And Now, Attention Turns to Lambeau
"My career with Green Bay speaks for itself, and the games I played in Lambeau Field, it's a special place, and that won't change," Favre said Sunday following the Vikings' 27-17 loss at Pittsburgh. "Now, for three hours I'll be on the other side. Do I know what that will feel like? I have no idea, because I've never been on the other side. But I know our team needs a win, and I know it'll be a tough place to play because it always is."
I took a jab at FOX for billing this game as the "Game of the Year" in their promos last weekend, but seriously, even a statement like that isn't ridiculously over-hyping this game. How will the Lambeau fans react to Brett? That's a big question, even if it won't impact the final result. And, oh yeah, a win would be undeniably sweeter than your typical road win in Lambeau. The hype has already begun, and this time, I think we're going to be treated to an afternoon that lives up to the anticipation. This will be a fun week and a fun Sunday.
25 days ago
Anthony21
39 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Yep
Think so too….
I have reviewed the first game again, compared the Vikings performance Sunday against the Steelers…..
It warrants a separate post maybe, but the gist is that our Vikings are a much more imrpoved team from the first matchup…
The unknown factors are the fans, the weather, the refs, and the luck we have or do not have….
Factors we DO know on the Vikings side are that we have two strong weapons offensively in Favre and his passing repetoire, along with our running attackers headlined by AD, with Taylor, Harvin, etc. as well…
On the D side, showed they can hang w a couple of exceptions through 4 quarters, even without Winfield…They did have lapses, but against Big Ben overall they were mostly effective….
On the Green Bay side, they are without several players and also their offensive line is STILL vulnerable, as it was the first game….Offensively, they have done OK against opposing teams that we also have beat, although to listen to some of them, their victories were somehow “better” ????? (hahahah)
Defensively, I do not think we will have a problem with AD getting 100+ on them, nor with Favre passing for over 200 yards….They just are not that good (although again, from some of the posts I have seen, they walk on water)…
Bottom Line: Another important week, another great game coming, with the added bonuses of the opportunity for revenge/avenging starting with making up for the loss in Pittsburgh, having posters of stupid comments by Packers eat their words, and I guess for revenge for Favre as well (?) if you pay heed to R4F and a few others…
PREDICTION: VIKINGS 33 PACKERS 21
+ DIGNIFIED ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THE PACKER DRIBBLING COMMENTATORS APOLOGIES
+ SAD FEELINGS IN PACKERLAND (HEHE)
+ WELCOME BREAK FOR VIKINGS THEREAFTER
I would rather be IN the Arena than watching from the stands...That is my life!
* Read Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" if you need further explanation...
by vikingfanfrom afar on Oct 27, 2009 8:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree. Minnesota has better WRs and better DBs. Peterson will go over 100 just like he did at the Metrodome earlier this year. Brett “Mr Clutch” Favre will rise to the top as he does in all pressure situations, being careful with the ball. Vikings 42 – Packers 3. Skooooooooooooool Vikings
by LoveBoat1 on Oct 27, 2009 10:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
AP went for 55 rushing and 0 receiving
So I’m not sure where you got that “over 100”
by Danwood on Oct 27, 2009 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not having checked the stats....
I am not sure, but think he has a 100+ yard game at home (not against GB?)….
In any case, as much fun to see this in Lambeau as it is at home….guess you would not agree?
I would rather be IN the Arena than watching from the stands...That is my life!
* Read Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" if you need further explanation...
by vikingfanfrom afar on Oct 27, 2009 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, since the opponent is Green Bay, I figured he was talking about stats from the Green Bay game
That is the only game that would seem to be useful as a reference point for predictions of this Sunday, no?
And since I’m pulling for the Packers, I’m hoping for a repeat performance :)
by Danwood on Oct 27, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Peterson being held under 100 yds is insignificant
How many games this season has AP had less than 100 yards and how many of them have we won? If I were a packer puller, I’d be more worried about Favre-Rice-Harvin as they seem to be the ones winning it on the offensive side for the Vikings.
Go ahead, put 8-9-10 in the box all you want, Favre will carve up your secondary like a thanksgiving turkey.
by cdubs on Oct 27, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this insignificant
W-L when AP plays, yards combined (passing + rushing):
AP Over 100: 14-6
AP Under 100: 8-9
So yes, I’d say that stopping AP is a priority still, just as it always has been. No, it’s not the sole priority anymore, but it doesn’t diminish the importance of it.
by Danwood on Oct 27, 2009 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
keep in mind
that those stats are skewed due to us not really having a QB before this season. If our “QB’s” didn’t get lots of run support they failed.
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 27, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I only look at this season
With #4 taking the snaps, this vikings team is truly different than past years. We’re not used to converting on 3rd down and Favre was the first 300 yd passer for the vikings since culpepper in 2003.
Go ahead, clutch your previous year stats if it’s all you have to hold on to for hope to win this game…
by cdubs on Oct 28, 2009 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll take exception on us having better WR’s. Driver and Jennings are very very good, and they make Rodgers look better than he is.
by dsludo on Oct 27, 2009 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes agree they are good....
