Mark Chmura's Bulletin Board Material
by Anthony21 on Oct 28, 2009 12:53 PM CDT
in Minnesota Vikings
Email
PrintTight end Mark Chmura was more specific. "[I]t all starts with Brett -- Brett's not as good as he was. . . . They have Adrian Peterson, but I think Chester Taylor is a guy. . . . Our quarterback was 10 times better, our receivers were better, our special teams were much better.
"I mean, you're talking about the No. 1 defense in the league at that time, maybe one of the best defenses ever to play the game. . . . When we played back then, teams feared us. I don't know if teams fear the Minnesota Vikings today."
Chmura's talking about the 1996 Packers, and he's obviously comparing that team to the 2009 Vikings. I couldn't have any less interest in the argument about which team is better, but I would nevertheless like to thank Mr. Chmura for his "I don't know if teams fear the Minnesota Vikings today" quote. He just did Brad Childress a great service.
There's your bulletin board material, Chilly. Put that one all over the locker room this week.
Of course, one would expect that Chmura to speak highly of the 1996 Packers -- I mean, c'mon, playing on that team might have even been more exciting than spending time with teenagers at a post-prom party. But if the Vikings take exception to these comments, they'd have every right to do so. Brett's not the quarterback he once was, but he's having a lot of fun and there's still plenty of life left in that arm. To say that the 1996 Favre is 10 times better than the 2009 Favre is a ridiculous exaggeration. He's slowed down, but not nearly that much.
Teams don't fear the Vikings? Gimme a break. Tell that to #28.
120 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Um....
And this coming from a guy who was married and boinked a 17 year old? Wonder why teams are still trying to double team A.P., trying to blitz Favre trying to shut down the pass play’s and our rushing D is still top 10. Yep Mr. Pedofile, like you would know anything other then getting them the youngest you can.
"That is the craziest sonofabitch I ever saw, how many more like him do you think are up there?"
Why is what Mark Chmura says even relevant?
I think it would be pretty sad to use the words of a former player as bulletin board material. That would be like Obama using criticism from someone like Rush Limbaugh as motivation — stupid to give him the attention, and even worse to think his opinions even matter.
Why would Childress even acknowledge someone like Mark Chmura who has so little relevance to the teams today?
Exactly. Like the players really are gonna give a crap about what Mark Chmura thinks? This is kinda pointless.
by PurplePeopleEaters on Oct 28, 2009 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Not a good comparison.
Politics =/= sports. Who cares if Chmura gets some attention? Who cares if his opinions really matter in the long run? Coaches like to do this — find someone who doubts the team and point his thoughts out to the players. I’m not saying Childress is going to give an emotional speech on Sunday morning about proving Mark Chmura wrong, but what’s wrong with using quotes from him and others to fire up the players?
Quick question-
why didn’t you post Leroy Butler’s and Santana Dotson’s quotes?
by Donald Driver on Oct 28, 2009 11:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Chmura's just adding to the hype
pay no attention to him. We don’t want to be the 96’ Packers, we wanna be the 09’ Vikings! He may not fear the 09’ Vikings, but he will respect them by the end of Sunday!
Go Vikes!
As a Packer fan I can attest that Chumra is an idiot. His opinion is worthless and he is still bitter coz no one came to his side when he was caught in the hot tub of a high school girl. Really it is just envy, on Chumura’s part. Brett, Frank Winters and him used to be drinking buddies. Farve stopped the partying all the time and became a better father. I don’t think Farve will even pay attention to one word out of this idiot. Now I can see Farve looking for other material (Rodgers, McCarthy, Thompson). But I think it works both ways and the opposite is also true. I also agree that Farve is playing right now at near a level as the mid 90s….and he never had a weapon like Sidney Rice also. It should be a great game and this to me is what is so great about the football season. I hope you guys stay injury free and here’s to a good game (with the packers winning of course :)
You're the Best!
Seriously – wish more Packer Fans had your sensibility. We’ve had our share of idiots also. Good post except for the very last last line. Should say …. with the Vikings winning of course:)
"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." Theodore Roosevelt
Careful there...
Better be careful, Sequoia, or you’ll ruin my lifelong impression of Packer fans as pompous, entitled jerks. That was a reasonable and fair post. Please go teach a class on how to be a good fan to the rest of your state. :P
Good luck to you as well – this is definitely going to be a very tough game, I think, for my Vikes.
And maybe pick up a couple more credits
taking a class on how to spell Brett Favre’s name correctly.
I completely agree.
Chmura is and was a complete tool. Very good TE, but a below average person.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 28, 2009 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions
never had a weapon like rice?
I would say Sterling Sharpe was a better weapon than Rice currently is, however with that said Rice still has room to improve. But when Favre retires finally he will be stuck in the same situation he was in last year, average target with below average quarterback throwing him the ball.
V/R
Ted Thompson, GM
Green Bay Packer
1265 Lombardi Ave.
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54304
Tel: 920-569-7500
by Ted Thompson on Oct 29, 2009 2:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Ted… i am not talking about complete recieve, in which ways i think Sterling was the best reciever EVER :))) …but that is neither here, nor there. What I meant by weapon, is the Physical mismatch with his height and jumping ability. Sterling has no equal with strength. But Sidney has what…48 inch vertical…and he’s 6’4. So no matter how good you “cover” him….. teams don’t have a DB who can match up with that. That is what I meant…not comparision of overall talent…but just a threat everytime the ball his thrown his way…good throw/bad throw or covered/not covered
( Quick Aside: I was 8 years old when Sterling was a rookie in 1988..he was my favorite player and even named my puppy after him in Christmas ’88)
48" vertical
No chance. Vince Carter measured a 42" running vertical not even a one step. I doubt Rice is over 40".
Slight exaggeration :)
His vertical was 39.5 according to Scout.com
That's still really good
unless it was a running vert. Do you know if it was standing or running?
good question…..I know it was taken at the combine. I just remember him on the onside kickoffs this year when Mason Crosby had the perfect onside kick twice and Sidney just looked like he touched the ceiling…..I really think by the end of the year that he will be one of the most dangerous weapons in the redzone…just no covering that. And this is what scares me actually this week. Favre is gaining more and more confidence in him. The Baltimore game when they needed a big play, they went to Sidney. That 3rd down catch on the sideline against the steelers was amazing.
Sidney Rice
is definitely playing out of his mind the last two games and I think he will become a good consistent receiver for the Vikings down the line but he is not a feared receiver. Favre has made a lot of average guys like Bill Schroeder become weapons because he passes them open and I think Rice has more potential than a guy like Schroeder but he isn’t a Jennings, Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson type playmaker.
Yeah Rice is a bit better than Schroeder
and Jennings is like Fitzgerald and Johnson…
Somehow Rice has almost a couple hundred yards more than Jennings and that’s with what the Acme crowd keep saying is an inferior QB. Rogers is more accurate, more mobile, and a better deep thrower. How confusing.
Wow
Do you take anything else into account? I want to have an honest debate and your sarcastic comment shows that you don’t think about any other reasons why a stat might be a particular way.
Rice has more yards than Jennings because number one, the Vikings don’t have another great receiving weapon like the Packers do with Driver, Nelson, James, ect. even though Harvin will probably become that and number two, Rodgers has no time to throw the ball. Jennings makes a living beating guys deep (game winner verse the Bears) and Rodgers hasn’t had time this season to connect with him. Is that too hard for you to understand?
And I didn’t say Rice is a bit more talented than Schroeder, I said he has more potential. Rice had 141 yards last season. Jennings had 1,292 yards. Rice can be a good receiver but he’s not on the level of Jennings. I really don’t need to argue this. You can email Larry Fitzgerald and ask him. He said in the off-season the Jennings is more talented than himself.
And in regards to your sarcastic comment about Rodgers. The guy is the second rated QB in the league behind Peyton Manning and he’s been sacked more than any other QB. I guarantee you Favre would have 12 picks right now if he was under the pressure that Rodgers has been under.
When the Acme crowd comes a trollin
They say that the stats are absolute proof of whatever they claim. Witness the mindless claims that Favre can’t play late in the year, in domes, or in the cold.
Despite your excuses, Jennings isn’t having a very good season. His production is about 3/5 of Rice. That’s a lot. And that’s with a QB who you are putting next to Peyton Manning. Somehow Peyton’s #1 receivers still get a lot of yards.
You talk about wanting to have an honest debate, yet you cite last year’s stats when Rice was hurt.
You guarantee whatever you want. I understand the emotional need.
Drinking the purple kool aid
Don’t forget that the Vikings have played one more game than the Packers as well. I did cite last years stats to show you that Rice isn’t all that special and he still played in 13 games. In Jennings second year he played in 13 games and was injured half of the year and had just under 1,000 yards and 12 TD’s. Big difference.
And you call Favre’s late season fades mindless claims. Here’s a playoff overview: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=paolantonio_sal&id=3281535
I can’t find the article that shows Favre’s last month fades but it isn’t a lie and you don’t have to be salty about it lol. It shows guys like Brady, the Mannings and a couple of other QB’s. Every QB stays about the same and Favre takes a huge drop in every category. His interceptions to TD ratio goes to like 3 to 1. It really is horrendous. You can call the claims mindless but they’re written down, put into data, and everyone knows. You can’t deny it.
re Sterling Sharpe
I agree re Sterling, he was amazing to watch. He,s the only reciever that I would say was in the same ballpark with Randy Moss. Could have rivalled his numbers,too.
My think on the game is the line play. I still feel the Vikings have the best combined lines in the NFL.
Prediction? the game goes to OT. Ryan Longwell scores the winning field goal.
The comment about possibly being one of the best defences ever is ... odd
They were good, but … come on.
This is one of those cases where, once someone says something really inane, no one will really take seriously anythng else they are saying.
Oops, let's try that again,
Let’s examine the evidence -
1996 Packers:
#1 Overall defense (#1 against the pass/ #4 rush)
+ 246 point differential
Surrendered 13.1 points per game.
Only the 2007 Patriots, 1999 Rams and the 1998 Vikings have had a better point differential since then (which, admittedly is as relevant to offensive prowess as it is defensive ability), and only one of those defenses won a Super Bowl.
In the long history of the NFL, I wouldn’t rank the ’96 Packers D in the top ten, but one can certainly argue that it was one of the best ever on a purely statistical basis.
In other words, Chmura’s claims aren’t in the least “inane”, particularly in comparison to Favre’s “best ever” statement which started this whole pointless exercise. Comparing a team that has won 6 of their first 7 games to a team that won the SB? Now, that’s inane.
Who catches up to Chmura for quotes?!?
Seriously… Chmura? Yes, the ‘96 team was good, but it wasn’t that good. Other than Favre getting his ONE superbowl ring, that’s not a memorable team at all. That defense was NOT one of the best of all time… get real.
