Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    davike's Avatar
    davike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,750

    Re: Bollinger set for QB battle

    "PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:
    "Billy" wrote:
    "PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:
    I think it's kind of stupid to think theres no way he'll be our starter. I think he will. T-Jack is still "raw" whether you think he's the future or not. Bollinger was the 2nd string until he got injured. So thats in his favor and he did better in week 13 for the little he played (7-9, 70 yrds in the cold Soliders Feild).
    When Bollinger replaced Johnson in Week 13, he was 7-for-9 passing for 70 yards in a 23-13 loss to the Bears.
    That was better then Tarvaris Jacksons whole game in Green Bay(Who was 10-20, 50 yrds,1 fumble and an interception). Bollinger had no prepration, less time, less attempts but more yards, less interceptions, less fumbles, better passing perceptage and against a better defense.

    Link lovers here you go. Jackson in Green Bay.
    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20061221_MIN@GB

    So to say he won't be the starter is in my opinion having Tarvaris Jackson shades on. He's better stat-wise and there's a good chance he would have started those two games against Green Bay and St. Louis if he wasn't injured. Keep in mind he was the 2nd string not TJack until he got injured.
    I just say my prediction is that Bollinger will win the
    quarterback battle. I'm not saying he'll be better in the long run or that Bollinger will take us to a winning season. Im just saying right now he's the better quarterback.
    Please don't use the GB game as a unit of analysis for T-Jack.
    Especially not as your only example, that's just ridiculous. Do you realize the circumstances of that game? Also of course Bollinger would have continued to start against GB and so on, he got injured.
    First off why not. What is so unfair about it. I do not know the circumstances of that game. What ever they are they're the same as any other game. Besides it was cold. But it was cold in Chicago. T-Jack was preparing for that start all week any how.

    Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.
    I don't know how you can even compare....Chicago was up 21 to 6 and it was the beginning of the fourth quarter, Chicago was playing prevent defense....almost anyone could have passed against it. I don't see anything special about his preformance there. GB was totally different and I haven't seen anything in Bollinger that would tell me he would do any better then Jackson did. Second string QBs usually are preparing right along with the starter....plus Bollinger sat on the sideline with a clipboard till the fourth quarter.....plenty of time for him to figure out what they are doing for the most part.


    Yeah Jackson looked raw last year, but he has had experience and I really don't think Bollinger would do us much better.

    Thanks Josdin00 for the sig!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    652

    Re: Bollinger set for QB battle

    "davike" wrote:
    "PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:
    "Billy" wrote:
    "PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:
    I think it's kind of stupid to think theres no way he'll be our starter. I think he will. T-Jack is still "raw" whether you think he's the future or not. Bollinger was the 2nd string until he got injured. So thats in his favor and he did better in week 13 for the little he played (7-9, 70 yrds in the cold Soliders Feild).
    When Bollinger replaced Johnson in Week 13, he was 7-for-9 passing for 70 yards in a 23-13 loss to the Bears.
    That was better then Tarvaris Jacksons whole game in Green Bay(Who was 10-20, 50 yrds,1 fumble and an interception). Bollinger had no prepration, less time, less attempts but more yards, less interceptions, less fumbles, better passing perceptage and against a better defense.

    Link lovers here you go. Jackson in Green Bay.
    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20061221_MIN@GB

    So to say he won't be the starter is in my opinion having Tarvaris Jackson shades on. He's better stat-wise and there's a good chance he would have started those two games against Green Bay and St. Louis if he wasn't injured. Keep in mind he was the 2nd string not TJack until he got injured.
    I just say my prediction is that Bollinger will win the
    quarterback battle. I'm not saying he'll be better in the long run or that Bollinger will take us to a winning season. Im just saying right now he's the better quarterback.
    Please don't use the GB game as a unit of analysis for T-Jack.
    Especially not as your only example, that's just ridiculous. Do you realize the circumstances of that game? Also of course Bollinger would have continued to start against GB and so on, he got injured.
    First off why not. What is so unfair about it. I do not know the circumstances of that game. What ever they are they're the same as any other game. Besides it was cold. But it was cold in Chicago. T-Jack was preparing for that start all week any how.

    Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.
    I don't know how you can even compare....Chicago was up 21 to 6 and it was the beginning of the fourth quarter, Chicago was playing prevent defense....almost anyone could have passed against it. I don't see anything special about his preformance there. GB was totally different and I haven't seen anything in Bollinger that would tell me he would do any better then Jackson did. Second string QBs usually are preparing right along with the starter....plus Bollinger sat on the sideline with a clipboard till the fourth quarter.....plenty of time for him to figure out what they are doing for the most part.


    Yeah Jackson looked raw last year, but he has had experience and I really don't think Bollinger would do us much better.
    You obviously only read my first post and didnt read my second. i put up TJacks number is Chicago who also sat on the bench with the clip board able to study the defense. Bollinger still did better against the same defense. Your response means no sense to my second post. That somewhat idiotic. 75% to 78%. 35 yards to 70 yards. 1 fumble to no fumbles. I told you couldnt skrewl me on that because T-Jack was in the exact same situationa as Bollinger was and did worst against the same defense and probably more conservative since it was later and the prevent defense. You say how can I compare the two. Well in my second one i compared the same situation.
    don't even say that like you got me.
    Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.
    I like Caines response. Look at that. And look at mine next time.

    My only point was T-Jack had 60 minute and didnt produce as much as Bollinger did in 10. Now though i didnt see any special circumstances that would be an excuse for T-Jack so I put that in my post. They were two different games so I put in my second post that he still was the worst quarterback in the same "circumstance" and situation. So that was my point.
    "Some Coaches pray for wisdom. I pray for 300 lbs. lineman. They give me plenty of wisdom"
    -Chuck Noll

    R.I.P. Sean Taylor

  3. #33
    Billy Boy is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,426

    Re: Bollinger set for QB battle

    "PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:
    "Billy" wrote:
    Please don't use the GB game as a unit of analysis for T-Jack.
    Especially not as your only example, that's just ridiculous. Do you realize the circumstances of that game? Also of course Bollinger would have continued to start against GB and so on, he got injured.
    First off why not. What is so unfair about it. I do not know the circumstances of that game. What ever they are they're the same as any other game. Besides it was cold. But it was cold in Chicago. T-Jack was preparing for that start all week any how.

    Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.
    As far as the GB game goes it was a complete mess.
    It was 36 degrees and raining.
    There was 4 games in between and the Vikes had one of their worst games for penalties.
    Don't underestimate GB's D. They have great vet CBs and a amazing LB corp and D line with Kampman who terrorized the crap right side of the line and TJ (Cooks 2nd game, Chili conceded defeat).
    That has been TJ's real problem is handling the pressure unlike he has ever seen before.

    At the Chicago game of course TJ had less yards.
    He had 7 attempts to Bollingers 16 AND a better QB rating.
    As far as the fumble you might as well have just made the claim that TJ is just another Daunte too.

    Oh, and TJ was rehabilitating a torn miniscus last season.
    He admitted this spring that it had botherd him in the games.

    Anywho the position is gonna be won in training camp, nothing to do with last year.


    Caine
    Couple that with the fact that Brooks came into both games COLD, NOT getting the reps with the 1st team, NOT having the majority of the coaches attention lavished on him, and he STILL managed to statistically out perform Jackson.
    BTW, Tarvaris also managed to make 4 fumbles (3 of which occured during starts, and only 1 of which was recovered by Jackson) to Bollingers zero.
    TJack is coming out of D-II I would hope he is getting the attention to make the improbable transition.
    I don't believe T-Jack was getting all these reps with the first team you speak of, that would have been BJ.
    TJ wasn't even supposed to have gone near the ball and only went in due to injuries and when the season was lost.
    Remember Chili was gonna take it slow and said it was a 3 year plan (looks to have been speed up a little now).


