RE: The Packers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 1:02:48 PM)

People here are attacking Craig BECAUSE THE VIKINGS SUCK

Then they will be the same ones crying about a poster attacking them

Craig never attacks anyone and keeps his Packers posts right here where they belong

weak



Todd M -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 1:08:26 PM)

Craig with his hands in his pockets kicking stones just wishing he could do a recap. Poor bastard. [;)]

And Craig being "attacked"? I wouldn't go that far. Hyperbole not needed.



Guest -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 1:49:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

Don't bag on Lynn for her opinion.  She is entitled.  And realistically, we don't need a recap from Craig....we all saw the debacle.


We are allowed to disagree with Lynn, right? Especially when she dumps on another board member?

I hate the Packers, but Craig is a good guy. Been here for over 4 years, nearing 1000 posts. He's here win or lose every week praising the good of his team and calling out the bad.

And he keeps it in the "Packers" thread. He's never rubbing it in in the Vikings or Game Day threads.


You can disagree with anyone you want....but disagreeing is one thing, not allowing an opinion differing from yours (not you specifically David) is wrong. That happens quite a bit on here....just sayin.

Craig is a good guy.  Don't have any problems with him at all.  I hate his team and specifically his quarterback....but yes, Craig is someone I would definately sit down and drink a few ice cold Bud Lights with.

I also wouldn't have a problem with Craig posting on whatever thread he wants.  he brings a lot of football knowledge to the table....I don't think anyone here was asking too much of Craig to not go off on his recap.  The results kind of spoke for themselves....and Craig didn't.  And thats cool. 



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 2:19:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

Craig is a good guy.  Don't have any problems with him at all.  I hate his team and specifically his quarterback....but yes, Craig is someone I would definately sit down and drink a few ice cold Bud Lights with.

Bud Lights? Damn, didn't think you thought so little of me Ed. [;)]

I totally get where people are coming from on this. I'm not taking any offense at this as none is directed at me personally. Even if it was I can just hit the block button and move on with my day. It was a bad game against the most hated rival here and a week without a recap is fine. Besides, saved me some time so I could go give blood this morning.



Guest -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 2:34:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

Craig is a good guy.  Don't have any problems with him at all.  I hate his team and specifically his quarterback....but yes, Craig is someone I would definately sit down and drink a few ice cold Bud Lights with.

Bud Lights? Damn, didn't think you thought so little of me Ed. [;)]

I totally get where people are coming from on this. I'm not taking any offense at this as none is directed at me personally. Even if it was I can just hit the block button and move on with my day. It was a bad game against the most hated rival here and a week without a recap is fine. Besides, saved me some time so I could go give blood this morning.


I would buy you that Miller stuff if you'd rather.....or even a crown and coke.  I'm flexible! [:D]



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 3:03:40 PM)

Actually, I'm a Leinenkugel's guy for beer but I sure won't turn down a crown and coke.



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 3:04:48 PM)

Just to put things in context - I have said many times that I used to post on a Packer board. Ed will verify for me that had a Viking fan gone in after ANY game and posted a recap of a Viking game - we would have been hunted down and strangled by that crowd. And of course I never did, nor did I post smack there. I eventually left because that crowd starting making personal attacks on me and a couple of other fans from visiting teams.

I had enough respect and courtesy for people there during my time that I knew that the last thing they would have wanted was a kick in the groin following a loss, and that means whether the loss was against the Vikings or anyone. You don't confront a group of people who are unhappy with their own team and crow about your own. It's just common courtesy.

The last time I asked, Craig posted his game review anyway. This time he chose not to. I appreciate that and I told him that right away. I think a couple of you over reacted.



Jon Thomas -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 3:43:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

And I thought the objection was out of line and Craig was being overly considerate in response.

And its not like this was the first time. You got on Craig last month as well about his posting.

It does come off as sour grapes. Craig follows the (current) best team in the NFL, keeps his posts in the Packers thread and never rubs our face in it. Most of us could learn something form him.

In all honesty, if the Packers were in a down period and the Vikings were atop the division, and Craig was just posting recaps after every game, would you still have a problem with it? I doubt it.


+1




David Levine -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 4:13:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Just to put things in context - I have said many times that I used to post on a Packer board. Ed will verify for me that had a Viking fan gone in after ANY game and posted a recap of a Viking game - we would have been hunted down and strangled by that crowd. And of course I never did, nor did I post smack there. I eventually left because that crowd starting making personal attacks on me and a couple of other fans from visiting teams.