And no one fears the Vikings? I agree, whisper that into AD’s ear all week this week and post that all over the locker room!
What really gets me is that Mark Chmura was reached for comment. Why on earth would you go talk to a guy who basically (allegedly) raped his way out of the NFL? No one wants to hear from that idiot…
Chmura joins a sports radio program now and then...
in Milwaukee. (AM 540) to talk football and feel relevant again. That’s when i reach for my radio dial!
by stratoscaster on Oct 28, 2009 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions
He's co-host of a show on Saturdays
The best part is the other host once admitted that they repeat and make up falsehoods about Favre. Classy all the way. Mr. Hot Tub probably carrys a lot of cred for hunting young girls.
The quote was given along with a bunch of others from players on the 96 Packers...
… who were asked (by a Packer beat writer) to respond to Favre’s statement that the 2009 Vikings are the best team he’s ever played for.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 28, 2009 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Are you insane?
or completely delusional?
"Unforgettable images: Arthur Blank pushing Vick's wheelchair; Brad Childress as chauffeur to Favre.''
-- latimesfarmer, Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, after the Vikings coach picked up Favre and wife Deanna at the St. Paul Airport for the 30-minute ride to the Minnesota training facility.
by PackaCracka on Oct 29, 2009 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Again, it’s apparent you have nothing to say.
by packallday555 on Oct 29, 2009 11:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Haha
Please tell me you clicked on the link 400 metres provided. If so would you still like to argue that he said “this MAY be the best I’ve ever played on.”? Or was this just an imposter of Favre?
by packallday555 on Oct 29, 2009 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions
He said "best team *I* ever played for", so clearly its wrong
the team plays for Brent Favre, thats why he didn’t say it
"Unforgettable images: Arthur Blank pushing Vick's wheelchair; Brad Childress as chauffeur to Favre.''
-- latimesfarmer, Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, after the Vikings coach picked up Favre and wife Deanna at the St. Paul Airport for the 30-minute ride to the Minnesota training facility.
by PackaCracka on Oct 29, 2009 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions
What possible reason would a person constantly start posts with a Haha?
Seriously, are you just trying to be a jerk? I constantly dragged your nose and pushed it in the mess you left the last time… well, I don’t know if it was the last time, I’ll just say the time you were blatantly dishonest and claimed that cutting off half a sentence is honest. Now you’ve got some kids who want to do the Beavis and Butthead thing. How fun.
I start my replies to you with haha, because I honestly find it funny how fond of yourself you are. 400metres provided video evidence of Favre saying. “I think physically, and, and from a talent level, this is the best team I’ve ever been on you.” When you and I had this argument before, your argument was the he said “this MAY be the best team I’ve ever played on.” It’s clear now he didn’t say that, but not surprisingly your still not willing to admit your wrong.
I constantly dragged your nose and pushed it in the mess you left the last time…
Huh? You mean the time where your fellow Vikings fans agreed with me and told me I was right?
by packallday555 on Oct 29, 2009 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions
You reply to everybody that way - frequently
I don’t know what kind of weird thing you’ve got going on, but I haven’t said anything about how fond I am of myself.
My argument then, as now, was that you cut off half the sentence. You’re welcome to go back if you like. Its blatantly dishonest to remove the modifiers in a sentence and claim that you are providing an accurate quotation. I even gave you the grammatical convention that was neglected in the moronic link that Beavis gave. You said you didn’t care about that dishonesty.
The guy who agreed with you is a blatant Favre hater who almost never posts. Congratulations, and for what’s its worth, he didn’t agree about your perversion of the sentence.
You don’t need to say it. It’s in the way you post, and present yourself. It’s obvious, you feel that you are superior and much smarter then everybody else you talk to.
I really don’t care about the 2nd paragraph you wrote.
And regardless, he is a Vikings fan, and really is doesn’t matter whether he hates or likes Favre. All he needed to be able to do was read. As PackaCracka provided a link which showed Favre saying, what I had said he did.
by packallday555 on Oct 30, 2009 12:15 AM CDT up reply actions
Your most common subject line is to laugh at people
You need to have some evidence of something beyond feeling bad that someone challenges your dizzy rants.
You don’t care about being honest? You don’t care about reality? That’s really sad.
The Beavis link went to a partial quote. You can actually watch the statement, with a complete sentence and context as well. But someone dishonestly represented it, so… I honestly dont get it.
Didn’t ever say I don’t care about being honest, I just simply didn’t care about your second paragraph because it was filled with you making excuses to make it seem like you weren’t wrong.
by packallday555 on Oct 30, 2009 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions
No, he said it was the "best team I've ever been on."
Not “played for.” My mistake.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 29, 2009 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think I made one.
“I think physically, and, and from a talent level, this is the best team I’ve ever been on.”
It’s a distinction without a difference. And he’s wrong. But it’s not that big of a deal. It’s about the 4th time he’s said it in the last 8 years, so it’s nothing to take all that seriously. Sort of like his retirements.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 29, 2009 11:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Use a dictionary
You sound like a friggin crooked prosecutor or politician. And you exaggerate too, probably knowingly. Oh and be sure and ignore the context of the remarks because they don’t fill your need.
And again
Do you always try and change the subject, or talk about completely pointless things when you realize your wrong?
by packallday555 on Oct 29, 2009 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Wrong about what?
You got busted being blatantly dishonest. And my comment followed his. If you can’t follow it, maybe it would be wise to say nothing.
Where was I blatantly dishonest? Haha your comment followed his simply because you hit the reply button. But as far as the actual things he said to you. Not so much….
by packallday555 on Oct 30, 2009 12:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Your BSing right?
You’ve forgotten the entire thread where you claimed it was ok to chop off whatever words you want and use it as a quote?
Again, it follows and if it is beyond your understanding, rather than be a Beavis, why not say nothing?
Again, it follows and if it is beyond your understanding, rather than be a Beavis, why not say nothing?
Of course. I forgot that I am far inferior to you, as is everybody else.
Bottom line: You said Favre said, "this may be the best team I’ve ever played on. I said Favre said, “this is the best team I’ve ever been on.”
I was right, you were wrong. I know it sucks, especially since you seem to think you are never wrong but you are.
by packallday555 on Oct 30, 2009 12:13 AM CDT up reply actions
lol
You didn’t even bother to go back to the thread. You’re just going to stomp your feet and declare victory. And make up shit. Do you understand the difference between a quote and a paraphrase? Do you understand what a quotation mark signifies? Is that going to be something you don’t care about again.
Sorry if you can’t figure out how the comments follow. It really isn’t that complex. I tried to say it nicely.
It's not about victory
packallday stated the correct quote and you stated the incorrect quote. pretty simple. maybe your other conversation was a little different but he’s right on this one. just listen to the audio.
You sir, are a waste of time.
It’s impossible to have a rational conversation with you because you refuse to even state your position with any completeness or clarity. You simply accuse others of lying and liken them to “crooked prosecutors or politicians” instead of attacking their argument. Those are ad hominem attacks that aren’t worth responding to. If you want to engage in name-calling and senseless hostility, that’s your business. I choose not to.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 30, 2009 8:39 AM CDT up reply actions
Again, you just rant on and on when you realize your wrong to try and take the attention off of that. YOUR NOT FOOLING ANYBODY.
by packallday555 on Oct 30, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions
but he’s having a lot of fun
OH GOD, NOT YOU TOO!
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell Maurer on Oct 28, 2009 4:41 PM CDT reply actions
Not after week 9 or so, anyway. Before that he looked like he was having fun.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 28, 2009 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions
My thoughts about this upcoming game - long-winded, sorry! :P
It’s going to be tougher than it should be for the Vikings, who definitely look like a better team in nearly every aspect of the game (I’d give the nod to the GB receivers and a respectful nod towards Rodgers, who’s an excellent QB himself but in those two aspects it’s a tie at best).
I’ve seen some stats-waving about Turnover differential as of late but you really can’t put much stock in that due to the Vikings game at St. Louis where they were handed several turnovers and then the fluky turnovers in Pittsburgh that probably shouldn’t have happened (the fumble never happens if they don’t make that awful tripping call incorrectly and the INT was totally lucky, bounced right to the Pittsburgh defender). The Packers got a lot of turnovers from their first game against the (apparently) cursed Chicago Bears AND they just played two of the crappiest teams on the planet so it’s hard to take any turnovers in their favor all that seriously, either. So that’s a murky point at best.
Both teams haven’t played the toughest competition, imho…though I’d give the nod to the Vikings in that regard by a bit (49ers played a tough game in Minneapolis, the Ravens are still fairly tough and the Steelers are also very tough (though not quite as fearsome as they once were after seeing the Vikes basically outplay them most of the game and in most facets of the game) and of course we played the Packers who aren’t great but are very good. The Pack really only played Cinci and the Vikes and that’s it for tough teams – losing both games.
I’d say offensively the Vikings have a few more options and more talent overall but it’s not by a huge margin, either. The Packers defense, statistically is giving up less points but that’s probably more of a factor of their schedule (one less game and mostly easier opponents) than anything concrete.
That leaves Defense, Special teams, and the X-factors. I think that the Viking’s Defense surprised everyone, including themselves, after the Steelers game – doing a great job shutting down a top-flight passing attack even though they didn’t reall pressure Big Ben all that much. The Secondary held their own without the deadly Antoine Winfield, who very much could be playing this Sunday. The Vikes pass-rush will still be fairly effective though perhaps not quite as dangerous as it was in the dome and this will probably help the Packers a bit. I think that the Packer defense isn’t quite what it could or used to be and I’d give the nod to the Vikes Defense on this one, to some extent. I think they (Vikes) are more likely to win the Turnover battle in this one by just by a hair.
Special teams has shifted – it’s now the Vikings who hold a solid edge in this regard though I’d say both field goal kickers are great. With Harvin out there, watch out though!
X-factors include motivation (in that regard slight edge to the Packers who lost the first leg and will be eager to prove it was a fluke) and home-field advantage (something not as potent at Lambeau field as it once was).
Despite my firm allegiance to the Vikings and my hatred for anything and everything Packer-related (except ol’ Favre, I love him as a Viking), I’m not sure who will win this game.
I think that the Vikings SHOULD win and are fully capable of winning this game but whether or not they get the lucky breaks AND stay focused is hard to determine.
I’ll go with Vikings 27-Packer 17.
I appreciate your opinions
but you make it seem like the Vikings are so superior to the Packers that it won’t even be a contest. You say that the QB and WR’s are the only thing that’s equal but you can’t be serious. With Atari Bigby healthy the Packers might have the best secondary in the NFL. The Vikings on the other hand have a bad secondary even with a healthy Winfield. Winfield is the only player in the Vikings secondary that would even have a chance at starting on the Packers and he would have to fight for time with Woodson, Harris, and Williams.
The big difference between the Packers and Vikings right now is the offensive lines. The Packers tackle spots are in flux right now and Rodgers has been getting killed. If both teams offensive lines were equal you could make a case that the Packers could be better. The only huge positional advantage that sticks out for the Vikings is AP being light years better than Grant and for the Packers, their secondary is much better than the Vikings secondary. You do realize that the Packers only lost by a TD in the dome with half of their offensive line and a quarter of the defense hurt?
stop being a homer
although you weren’t a jackass about it like most Viking’s fans, so that’s appreciated.
QB: What Aaron Rodgers has done this year is down right remarkable considering he hasn’t had an O-Line. If the Packers make the playoffs, just give him the MVP. He has the second best QB rating and has been sacked 25×... how do you get hit that much and still only throw 2 picks? Favre has been far better than I expected (but then again, I don’t worry about Favre during the season, I look at the last game of the season Favre plays… it’s always ugly). Favre has not forced many balls like he’s known to and brought a mediocre at best receiving core to a respectable level.
Advantage: GB
RB: Clearly AP and Taylor are better than Grant and Jackson (when healthy). But before you automatically give it to the Vikings, remember that the Vikings are running behind one of the better O-Lines and the Packers are running behind a sieve. With that discrepancy in O-Line, Ryan Grant is still ranked #6 this year in the NFL for running backs… pretty good, just wait until the line is healthy.
Advantage: MN
WR: Not really even a contest. The Vikings best receiver (Rice) would be a 3rd or 4th stringer on the Packers. Jennings hasn’t put up numbers, but that’s because he’s being double teamed and Driver is taking advantage. Berrian is a joke as I’ve been saying for years. He’s fast, no doubt. But other than throwing the ball as far as you can, Berrian is useless.
Advantage: GB
O-Line: Like the receivers, there’s no real need to compare them. The Viking’s have a much better line than GB, but there’s at least a glimmer of life on the Packers line after the last couple week.
Advantage: MN
DL: I’m not so fast to give this to MN. Jared Allen is a prime example why the Vikings will never win more than 10 games. They gave up so much for him and payed so much to him, that no matter how well he does he isn’t worth what they’ve given up. If you discount the GB game where he was playing against 2 players playing a position they don’t play and one of them was in his first meaningful game time ever, he has 3 sacks… not much of a beast if you ask me. I like Kevin Williams, solid player, needs to lose a little weight. Pat Williams is a cancer and a waste of space on the field, might as well have 10 players out there on passing plays. Edwards is decent when he’s not jumping offsides… for the Pack, it basically comes down to everyone of their starters is all around solid, none of them are absolute beasts, with some potential from Raji to be one.
Advantage: Tie, you can’t really compare them because of the defensive style’s, but I’m not impressed by the Viking’s line.
LB: I don’t think I need to waste my time on this. Greenway would get some play if he was a Packer, but none of the others would even make the team if they were on GB. Most of the Viking’s backers are solid in the run, but look lost when they have to cover someone. Everyone of the top 3 or 4 backers for the Packers are better than the Viking’s
Advantage: GB
DB: Again, the advantage is so far ahead for the Packers that it’s not worth commenting. The only weakness in the Packers secondary, is that Collins and Bigby are always hurt and we have no back-ups at safety, but when healthy, this is probably the best secondary in the league and the Vikings… well without a decent cover corner in Winfield (who is not a hall of famer like Viking’s fans keep telling me) there isn’t a single person in that secondary that should be starting in the NFL
Advantage: GB
Special teams: Without going too much into it, I think they’re pretty much equal in all aspects. I’ll give the edge to the Viking’s cause they drafted a kick returner with their 1st round pick
Advantage: MN
If you don’t agree with my assessment, look at the stats. The Packers D is #3 in the league, the Viking’s is 18th. The Packers have maybe the best receiving crew in the league, with the #6 RB, and the #2 QB… all around the Packers are a dominant team when healthy. I think they strike more fear into opponents than the Vikings… whether it’s the ’96 team or the ’09 team
That post is homerish
It’s hard to argue with another Packer fan on the Vikings forum but some of your points are the definition of being a homer. The Vikings won’t win more than 10 games with Jarred Allen? I almost guarantee they go 11-5 or better this season based on their schedule and I hate the Vikings. It’s hard to compare the d-lines and linebackers because they have different purposes in the different schemes but your take that the Vikings d-line isn’t impressive is ridiculous.
I do think Allen is overrated because he is basically situational (he’s a terrible run stopper and he just heads up field every play) but he gets his sacks and causes havoc on passing downs regardless. You also say the Packers don’t have a beast on the d-line. Did you forget about Cullen Jenkins? Every guy who plays against or with him can’t believe how good he is. He’s just not getting the numbers in a 3-4.
QB: Advantage GB
RB: Advantage MN
WR: Advantage GB
TE: Advantage GB (Schiancoe is pretty good but Lee and Finley combo is better)
O-Line: Advantage MN
D-Line: 4-3 Advantage MN 3-4 Advantage GB (Can’t compare but both are good)
LB’s: Toss Up (Packers have Matthews, Kampman, Barnett. Vikings have Greenway and Henderson)
Secondary: Advantage GB
Special Teams: Advantage MN
Coaching: Advantage GB
That’s how I feel. I obviously don’t agree with you Wytefang that the Vikings are SO much better and I think your opinions on the Vikings front 7, uofmike , aren’t right. The Packers have a good team in every aspect except their terrible o-line that killed them in the first matchup and the Vikings have a good team in every area except their terrible secondary that like to get lit up.