    All the kids my age pee their pants, it's the coolest.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    652

    Re: Bollinger set for QB battle

    "Billy" wrote:
    "PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:
    "Billy" wrote:
    Please don't use the GB game as a unit of analysis for T-Jack.
    Especially not as your only example, that's just ridiculous. Do you realize the circumstances of that game? Also of course Bollinger would have continued to start against GB and so on, he got injured.
    First off why not. What is so unfair about it. I do not know the circumstances of that game. What ever they are they're the same as any other game. Besides it was cold. But it was cold in Chicago. T-Jack was preparing for that start all week any how.

    Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.
    As far as the GB game goes it was a complete mess.
    It was 36 degrees and raining.
    There was 4 games in between and the Vikes had one of their worst games for penalties.
    Don't underestimate GB's D. They have great vet CBs and a amazing LB corp and D line with Kampman who terrorized the crap right side of the line and TJ (Cooks 2nd game, Chili conceded defeat).
    That has been TJ's real problem is handling the pressure unlike he has ever seen before.

    At the Chicago game of course TJ had less yards.
    He had 7 attempts to Bollingers 16 AND a better QB rating.
    As far as the fumble you might as well have just made the claim that TJ is just another Daunte too.

    Oh, and TJ was rehabilitating a torn miniscus last season.
    He admitted this spring that it had botherd him in the games.

    Anywho the position is gonna be won in training camp, nothing to do with last year.


    Caine
    Couple that with the fact that Brooks came into both games COLD, NOT getting the reps with the 1st team, NOT having the majority of the coaches attention lavished on him, and he STILL managed to statistically out perform Jackson.
    BTW, Tarvaris also managed to make 4 fumbles (3 of which occured during starts, and only 1 of which was recovered by Jackson) to Bollingers zero.
    TJack is coming out of D-II I would hope he is getting the attention to make the improbable transition.
    I don't believe T-Jack was getting all these reps with the first team you speak of, that would have been BJ.
    TJ wasn't even supposed to have gone near the ball and only went in due to injuries and when the season was lost.
    Remember Chili was gonna take it slow and said it was a 3 year plan (looks to have been speed up a little now).
    What ever. They didnt have that great of a defense. It was rated too high but you can take praise on me not giving a crap. What I said was Chicagos was better. Not Green Bay's sucks.
    At the Chicago game of course TJ had less yards.
    He had 7 attempts to Bollingers 16 AND a better QB rating.
    As far as the fumble you might as well have just made the claim that TJ is just another Daunte too.
    First off get your stats right. It even says it in the freakin article. Bollinger had 9 attempts and 7 completions and 70 yards.
    From the article
    When Bollinger replaced Johnson in Week 13, he was 7-for-9 passing for 70 yards in a 23-13 loss to the Bears.
    Jackson had 101.0 Bollinger had 99.1 passing rating. Whoopty freakin do. Congradulations. Second of all I already claimed that at best he could become Daunte. But Im not going into that. Fumbling is something i dont like my quarterback doing. Do you agree? Or do you like a quarterback who turns the ball over? You didnt even counter me there. lame.
    Photo. hehe
    http://www.nfl.com/photos/football_2006_week_13/MIN@CHI

    Oh, and TJ was rehabilitating a torn miniscus last season.
    He admitted this spring that it had botherd him in the games.
    "Exuses are like butts. Everyones got one and they all stink" First off where did you hear that? I didnt see that anywhere and not on here where i thought it would have been put on this spring. Plus I don't trust your sources. You thought bollinger had 16 attepts when he had 9. So i dont know where your coming from. SHow me and i'll withdraw this statement.
    Right and Terrell Owens is going to have the least amount of drops now because he hurt his thumb last year.

    TJack is coming out of D-II I would hope he is getting the attention to make the improbable transition.
    Division I-AA. What are your sources???