I had enough respect and courtesy for people there during my time that I knew that the last thing they would have wanted was a kick in the groin following a loss, and that means whether the loss was against the Vikings or anyone. You don't confront a group of people who are unhappy with their own team and crow about your own. It's just common courtesy.

The last time I asked, Craig posted his game review anyway. This time he chose not to. I appreciate that and I told him that right away. I think a couple of you over reacted.


Its the bloody Packers thread. Its not the General Vikings thread or even the Game Day thread. The only one who has over reacted was you.

If Craig didn't post his game reviews it would be nothing but Marty's sway theories and Ed wishing for Rodgers to break a leg. Both of which are totally redundant after the first post.

There hasn't been a post in the Bears thread since 1/31/11 and the Lions has been dead since Feb of 2010.



Guest -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 4:19:44 PM)

Redundancy can be good!  [:-][&:][&:][8D][&:][:-]



Guest -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 4:22:06 PM)

quote:

There hasn't been a post in the Bears thread since 1/31/11 and the Lions has been dead since Feb of 2010.


I just fixed that !!!  [&:][&:][&:]

Lets all just simmer down now...simmer ...I said simmer down now!  [:D]



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 4:40:12 PM)

One thing that you out of staters don't have is the extra pounding that local fans take because our news organizations cover the Packers so thoroughly. Recognizing that a) so many people move from Wisconsin to the Twin Cities and b) the local airwaves carry over into Wisconsin - they cater pretty heavily to that market. By the time a Viking/Packer game is over we've been subjected to a full week of lead-up with tons of Packer slathering by the locals. Our sports radio station carries a regular "Packer Preview" show every single Sunday during football season, and the newspapers devote a full page of Packer news in the sports section.

I stand by my assessment that many of us (and I've talked to a ton of local Vikings fans) feel an overkill of coverage and are resentful of the piling on.



David Levine -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 4:49:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

One thing that you out of staters don't have is the extra pounding that local fans take because our news organizations cover the Packers so thoroughly. Recognizing that a) so many people move from Wisconsin to the Twin Cities and b) the local airwaves carry over into Wisconsin - they cater pretty heavily to that market. By the time a Viking/Packer game is over we've been subjected to a full week of lead-up with tons of Packer slathering by the locals. Our sports radio station carries a regular "Packer Preview" show every single Sunday during football season, and the newspapers devote a full page of Packer news in the sports section.

I stand by my assessment that many of us (and I've talked to a ton of local Vikings fans) feel an overkill of coverage and are resentful of the piling on.


Its not piling on. Its a breakdown of the good AND bad. In ONE post. In the PACKERS thread. If you don't like it, maybe you should change the thread title to "Rip on the Packers", or just delete it. Because honestly, Craig (and responses to Craig) are the only posts of substance here.

I lived in MN for over 30 years, I still stream KFAN while I'm working somedays. I get it. I hate the Packers. I hate that they have a show on the Vikings network (and it pissed me off when I lived in MN, and I don;t like it any better now). And I get that you are even more sensitive than most of us because you are married to a Packer fan. But getting upset that the one Packer fan in our community likes to recap each game in the Packer thread is going WAY too far.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 5:39:11 PM)

And he is polite and knows his stuff

It just amazes me that people don't want to learn more from such a good source

No, let's act like 10 year olds and wish for injury to Rodgers and insult a fine poster like Craig



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 6:53:11 PM)

Going WAY too far? I expressed one sentiment that I hoped he wouldn't post his normal game wrap up.

How is that going WAY too far? And how is that insulting?

You guys have WAY overreacted, and it's kind of comical.



David Levine -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 7:12:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Going WAY too far? I expressed one sentiment that I hoped he wouldn't post his normal game wrap up.

How is that going WAY too far? And how is that insulting?

You guys have WAY overreacted, and it's kind of comical.


Because its not the first time.



Guest -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 7:14:49 PM)

nt 



Duane Sampson -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 8:00:13 PM)

The only thing I wonder about Craig is why he hangs out on a Vikings board. I just don't get that. But whatever, free country.



marty -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 9:20:10 PM)

Recap:

The game was a farce. It was a fixed (although I prefer 'swayed') game for the Packers to cover 13.

