What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

(un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: (un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

Brenthoven said:
I don't think there is any "arguably" about it. St Louis is HORRIBLE. Last year's team looked like a Super Bowl contender compared to this year's team. :eek:
Click to expand...

First Time said:
Cleveland could be argued.
Click to expand...

.

The Vikings have had a that mentality of playing weaker opponents too lightly, and having to really turn it on, I just really want to see a dominating performance from start to finish this week.
 
JF_Gophers said:
If not for turnovers the Vikings would be losing. Scary.
Click to expand...

Um, what? You can't possibly know what they would do differently (like give a rip on D) were it not for the turnovers. But please, tells us again how the Bears the teram to beat in their division.:D
 
Re: (un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

Mufahu Tahi is now in need of an oxygen tank.
 
Re: (un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

Slap Shot said:
Um, what? You can't possibly know what they would do differently (like give a rip on D) were it not for the turnovers. But please, tells us again how the Bears the teram to beat in their division.:D
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure the Bears are 3-1. So I am not sure what you are implying.

Vikes could easily lose their next 3 games. Baltimore, @Pittsburgh, @Green Bay.
 
Re: (un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

Is it sad that even though the Vikes are winning 38-10, it just didn't seem all that exciting? How about that fact that they weren't all that impressive today after the Jared Allen TD?
 
Re: (un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

JF_Gophers said:
I am pretty sure the Bears are 3-1. So I am not sure what you are implying.

Vikes could easily lose their next 3 games. Baltimore, @Pittsburgh, @Green Bay.
Click to expand...

And the Bears could lose the rest of their games all year...whats your point?

The vikes cared less than we did and still smoked the Rams.
 
Re: (un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

Handyman said:
And the Bears could lose the rest of their games all year...whats your point?

The vikes cared less than we did and still smoked the Rams.
Click to expand...

The point is:

1) That winning your first 5 games doesn't mean you've won the division.
2) That their (vikings) schedule gets tougher than it has been.
3) That having only lost once so far the Bears weren't so far behind the race was over.

So, what was your point? :confused: besides trolling.
 
Re: (un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

Slap Shot said:
Trollsing as in suggesting the Vikings would have lost were it not for the turnovers? :p
Click to expand...

That wasn't trolling and I never said the Vikes would lose.

I simply said that at the half STL had played well enough to be leading, except for TOs. Which was a fact.

I have not trolled once in this thread. Keep trying! :D
 
JF_Gophers said:
I simply said that at the half STL had played well enough to be leading, except for TOs. Which was a fact.
Click to expand...

That't not a fact, it's an opinion. No one knows what would have happened otherwise. And given you're a Dicka fan I consider such a stretch of the imagination to be trolling. :)
 
Re: (un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

JF_Gophers said:
The point is:

1) That winning your first 5 games doesn't mean you've won the division.
2) That their (vikings) schedule gets tougher than it has been.
3) That having only lost once so far the Bears weren't so far behind the race was over.

So, what was your point? :confused: besides trolling.
Click to expand...

I wasnt trolling Slap Shot trolled...I was just saying that your assertion they could lose the next three games is meaning less...any team could lose their next three games :D

Keep trying though no one here has guaranteed anything.
 
Re: (un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

JF_Gophers said:
If not for turnovers the Vikings would be losing. Scary.
Click to expand...

Isn't that part of the game though? Does it matter where they get turnovers, how they get turnovers, when the get turnovers?

It never makes sense to me when somebody says something like that for any sport.
 
Re: (un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

If not for the fact that the Packers were the only good team the Vikings have faced thus far....

Please don't give me that rubbish about San Fran. They just started off good and have gone to suck in a heartbeat.

You guys are dooming yourselves by playing so well. Here's why:

Favre will perform his usual retirement carousel this offseason and not return to the Vikings regardless. However, Favre will have played so well that Childress will get an extension with the team. Next year, the Vikings, bolstered by the bull headedness of Childress, will once again give the starting QB job to TSuck and, once again, the Vikings will be mediocre at best.

The good news, though, is that at this pace, the Vikings are sure to win the NFC North hands down and might even make the Title game...

The bad news, the last time they were good, they choked against the Falcons.

Take your pick. Childress was one season away from bye bye land and a chance to take what looks to be a great team and refocus it under a coaching staff that knows what it is doing outside of defense.

This year's team is essentially the same, or very close to it, as last year's team with the exception of Favre. So... by my biased rationale, this year's success so far is directly related to Favre. NOT coaching. So when Favre leaves.... you guys are back to suck. Do you really want to have a team that is THAT reliant upon ONE old media whore primadona?

Yeah, neg rep me for it. But I'm serious. The Vikings could win the whole darn thing. They better do it this year because Childress isn't good enough to do it without Favre even with AP and that great D he has. He's just not that good of a head coach.
 
Last edited:
Re: (un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

redwing77 said:
If not for the fact that the Packers were the only good team the Vikings have faced thus far....

Please don't give me that rubbish about San Fran. They just started off good and have gone to suck in a heartbeat.

You guys are dooming yourselves by playing so well. Here's why:

Favre will perform his usual retirement carousel this offseason and not return to the Vikings regardless. However, Favre will have played so well that Childress will get an extension with the team. Next year, the Vikings, bolstered by the bull headedness of Childress, will once again give the starting QB job to TSuck and, once again, the Vikings will be mediocre at best.

The good news, though, is that at this pace, the Vikings are sure to win the NFC North hands down and might even make the Title game...

The bad news, the last time they were good, they choked against the Falcons.

Take your pick. Childress was one season away from bye bye land and a chance to take what looks to be a great team and refocus it under a coaching staff that knows what it is doing outside of defense.

This year's team is essentially the same, or very close to it, as last year's team with the exception of Favre. So... by my biased rationale, this year's success so far is directly related to Favre. NOT coaching. So when Favre leaves.... you guys are back to suck. Do you really want to have a team that is THAT reliant upon ONE old media whore primadona?
Click to expand...

If you weren't dumber than and didn't smell worse than a 20 lb. bag of dog crap, I just might have read what you just wrote. Sorry.
 
Re: (un-) Official Minnesota Vikings 2009-2010 season thread

Dirty said:
If you weren't dumber than and didn't smell worse than a 20 lb. bag of dog crap, I just might have read what you just wrote. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Eh. The only dumb thing about this is that I posted this in the wrong thread.

But I meant what I said. It's one thing to have a bad team and known it and still love them (Cubs). It's another thing to have a team that is almost there but the real key towards success isn't being sought after (Vikings). They have a team that seriously is good enough to win the Super Bowl. They just don't have the coaching to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top