We will have to turn it uo the same way we did against Steelers….and I expect we will…Rodgers and his WR/TEs are effective if not….
Expect that we will have some good passing from them, but also expect JA and wrecking crew to have him hurrying/sacked as with the last game to minimize the damage…
I hope we get at least 1 INT as well, we were sooooo close against the Steelers a few times…a recovered fumble returned for a TD is also acceptable!
I would rather be IN the Arena than watching from the stands...That is my life!
* Read Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" if you need further explanation...
by vikingfanfrom afar on Oct 27, 2009 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah I'm uncomfortabel with saying that too
I think I would put it this way instead: Vikings may have better receivers, as far as aggregate talent and potiential, but at this point the GB WR corp is definitely (IMO) more proven, so … you may have to give them the nod.
by puddnhead on Oct 27, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way, everything I just said about WR applies to CS times 100. I’m very, very uncomfortable saying the Vikings have better cornerbacks than Green Bay. Especially if you are restricting yourself to talking aobut the matchups just for this game (in which Winfield may be out).
In short, LoveBoat1, no offense but you’re coming across as real “homeboy” as claiming that we are distinguishably better in these areas. There are a lot of positions that we are better, IMO, so I don’t get why you are picking out those two in particular — those would be two of the last areas I would have picked to try to claim superiority in over the Packers.
by puddnhead on Oct 27, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everybody in this thread fails at sarcasm. Every point of that post was to show why I’m nervous about the game at Lambeau. Packers have the better/proven wrs. Woodson and Harris are better than the CBs the Vikings are putting out there sunday, and the vikings safety play has been atrocious this year. They seem to be better at defending the run this year, and Favre has shown he can make bone headed plays when emotional. All in all, not confident at all
by LoveBoat1 on Oct 29, 2009 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
vikings 42 packers 17
Vikings 4 the superbowl
by RaysOfHope on Oct 27, 2009 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey...
… Minnesota might win. I actually think they’re the better team right now. But I’d take Driver and Jennings over Rice and Berrian. Harvin as your 3rd is obviously better than Jones. Top 3, I’d probably give Minny the edge based on Harvin, but it’s close.
But the Packers DBs blow Minny’s away. It’s not close. Your front 4 hides the DB’s deficiencies pretty well, and Winfield is as good as anyone GB has, but the rest of your DBs are mediocre at best.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 27, 2009 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Should have scrolled down before I responded...
… this is already well covered territory.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 27, 2009 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Might?
It’s a given, vikings pretty much already won. I can’t believe why people think this will be a close game. We have more weapons (AP, Favre, Rice, Harvin) on offense and we are STOUT on defense, STOUT meaning: we have seasoned veterans and playmakers who are good at what they do. Maybe some holes in the secondary, but no team is without it’s weaknesses. We are just a change in defensive scheme under 2 minutes and some better tackles out of our safeties away from being perfect in every aspect of the game.
The Packers just don’t have the Offensive line or ability to bring pressure. The game is won and lost at the line of scrimmage, and I can’t see the Packers winning it on either side of the ball.
by cdubs on Oct 28, 2009 9:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You've got 4 quality defensive players, in my opinion, and not much else besides that.
That assumes that Winfield doesn’t play. If he does, you’ve got 5. There are 2 reasons you defensive has been effective enough: 1) 3 of those quality defensive players play on your DL, which makes it exceptional; and 2) your offense puts so much pressure on the opposing team that some of your opponents are forced to become one dimensional to stay in the game.
Your defense can be had, and in fact, has been had repeatedly, though last week’s performance, especially without Winfield, was exceptional. If your defense isn’t making you worry about the possibility that it will keep your offense from getting deep into the playoffs, you’re kidding yourself. Your offense is so good that it’s limited the damage to 1 loss. I think Minny will probably win. I think they’re the better team right now. We agree on one thing, I think: Minnesota will likely win because one of its best units, its DL, matches up against one of GB’s worst: it’s OL. That’ll be tough for GB to overcome.
“We are just a change in defensive scheme under 2 minutes and some better tackles out of our safeties away from being perfect in every aspect of the game.” No, you’re not. You’ve got problems in your pass protection schemes that Favre is masking with quick releases, you’ve got below average safeties, and weak corners after Winfield, you’ve got one very good LB and a couple of “just a guy” types all of which combine to make your coverage terrible up the middle, which is why you’ve been carved up by TE’s most weeks. The Vikings are a very good team. Probably better than GB. But they’re not close to “perfect in every aspect of the game”. If you think that, you’re in for a rude awakening. Maybe not this week, but soon. You need more than scheme. You need, on almost a weekly basis, regular pressure on the QB from your front 4 and a near perfect performance from your offense. Last week you didn’t get the latter, and you lost. Maybe Favre can keep up the performances he’s put up the first 6 weeks. If so, you’ll probably end up with 12+ wins and a bye in the playoffs. But you still won’t be close to perfect (not that it’ll matter under those circumstances).
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 28, 2009 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, Packer fans in Green Bay...
you stay classy. :)
If the Vikings pull off a win this week, I will be happy no matter how the rest of the season turns out. Just to beat the Pack here and then back at home…with Favre at the helm? Priceless.
by fischean on Oct 27, 2009 10:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
Couldn’t agree more. My diehard packer fan friend said before the season started: “If Brett Favre beat the packers in Lambeau while wearing purple then I will throw up”
by cdubs on Oct 27, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
get a bucket
unless you want to clean it up from the floor. So long as the vikes don’t blitz and our O-line can open some inside running holes the vikes will win. Our DBs are good enough to allow our D to blitz alot. most of our big plays are given up when we blitz. Why blitz when you can bring pressure from the front 4?
by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 27, 2009 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's been criticizm
from other vikings fans/writers that we don’t blitz in certain situations. We almost lost the ravens game because in the 4th quarter they had about 80 yards to go and flacco had all day to throw the ball because we only sent 4 rushers. Blitz a couple LB’s or a nickel CB and that game isn’t nearly as close.
A good QB will always find an open WR with enough time.
by cdubs on Oct 28, 2009 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
CB By Committee
Steelers are just above the Packers in passing offense, and we held them to… what was it, 175 yards passing, w/o Winfield.
Lambaugh field can’t be much, if any, worse than Pittsburgh, so we definitely have a chance to tame the Packers here. As long as we don’t turn it over, I honestly think we can blow these guys out of the water. AD gets back on track this week.
Vikes win, 31-13.
GO VIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!
by JasonAve6413 on Oct 27, 2009 12:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe because it's spelled close to Limbaugh?
That’s all I’m gonna say. :- b
When you go to somebody's house, you don't crap on their floor. Being a fan of one team does NOT give you license to be a dick to fans of another.
Corollary: When people are visiting your house and behaving themselves, them being a fan of a different team is NOT a reason for you to piss in their beer.
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
by Robert Rence on Oct 27, 2009 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't feel like sorting my thoughts into words today,
so I wish someone would hurry up and post pretty much what I’m thinking so I can just post “+1”.
Thanks in advance.
by Migrant lurker on Oct 27, 2009 1:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
lol +1
I would rather be IN the Arena than watching from the stands...That is my life!
* Read Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" if you need further explanation...
by vikingfanfrom afar on Oct 27, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How will Packer fans react?
It’ll be a mix of boos and cheers, I think, the first time he hits the field, but by the end there I suspect the boos will be all but silent and all you’ll here are cheers for Favre. Why? Because a lot of Packer fans (though not myself) are really more Favre fans right now than they are Packer fans… AND because I can think of about a half dozen season ticket holders who sold their tickets for $500 or more months ago, and I suspect those that bought them are either outright Viking fans or are temporary Viking fans because they’re bitter that Favre isn’t in GB anymore.
Honest to God, win or lose, I can’t wait until this week is over.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 27, 2009 5:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure
I encounter a lot of sports fans in my work and every Packer fan so far has been uppity about the Favretroversy. I think team means a lot to Packer fans more than any NFL franchise. Thats why there is such a fall out over this.. if it were any other franchise rival pairing it might not make as big of a splash.
But now, its the “Game of the Century”? Sorry, I’ll save that billing for Manning vs Manning
by PackaCracka on Oct 28, 2009 12:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They keep saying...
that it’s “only a matter of time before favre returns to his old self”, meaning that eventually he’ll start forcing throws and giving up a lot of interceptions.
Not the Brett Favre I’ve been watching. Here’s the biggest difference: Favre isn’t the centerpiece of this vikings team. He’s not carrying it, he doesn’t HAVE to make the big plays. He just has to hand it to purple jesus and let him run people over. Once in a while convert a third down….maybe even throw it deep to Rice (which is working very well, Rice is a stud). That’s all he’s doing, he’s taking sacks, he’s only had 1 interception that I felt he missed his target on, the other two were dropped balls by his receivers which happens, mistakes are part of football. I just don’t see this “bad” brett favre that these packer fans keep anticipating.
by cdubs on Oct 28, 2009 9:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
that all may be true, (Rice is def. a stud and Brent is playing “within himself”) but it has nothing to do with the topic, which is, Packer fans reacting to Favre positive or negatively.
I say, if you wear Green and Gold and don’t react negatively to Brent trotting out onto the holy green of Lambeau, you are NOT a Packer fan. Book it.
by PackaCracka on Oct 28, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why are you calling him Brent?
Doesn’t sound like you’re a legit packer fan. How does this apply to your life if you’re not even really a fan
by cdubs on Oct 28, 2009 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a joke.
There’s a popular t-shirt in Packer country with a picture of Brett’s face (young Favre, circa 1996) and the quote “We’ll Never Forget You Brent” on it. So the fact that he’s calling Brett Brent actually suggests he’s a Packer fan, though not a Brett Favre fan.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 28, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ask
Ole Pete why he’s called Brent Farve
by PackaCracka on Oct 28, 2009 1:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