A non-call on obvious PI on 3rd down, and then a phantom hold on Harvin killed Vikings' chances and any early momentum they might muster. There were 10 penalties on the Vikes, 1 on the Packers, and even that one they almost called offsides on the Vikes. The Packers Center gets away with moving the ball a lot before the snap, but Rodgers did get them one time on a hard count.

The Vikes should give up on trying to be a power run team, the league today will not let it happen, it must not be exciting enough.

I remember when the Vikes had an explosive offense, and a killer pass defense, and Ditka and the Bears would come in and upset them by sometimes running the ball as much as 18 straight plays. IF the Vikes tried that today, they would be flagged for holding (whether one occurred or not), to essentially kill the drive if the opposing team has any kind of defense.



Guest -> RE: The Packers (11/15/2011 10:39:34 PM)

ok, I agree the game was a farce, but it wasn't "swayed" to cover 13..

If the line had been 30, you might have an arguement, but 13?

The packers could have covered 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21... with their eyes closed @Lambeau

This team has no secondary, and Can't even finish with huge halftime leads.

The only way they would NOT cover 13, would have been if their players forgot what day it was..



Guest -> RE: The Packers (11/18/2011 10:17:57 AM)

Something I noticed that if I posted this on X4 I would be crucified for so I will post it here.....The Vikings have had their fair share of donut things happen that have involved the law.....not once, that I can remember though have we had anyone sent to prison for 6 years.  Wow!  Why guys who basically have it made with huge pay days and who get to play a game would ruin it for themselves like Jolly has done.  SIX years!  This numb nuts was given opportunity after opportunity to get straight....I hope his time in prison helps him get his drug addiction behind him and he can work his life out afterwords.  Wow!!!!



marty -> RE: The Packers (11/18/2011 2:29:48 PM)

Danimal

I agree the Packers could have easily covered 13, the refs just made sure it was likely to happen. I don't think the refs were trying to make sure the Pack won by 30, just that they got an early lead and past the 13, and then some help when they were ahead 17 so they would get up by 24 and they'd be comfortable the Pack would cover the spread.

Had the Vikes started making some noise when the Pack was up by 24, I think the refs would have again gotten involved to help it get comfortably past 20, with biased calls and non-calls.

The Packers beat the Vikes AT HOME in 2010 by 28 points without much help from the officials, but this last game, I think there was a determination that the Pack would be likely to cover the spread. The Packers easily could have covered it without all the officials help, but we'll never know. I agree it's unlikely the Vikes would have covered 13 had the refs not been biased, but you never know.

The Vikes may have scored after the 1st obvious Packer PI on 3rd down, then gotten an early turnover on defense with the momentum, and gone up by 14. Then they might have started to take over the game with a power run game, the Packers abandon their run game, Jared Allen goes sack crazy, and the Vikes weak 2ndary gets some picks playing more aggressively with the lead. There are several NFL games every year where a giant underdog beats a strong favorite. Maybe the Packers still would have came back to make it close, but the Vikes still hang onto the lead with Peterson running out the clock. Or the Packers might have come back and won in a close game, but they likely would NOT have covered the spread. The obvious Packer PI non-call on 3rd down helped facilitate early momentum, making it likely the Packers got up early in the game.



Guest -> RE: The Packers (11/18/2011 3:02:50 PM)

Marty, why are you not a multi-millionaire?

As much as you know and are so dead certian about "the fix" on football games, you should be living large in vegas.
you could have stared small, a few seasons ago, betting 20 bucks on the "swayed" outcome of games, either bertting with or against the spread, whichever you felt was appropriate, and just snowballed that initial investment to millions..

I wish to god I could have had a couple thousand dollars to put on a 13 point spread by the Packers over the vikings..i'd have gotten odds and would be laughing all the way into early retirement.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (11/18/2011 3:45:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal

Marty, why are you not a multi-millionaire?

As much as you know and are so dead certian about "the fix" on football games, you should be living large in vegas.
you could have stared small, a few seasons ago, betting 20 bucks on the "swayed" outcome of games, either bertting with or against the spread, whichever you felt was appropriate, and just snowballed that initial investment to millions..

I wish to god I could have had a couple thousand dollars to put on a 13 point spread by the Packers over the vikings..i'd have gotten odds and would be laughing all the way into early retirement.

Wait, you read Marty?



thebigo -> RE: The Packers (11/18/2011 8:35:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal

Marty, why are you not a multi-millionaire?



How do you know he isn't? [sm=scared0001.gif]



Page: <<   < prev  102 103 [104] 105 106   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode