RE: The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (9/12/2012 5:35:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

The packer board I read is blaming the ref's like there is no tomorrow. 


Heh heh. I can hear their voices and the whining. Remember when they claimed that Viking fans were whiners for complaining about the refs?



David F. -> RE: The Packers (9/12/2012 5:51:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

The packer board I read is blaming the ref's like there is no tomorrow. 


Heh heh. I can hear their voices and the whining. Remember when they claimed that Viking fans were whiners for complaining about the refs?



Oh what a bunch of horsesnot! That's all they ever say when the refs go FOR them. "You can't let the refs beat you! You can't let the refs beat you!"

Get bent.


That's what a slimebag says when they know damn well in their heart that the refs helped them. How about this? Our TD's count for 6 but yours count for 4. "You can't let the refs beat you! You can't let the refs beat you!"

I still remember that playoff game last year in Lamblow where the Giants just flat crushed them but the refs did everything they could to keep GB in it. That was a disgrace! I NEVER want to see the refs help the Vikes like that. It would completely cheapen the victory. It would make it worthless. Yet, those antifreeze guzzlers jump around and whoop and holler like a bunch of hillbillys that just lost their virginity to their aunts.

Then they say, "Well what would you do if YOU got those calls". And I would repeat what I heard from Ryan Boser - "If the Vikes got those calls we would call it a miracle. When GB gets those calls they call it Sunday."



Todd M -> RE: The Packers (9/12/2012 6:02:52 PM)

quote:

Yet, those antifreeze guzzlers jump around and whoop and holler like a bunch of hillbillys that just lost their virginity to their aunts.


[&:]

Great line!



SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (9/12/2012 8:13:02 PM)

Love it .. [:D]



SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (9/12/2012 8:16:07 PM)

Great post David
I'm still puzzled by last Sunday, where some are saying the niners got many gifts.
They've skewed things so badly, that when it's still a five to one advantage, they're getting people to call it even.
Ridiculous.



Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2012 10:15:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

Great post David
I'm still puzzled by last Sunday, where some are saying the niners got many gifts.
They've skewed things so badly, that when it's still a five to one advantage, they're getting people to call it even.
Ridiculous.


The replacement refs didn't get the memo that when you do a game in Lamblow, you are supposed to skew all calls the Packers way.

They actually tried to call a fair game down the middle.  See what happens when the refs actually call a fair game?

Sure they blew some calls...but that's nothing new.  The only thing new here was that usually all the bad calls benefit the Packers in Lambeau.  This time they didn't.



Toby Stumbo -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2012 11:09:47 AM)

They showed a tidbit of a Deon Sanders interview with Rodgers that they will show tonight, basically Rodgers was whining about the refs allowing the 49ers to hold the Packers WR's. Too funny.



SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2012 11:21:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toby Stumbo

They showed a tidbit of a Deon Sanders interview with Rodgers that they will show tonight, basically Rodgers was whining about the refs allowing the 49ers to hold the Packers WR's. Too funny.

Damn, thats irritating. And dead wrong.



ambear -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2012 4:08:04 PM)

I grew up in a small town called La Crescent in the 60's and all adults said the Packers cheat. I was too young to know for sure but it sure stuck with me. I still can't wrap myself aroung the vast conspiracy of refs helping certain teams win. Are they that smart and organised. Wouldn't they spill the beans now that they may loose their jobs permanently.?



marty -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2012 8:20:29 PM)

Those replacements refs didn't know that the Packer defenders can hold and cause PI on opposition WRs, but the opposition is NOT allowed to do it to Packers.



Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/26/2012 2:14:58 PM)

Cheesehead????  Where ya at?



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (9/26/2012 3:15:20 PM)

Ed - how are the people on TimesFour reacting? I suppose they feel like they're the only team to have the refs screw up a game for them. If you still post, just remind them of the game two years ago, and of course the Rape at Lambeau from 2002?



Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/26/2012 4:09:21 PM)

They went ballistic over there...to be suspected.  I don't post in there though.  Just read the Packer thread.  Post in the Brewers and Badgers threads!  Its funny when newbies come in there and talk smack about the pack....they get their asses handed to them!



Eric K -> RE: The Packers (9/26/2012 6:25:12 PM)

Packers shouldnt worry. With Packer nation in an uproar, the new refs will be sat down in the perverbial dark smokey room and instructed in the ways of calling a Packer game: All close calls go to the packers, if someone is within 3 feet of Aaron Rogers when the throws the ball you must call roughing the passer, and the packers shall not have holding called (defensive or offensive) until they are sufficiently ahead as the penelty will not effect the game.



SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (9/28/2012 12:23:40 AM)

[image]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/561869_4006097828993_672907397_n.jpg[/image]



Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/28/2012 8:39:37 AM)

Thats just plain funny!



Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/28/2012 8:40:09 AM)

I'd post that picture over on the Packer thread X4...but it would be the end of me there.  LOL



thebigo -> RE: The Packers (9/28/2012 10:03:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

[image]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/561869_4006097828993_672907397_n.jpg[/image]


Brilliant! [&:]



Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/28/2012 5:16:28 PM)

funny, but really bad use of photoshop..



SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (9/28/2012 5:50:26 PM)

[sm=scratch.gif]



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (9/28/2012 9:53:40 PM)

That's not photoshop Dan. That really happened.



Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/29/2012 6:02:08 AM)

the baby face on the right is definitely photo shopped... look at the way the chin and shirt are "put together", the fleshtones on the bridge of the nose and the forehead have marked lines of deliniation.. in fact the same can be said of both "faces".. the referee shirt is definately a photoshop addition.. the "bawley face" did not occcur naturaly, on that child.. the number of clues that this is a total fabrication of photoshop construction is pretty obvious... if your willing to look past the humor and examine the details.

yes, it is funny, but it's not "real".. it was manufactured to fit the circumstances..



Todd M -> RE: The Packers (9/29/2012 7:23:28 AM)

quote:

the number of clues that this is a total fabrication of photoshop construction is pretty obvious


To everyone I would imagine...



Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/29/2012 7:54:37 AM)

well, i can't change the minds made of concrete and eyes of stone.. see what you want to see, but i'd be willing to bet that any one who analyizes photos would conclude, easily, that this "photo" is a construct, and a piss poor one at that.



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (9/29/2012 9:02:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal

the baby face on the right is definitely photo shopped... look at the way the chin and shirt are "put together", the fleshtones on the bridge of the nose and the forehead have marked lines of deliniation.. in fact the same can be said of both "faces".. the referee shirt is definately a photoshop addition.. the "bawley face" did not occcur naturaly, on that child.. the number of clues that this is a total fabrication of photoshop construction is pretty obvious... if your willing to look past the humor and examine the details.

yes, it is funny, but it's not "real".. it was manufactured to fit the circumstances..


I was totally kidding. I should have used a smiley face. Of course it was photoshopped.



Page: <<   < prev  109 110 [111] 112 113   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode