their division and win 10+ games. They won 8 last year despite losing to GB, NE, NY & CHIC all by 3 pts, SEA by 4. I wouldn't count them as far out as a lot people do.

normallylikeyellow wrote:

Best O line? I wish. Maybe before we let 3 Pro Bowlers walk as free agents. We have 2 good tackles, but it's been musical chairs in between for 3 seasons--and the tackles are getting "experienced," so to speak. This is why the Pack keep picking O linemen. As for Super Bowl contenders--yeah, we all knew the Giants would win, right? In the NFC, you never know... whoever gets hot. The two teams under radar are the Seahawks (how I can't imagine) and the Eagles (check out their schedule). Aside from a road game at Seattle and their division foes, they've got PIT, STL, ATL, CLE, and ARI all at home, plus a road date in SF & CIN. They could play .500 in their division and win 10+ games. They won 8 last year despite losing to GB, NE, NY & CHIC all by 3 pts, SEA by 4. I wouldn't count them as far out as a lot people do.

normallylikeyellow wrote:

.......As for Super Bowl contenders--yeah, we all knew the Giants would win, right? In the NFC, you never know... whoever gets hot. The two teams under radar are the Seahawks (how I can't imagine) and the Eagles (check out their schedule). Aside from a road game at Seattle and their division foes, they've got PIT, STL, ATL, CLE, and ARI all at home, plus a road date in SF & CIN. They could play .500 in their division and win 10+ games. They won 8 last year despite losing to GB, NE, NY & CHIC all by 3 pts, SEA by 4. I wouldn't count them as far out as a lot people do.

_DiMz_ wrote:

<quoted text>
I said the NFC NORTH.
And the giants were a damn good team in the best division last year.
I think the NFC north can and will be a very open division where 10-6 wins it....the bears can even surprise some people in the division.

Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
.
They'll surprise ME if they average 10 points a game !!
.

_DiMz_ wrote:

<quoted text>
I said the NFC NORTH.
And the giants were a damn good team in the best division last year.
I think the NFC north can and will be a very open division where 10-6 wins it....the bears can even surprise some people in the division.

Franklin Adams wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course they would bill. You forgot to take your I am not a dumb a-- pill. Take that and you will no longer be a dumb a--.

Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
.
Why so hostile, Franklin??
Did we wet our jammies again??
.

josh wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

andy g wrote:

<quoted text>
Josh: I am as big a Vikes fan as there is but....comparing the braindead project we have at QB with Peyton Manning, is like comparing a ford pinto and a corvette. The last time a team lead the league in both rushing and stopping the rush and did not make the playoffs was in 1981..the dreadful LieDowns out of the motor city...we are in rarified air brother. To try punk the green clad pukes over that is a losing battle. they are clearly better at QB & WR than we are, but they will not rule the day this year. Their ace up the sleeve is gone. Jared Allen will make a bigger difference than t-joke will. His presence makes the CB's & Safeties better already.

josh wrote:

<quoted text>
im not comparing t-jack to manning or saying he will be as good either. i was just saying how bad peyton was his rookie year and now look at him. i just think people need to give jackson another year or two before they talk trash. all the packer fans think rodgers is already better when he hasnt even started and has played maybe 3 quarters of an nfl game and jackson has an entire starting season under his belt.