Salty
Listen up. Rice had 141 yards last season. The Packers had five wide receivers and two tight ends with more yards than that last season. Rice is having a good year because he’s coming into his own but more importantly Favre and AP’s influence are making him have that type of season. He’s had a couple really good games but there is no way he is better than Driver or Jennings at this point. He would be the Packers 3rd receiver. That’s just how it is. And Jordy Nelson has just as much talent as him also. He’s a good player but you’re tripping out over two really good games.
Jordy Nelson...
was sinking down the depth chart behind the guy who just got injured. He’s an absolutely mediocre receiver who won’t stick around more than a year or two. Driver is a good possession receiver. Yes, all Packers receivers can outperform Rice while he is injured or not playing.
But hey, you have a fabulous QB and a fabulous receiving corp – would you say the best in the league – why worry?
was sinking down the depth chart behind the guy who just got injured. He’s an absolutely mediocre receiver who won’t stick around more than a year or two. Driver is a good possession receiver. Yes, all Packers receivers can outperform Rice while he is injured or not playing.
You should probably actually watch or follow the Packers before you say stupid things like this. Nelson had better stats last year then Rice did in his rookie year.
Jennings and Driver are better then Rice. So yes, he would be a 3rd wr on our team.
Yes we do have a fabulous Qb and fabulous receiving corps. Not the best though. Probably top 5.
by packallday555 on Oct 30, 2009 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Could be though
Were obviously bias but if the Packers had a good offensive line that actually protected Rodgers ocassionally, the Packers could be considered right there with the Colts and Saints no question about it.
Its an apples to oranges comparison
The GGG guy says you can’t just throw out stats without context. Is he wrong?
Besides, your statement, even if true, wouldn’t invalidate mine.
Mark Chmura
The charges against him were dropped, so the jokes about “loving” teenagers are invalid. I look forward to a well played game on both sides of the ball for both teams, in the end I would say the advantage is probably the Vikings due to their line play. However if the Packers line play slightly better than they did in the first matchup the Pack have a very good chance at upsetting the current NFC North leaders.
V/R
Ted Thompson, GM
Green Bay Packer
1265 Lombardi Ave.
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54304
Tel: 920-569-7500
Did you watch the videotape?
How about what he did admit to? The defense was that he didn’t penetrate her and they can’t prove he did.
No I did not see the tape..
I try to stay away from underage girl videos…just sayin
V/R
Ted Thompson, GM
Green Bay Packers
1265 Lombardi Ave.
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54304
Tel: 920-569-7500
by Ted Thompson on Oct 29, 2009 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions
Ted
your a frickin genius
"Unforgettable images: Arthur Blank pushing Vick's wheelchair; Brad Childress as chauffeur to Favre.''
-- latimesfarmer, Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, after the Vikings coach picked up Favre and wife Deanna at the St. Paul Airport for the 30-minute ride to the Minnesota training facility.
by PackaCracka on Oct 29, 2009 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Actually the charges weren't "dropped", he was found "not guilty" (different than innocent).
And he said afterwards he was doing things that night a married man shouldn’t do, so I think the jokes are perfectly valid.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 29, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Good thing about the Vikes
You can’t single out one or two people to “fear” each week, because we beat you with someone else every week. Week 1 AP goes to town on CLE. Then teams key in on him, so Favre gets it done with Shiancoe. Then Percy starts making plays in special teams and we get him the ball in the slot and some wildcat. Teams think they have to shut down percy, so here comes sidney rice with 300 yds in 2 games.
You can’t pick one weapon on offense to shut us down, that’s what this vikings team is a lot better than people think.
Personally I like being underdog and unfavored by the media. It makes it a sweeter victory when we go 13-3 and a superbowl ring.
Funny thing about this game
you guys know it. I know it. The rest of the NFL fan base knows it. it the pack vs. the Vikes. ANYTHING can happen. IMHO the Packers are frankly. not that great of a team right now. They’re lucky they have Rodgers or they’d be pretty crappy. The Vikings have surprised me and truly look like contenders. That loss last week proved more to back that theory up than the six wins in previous weeks. I think on paper, the Vikes win going away..maybe blow them out, Lambeau or the Dome.
All that being said, Chester Marcol may kick a FG in OT for a 6-3 Packer win…. Or, Faud Reviez may blast an ugly 29 yarder late in the game for the 16-13 victory. Guys..its the Pack vs. the Vikes…..this game can go either way every single time. Throw the season records out the window on this one. Flip a coin, bite your nails & keep the beers flowing. Its going to be a tense game for BOTH fan bases.
btw, f’ Chmura. That guys is a proven moron.
Haha come on guys
You guys are really going to argue that your better then our team of 96’? I know you guys love your team and that’s great but we really have you beat in every positional category besides RB and DT. And you even could argue the DT spot.
I mean
We won the SB, you guys haven’t yet done that. (And no I don’t think your going to haha. I’m biased). Maybe say you feel like you could be better then we are but until you win that ring, I don’t think you can even question whether or not your better then us.
by packallday555 on Oct 29, 2009 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Here's My Only Thing
I’ve stated this at acme. In 18 seasons Favre has won one Super Bowl. In 6 or 7 of those seasons Favre was on what could be considered an elite or the elite team in the NFL. Even if you consider this Vikings team an elite team (which you could up to this point) that isn’t a good percentage to winning another Super Bowl especially at age 40. With that said, why do so many of you think a Super Bowl is an automatic? I personally think your 1998 15-1 team was better than your current team and they didn’t even make the Super Bowl. You guys could go to the Super Bowl and you could even win it, but I’ve never seen so many folks in a certain fan base count their eggs before they’re hatched. There’s a lot of season left.
The most important thing is the schedule...
GGG,
As a Packerfan here would be my reasons for a Super Bowl this year for the Vikings
1) Schedule – Of all the teams that should be vying for the playoffs this year, Vikings have an extremely favorable schedule the rest of the way. Their one cold weather game is at Chicago in late December. But other than that, they have most games against good teams in domes (Cinncinati and the Giants). At the very least they should battle for at least #2 playoff seed…even if they lose against Green Bay this weekend. But even if they finsih 2nd, they will play only New Orleans on the road, and again in the dome. The one weakness of Brett Farve has been his play in unfavorable conditions. So this, they will avoid and not to mention that their speed also beneifs in the dome.
I think on a neutral field Green Bay and the Vikings are very close. But on the road, each team is at a disadvantage. The Vikings helped themselves tremendously with wins against the 49ers,Ravens and Packers. And now they have a favorable schedule down the stretch. Obviously anything can happen…but I do think the Vikings have a legitimate shot at the Super Bowl (against my strongest desire….:)
Good Points
And I do agree that they have a good enough team to go to the Super Bowl, but I truly have never seen a fan base (except for the Patriots who had the track record to feel that way) so adamant about their team winning the Super Bowl after wins against the Lions, Browns, and a Goreless 49ers.
I also think the easy schedule from here on out is overblown because it has nothing to do with the playoff games and each team in a division plays all of the same games but two. Also they have a stat that shows the teams with the hardest schedules during the season end up doing the best in the playoffs because it gets them prepared. The Vikings still have to play two division games against Chicago that are always tough even though the Bears looked terrible last week and they also have the Cardinals, the Bengals, and the Giants. Add the Packers on Sunday to that mix and that is six tough games out of nine. The Packers have seven tough games left out of 10 and a majority of those are at home. That is counting the 49ers who look awful on the road and just changed QB’s.
With all of that said, I think the biggest factor is Favre in regards to his late season fades and his bad playoff history over the last 12 years. People who defended his slide last season fail to realize that he has played terribly the last month of the season and into the playoffs for the past six years. Greg Bedard has said numerous times that it isn’t just Favre being physically beat up come late November, December, but he becomes mentally spent. If we based everything off of statistical history, Favre will start playing very badly in about five weeks and have a clunker of a playoff game. Is that definitely gonna happen? No one can say for sure, but that is what the past decade has shown us.
Finally, I personally see the Saints and Giants (I know the Giants have played bad the last two weeks) as being great matchups against the Vikings. I also think the Cardinals on a good day can beat any team in the league. I would pick those teams to win a playoff game against the Vikings but anything can happen. The Vikings do have a solid shot at making a Super Bowl trip, I just think there are a couple teams that are better in the NFC and Favre will historically fade.
So to add even more
to my long windedness; the most important thing for a good regular season record might be the schedule but it’s not the most important thing when it comes down to what really matters, the playoffs. I can’t find the article I read but it has the strength of schedule of the last like 20 playoffs and the teams that have historically done the best and won the Super Bowl have had very difficult regular season schedules. The Steelers last season, the Giants the year before, the Patriot Super Bowl teams, etc.
excelent points -
yeah….well I am wishing for the late season fade and or playoff failure, but I will approach it as if he will perform like he is doing now. And I agree with you that the Bears games (like almost any divison game) are never a sure thing and that the Giants and Saints provide good match-ups, I was just offering reasons why I thought the Vikings “could”.
About the schedule – I think I didn’t convey what I meant :) Schedule is usually overated except for a few instances. Think Arizona coming to Lambeau or Chicago for a Playoff game. Or the 90s packers playing in Dallas or a Dome. Minnesota doesn’t have that type of game on their schedule except for Chicago in late December. And it looks like the Saints will have the number one seed, i still think Minnesota would rather play there than at New York. So i guess the schedule is favorable in that if they make the playoffs they might have either a road game in a Dome or Home-field advantage. Obviously it is an optomistic projection, but also probable
Understandable
I see what your saying. I realize that if the Vikings have an away playoff game in the SuperDome that the atmosphere would be similar to a home game, but the Vikings offensive would be the one’s who couldn’t hear the snap count that time around.
I also think the Saints match up absolutely perfect with the Vikings. I think the Vikings are better than the Packers right now but the Packers have a better matchup against the Saints than the Vikings because of their superior secondary. I personally don’t think the Vikings could beat the Saints at home or away. I also think the Giants power running game and aggresive defense has a good matchup with the Vikings as well. If I’m a Vikings fan, I would hope the Saints lose before we have to play them and the Giants have to come to the dome to play us.
Your secondary historically ends up injured
Woodson and Harris are both old. Collins and Bigby are routinely injured. I like what that scrap heap guy who I can’t remember his name has turned into, but after that it gets rough.
You're a douche
I’m presenting facts and you’re just pissed off that you want the Vikings to do well but you know history tells you that Favre won’t keep this going. I can bust out all of the facts of his late season fades and terrible playoff games if you want. I’m not making stuff up, just putting the stats out there for you.
Woodson and Harris are old but they still form the best CB tandem in the league. Collins and Bigby are hurt a lot but the Packers secondary is still way way way more talented than the Vikings. You’re so upset that you’re bringing up backups the Packers have had to use to support your claims but outside of Winfield, every player on the Vikings secondary would be a backup on the Packers and most of the NFL. It’s just nice to know that the Packers two biggest rivals, the Bears and the Vikings have two of the worst secondary’s in the NFL.
And even Winfield
would have to share time with Harris, Woodson, and Williams.
No, it's not that precious
I would say he’s #2 behind Woodson. Winfield is a great tackler and a tough tough player, I really like his game, but Harris and Williams are both just as good if not better cover corners. Winfield is the better tackler though. I honestly think if he was on the Packers they would find a place for Woodson, Harris, and Winfield to all start. I would guess Collins and Woodson or Winfield would be playing safey. #1 Woodson #2a) Winfield #2b) Harris and #3 Williams
History says that huh?
Doesn’t history say that Bigby and Collins will likely be injured again? Actually you can add Woodson and Harris in there as well. And I complimented your backup or nickel or whatever he was. I like him. Sorry.
You barely beat the Bears. They don’t have a running game and some raw receivers.
You’re going to bust out the stats? When I busted out stats you complained. Your stats are proof, but mine are misleading – gotcha.
once again wow
Actually history says that Bigby will be hurt but Collins has played through injuries and is out there pretty much every Sunday. Harris is never hurt and he ruptured his spleen and still only missed just over a month when he should’ve been out for a season. Woodson hasn’t missed games because of injuries in years. So history would actually tell you that Collins, Woodson, and Harris will be out there just about every single week.
OK smart guy
Here’s some better stats for your child-like mind. Harris has only missed 4 out of a possible 182 games in his career. He played every game of his career until he ruptured his spleen last season and only missed 4 games. An injury that should’ve taken him out for the year and he only missed 4 games. He seems really injury prone to me, doesn’t he?
You likely won’t get a response to this comment from Salty and if you do it will have NOTHING to do with what you said. He likes to try and talk about a bunch of non-sense stuff when he is proved wrong.
by packallday555 on Oct 30, 2009 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Of course
Yeah, I’m not going to argue against you guys possibly making the SB because like you pointed out you have a favorable schedule. As of right now though, I don’t see how you guys could beat the Saints. Your weakness is your pass defense. Their glaring strength is pass offense. No one has been able to stop their offense, even the Giants who arguably have just as good a d-line as you guys if not better.
What I wanted to point out is that it’s crazy to say your 09’ Vikes team is better then ours of 96’. The stats don’t back it up, and we won the SB, while we’re currently just in week 8 of the regular season.
by packallday555 on Oct 29, 2009 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions
I’m not arguing against Favre right now. I’m arguing against the Vikes fans who already seem to feel that their current team is better then ours of 96’.
by packallday555 on Oct 30, 2009 12:09 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree Bret Favre is not the QB he used to be, he’s flat out BETTER. His leadership qualities, building up his new team’s confidence by calling them, physically and talent-wise, the best team he’s ever been on,( he did qualify that with its all up to team chemistry now) . His play selection, his taking sacks instead of trying to do it all by himself all at once.
So far, a world class performance.
What?
2009 Favre is better than 1996 Favre? You’re nutz. We should wait until the end of the season though to even compare it anyways because Favre has faded at the end of every season since 2004, and had a bad playoff game every season since 1997.
You should watch some old games
he is better. The wild card is his age. You’re late with the whole late season stat argument.
Haha god
I ask you oh great one, to tell me the reasons for Favre’s consistent decline in playing level this past decade. You seem to feel you know everything so I would love to hear your reasoning. And no, I’m not being sarcastic.
by packallday555 on Oct 30, 2009 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions
Then there is some mental problem going on
because we already had an extended conversation about the very subject. Among the genius things you argued was that it was appropriate to include “stats” from when he had a torn biceps tendon. That is bizarre. You could have helped yourself then to grow as a person and made a tiny effort to understand the statement “correlation does not imply causation.” You could spend a couple bucks and buy the book that popularized the phrase or you could just go someplace like Wikipedia. Or you can keep saying the same stuff over and over.
Do you ever take a position on a subject? You told me two reasons as to why Favre’s play declined in cold weather. The first was basically that he was throwing to a bunch of no name guys. To that reason, I asked you why he was able to play well in most of his warm weather games or games early on in the year. But I never got a response to that. Rather, just you ranting in hopes to take the attention off of you being wrong.
Your second reason was poor o-line play. But anyone who watches the Packers, and watched their games from 03’-07’ (which were the years I provided stats of him playing poor in cold weather games) would tell you that our o-line was not really ever a problem.
So again please tell me your reasoning for why Favre’s played consistently declined in cold weather games. And don’t dance around the question, like you always seem to do.
by packallday555 on Oct 30, 2009 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions
packallday
The guys is truly nutz. He told me that I was basically fabricating Favre’s late season fades even though there are clearly stats to prove that position. Can’t reason someone out of a postition they didn’t reason themselves into. Everyone, including himself, knows that Favre fades down the stretch. In fact, there hasn’t been even one season in the last six that he has played well in the last month.
Ok. What was this than?
“Witness the mindless claims that Favre can’t play late in the year.”
That didn’t come from you?
He told me that I was basically fabricating Favre’s late season fades even though there are clearly stats to prove that position.
He told me the same thing.
by packallday555 on Oct 30, 2009 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