    I don't believe T-Jack was getting all these reps with the first team you speak of, that would have been BJ.
    hmmmm. Well lets seee. Yes of course. He announces he's going to start Jackson in Green Bay and St. Louis so he decides to not give him reps with the first team but instead give them to the benched
    Brad Johnson. Perfect sense. Brad Childress may be stupid in some ways but I doubt he's that stupid. He wasn't unpreped for the Green Bay game. Im 93.7% sure of that.

    TJ wasn't even supposed to have gone near the ball and only went in due to injuries and when the season was lost.
    Don't feed me that bull. You should know that if we won in Green Bay and in St. Louis where T-Jack came in then we would have got the wild card slot instead of New York. Because we had won the tiebreaker with new York and all that needed to happen was us win our last two game, for New York to lose to the heavily favored New Orleans. Hmmm. Your right that was impossible. Oh wait it happened.And Atlanta to lose one of there last 2 games against Carolina and Philly. That happened. So two things that were a lot more probable then not happened and all we had to do was not give up on the season.

    The fact is if we won those last two games and went 8-8 we would be in the Wildcard. I saw that when we were 6-8. Why couldn't Childress?

    "Some Coaches pray for wisdom. I pray for 300 lbs. lineman. They give me plenty of wisdom"
    -Chuck Noll

    R.I.P. Sean Taylor

  5. #35
    jessejames09's Avatar
    jessejames09 is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,231

    Re: Bollinger set for QB battle

    And remember arm strength=bad in the WCO right purple horns?

    'Moron....'


    Is what you called me for mixing up 'rocket arm' and 'laser arm.'

    Ask Brett Favre if arm strength helps on short passes.
    (sorry but it's been witnessed many times)

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    652

    Re: Bollinger set for QB battle

    "jessejames09" wrote:
    And remember arm strength=bad in the WCO right purple horns?

    'silly guy....'


    Is what you called me for mixing up 'rocket arm' and 'laser arm.'

    Ask Brett Favre if arm strength helps on short passes.
    (sorry but it's been witnessed many times)
    Comment he's refering to
    wait he has a rocket arm. His rocket arm will definitely come in handy when WE'RE IN THE WEST COAST OFFENSE.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA dumbest quote there.
    To run an Out pattern in the NFL you need a rocket arm to be able to beat the CB while they're in such close coverage. Same goes for a slant. If you loft the ball Pennington style a NFL CB will pick off those short passes all day.
    Wow. Just.. just wow. Thats the most moronic, foolish quote I've ever read.
    I dont know how to say this. No. Just no. First off but not important I think your confusing rocket arm with laser arm. Mr. Anderson said it well but I'll put my input in. But superiorly more important. You do not need a rocket arm in a west coast offense such as running slants and out patterns. You need timing and accuracy fair more importantly then a strong arm. Pennington did good with that but as a vikings fan you should know that more then anyone else that ur wrong. Because Joe Montana kicked our butts in the playoffs with the west coast offense and kicked our butts with the slant and the only thing Joe Montana didnt have was a rocket arm. And Joe Montana ran the West Coast Offense better then any team in the NFL, ever. So yeah. Not much more to say other then a laser arm can help but thats not what you need.

    So even though this comment doesn't deserve it I'll leave my trademark burn down
    "Put that in your juice box and suck it!"
    First off completing random and on a different thread and nothing to do with what I said. Look above I said you only need the arm strength to reach a guy who will normally be not more then 20 yards downs. I never said it was bad. I said you dont need a rocket arm. It can help but Joe Montana and Pennington seem to do great without it. Montana had anything except. So Im glad you finally responded but in a stupid way. I never called you a "silly guy" I dont use silly. I called you comment moronic. And i said mixing that up was not nearly as important as the rest of my comment. I swear your taking my words and twsting them and taking 10 years off my life span. You know what else has been witnessed many times against us. Look above. Joe Montanna's accuracy and timing over arm strength against us in the play-offs. Wow I said rocket arm isnt needed. And i stand by that. Arm strength can help to decrease chance of a pick but come on.
    "Some Coaches pray for wisdom. I pray for 300 lbs. lineman. They give me plenty of wisdom"
    -Chuck Noll

    R.I.P. Sean Taylor

  7. #37
    davike's Avatar
    davike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,750

    Re: Bollinger set for QB battle

    You obviously only read my first post and didnt read my second. i put up TJacks number is Chicago who also sat on the bench with the clip board able to study the defense. Bollinger still did better against the same defense. Your response means no sense to my second post. That somewhat idiotic. 75% to 78%. 35 yards to 70 yards. 1 fumble to no fumbles. I told you couldnt skrewl me on that because T-Jack was in the exact same situationa as Bollinger was and did worst against the same defense and probably more conservative since it was later and the prevent defense. You say how can I compare the two. Well in my second one i compared the same situation.
    don't even say that like you got me.
    Quote
    Okay then T-Jack had half as many yards (35 yards) and less completion percentage (75%) against Chicago and a lost fumble. Same defense smae circumstance. Try to get me on that.

    I like Caines response. Look at that. And look at mine next time.

    My only point was T-Jack had 60 minute and didnt produce as much as Bollinger did in 10. Now though i didnt see any special circumstances that would be an excuse for T-Jack so I put that in my post. They were two different games so I put in my second post that he still was the worst quarterback in the same "circumstance" and situation. So that was my point.
    The Chicago game:
    How did Bollinger do better against that defense? Is there much of a difference between 3-4 and 7-9, if Jackson had time to complete just one more pass he could have had completion rate of 80 percent in that game, would that have made him any better then Bollingers 78 percent? Yes, Jackson had half the yards as Bollinger, Bollinger was in almost 7 times longer then Jackson. Bollinger came in with 2:57 to go in the 3rd quarter, Jackson came in with 2:20 to go in the fourth quarter. If we were dealing with 20 or more attempts a 3 percent difference might be a variable, but when we are dealing with 10 or under then it doesn't mean a whole lot. The only thing Bollinger has on Jackson in the Chicago game is the fumble.

    I am not even going to compare the GB game with the Chicago game, that would be ridiculous. Completely different,

    I realize that Jacksons play in the GB game was ugly at best, but I don't know if Bollinger would have done better.
    Look at the Jets game....Jackson was in about the same length of time as Bollinger was in the Chicago game but he put up 177 yards, I am not comparing but if your going to compare the Chicago game to the GB game then why not compare the others as well?

    The biggest problem I had with your posts is that you didn't really have any good comparisons. I realize that Bollingers stuff might look better on paper but what we are hoping for is that Jackson has one more year of experience, he isn't a rookie anymore. He has twice as much experience as he did last year, I am hoping he will be twice as good. But when you look at all the situations I really don't think that Bollinger is that much better then Jackson at this point.

    Thanks Josdin00 for the sig!

  8. #38
    COJOMAY is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,005

    Re: Bollinger set for QB battle

    Frankly, I don't care who starts but one of them better perform well or it will be out the door. I don't care how gifted they are the Vikings will be looking for an accomplished QB in next year's FA if they fail.
    Kentucky Vikes Fan

    When you require nothing, you get nothing; when you expect nothing, you will find nothing; when you embrace nothing, all you will have is nothing.

  9. #39
    davike's Avatar
    davike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,750

    Re: Bollinger set for QB battle

    "COJOMAY" wrote:
    Frankly, I don't care who starts but one of them better perform well or it will be out the door. I don't care how gifted they are the Vikings will be looking for an accomplished QB in next year's FA if they fail.
    Sounds good to me....I just can't help hoping that it is Jackson that turns out to be the better one. But if Bollinger out performs him this year then that is who I want starting for us.

    Thanks Josdin00 for the sig!

  10. #40
    Billy Boy is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,426

    Re: Bollinger set for QB battle

    "PurpleHornsOfDestruction" wrote:

    What ever. They didnt have that great of a defense. It was rated too high but you can take praise on me not giving a crap. What I said was Chicagos was better. Not Green Bay's sucks.
    I am not using "rankings" but instead stats, you are welcome to continue using your Pete Prisco rankings if you like though.
    My point is not to underestimate GB defense and that your analysis was crap.

    First off get your stats right. It even says it in the freakin article. Bollinger had 9 attempts and 7 completions and 70 yards.
    Excuse me 9 for 70 and T Jack to 4 for 35.
    If you talk about yards you need to keep it relative to the attempts. T-Jack was more successful as far as QB rating in these few worthless downs, so don't use it. You could say BJ had more yards too. My point is your yards argument is completely biased and crap.

    Jackson had 101.0 Bollinger had 99.1 passing rating. Whoopty freakin do. Congradulations. Second of all I already claimed that at best he could become Daunte. But Im not going into that. Fumbling is something i dont like my quarterback doing. Do you agree? Or do you like a quarterback who turns the ball over? You didnt even counter me there. lame.
    You said try to get you on it and I called you on your ridiculous yards stat and gave you one of my own.

    The fumbles are not gonna be the problem at hand here as TJ doesn't have a fumble problem.
    I am concerned about the development of him and his ability to get the ball to the receivers, his pocket presence, among other things far ahead of fumbles.

    Oh, and TJ was rehabilitating a torn miniscus last season.
    He admitted this spring that it had botherd him in the games.
    "Exuses are like butts. Everyones got one and they all stink" First off where did you hear that? I didnt see that anywhere and not on here where i thought it would have been put on this spring. Plus I don't trust your sources. You thought bollinger had 16 attepts when he had 9. So i dont know where your coming from. SHow me and i'll withdraw this statement.
    Right and Terrell Owens is going to have the least amount of drops now because he hurt his thumb last year.

    This isn't about excuses this is about reality.
    The reality is your argument is based on something you pulled out of your ass. Here...

    "I'm going to be 100 percent," Jackson said. "I hurt my knee last year, and I never got back to 100 percent, as far as running and stuff. I think I'll be a lot better."
    Shiancoe like Tarvaris.

    I don't believe T-Jack was getting all these reps with the first team you speak of, that would have been BJ.
    hmmmm. Well lets seee. Yes of course. He announces he's going to start Jackson in Green Bay and St. Louis so he decides to not give him reps with the first team but instead give them to the benched
    Brad Johnson. Perfect sense. Brad Childress may be stupid in some ways but I doubt he's that stupid. He wasn't unpreped for the Green Bay game. Im 93.7% sure of that.
    Were not talking about your 1 game analysis here anymore.
    Cain said Bollinger had an unfair disadvantage of reps with the first team.
    The depth chart was as follows 1. BJ 2. BB 3. TJ.
    TJ was not getting and advantage with the first team while respective QBs were ahead of him.
    Chili was preparing BJ to be his starter, and then BB due to injury and finally TJ.
    TJ was NOT supposed to have started. So Chili would give his QB at the top of the depth chart the best opportunity naturally. Do you understand it yet?

    TJ wasn't even supposed to have gone near the ball and only went in due to injuries and when the season was lost.
    Don't feed me that bull. You should know that if we won in Green Bay and in St. Louis where T-Jack came in then we would have got the wild card slot instead of New York. Because we had won the tiebreaker with new York and all that needed to happen was us win our last two game, for New York to lose to the heavily favored New Orleans. Hmmm. Your right that was impossible. Oh wait it happened.And Atlanta to lose one of there last 2 games against Carolina and Philly. That happened. So two things that were a lot more probable then not happened and all we had to do was not give up on the season.
    I don't remember all the ifs ands or buts.
    The key point is the injury, don't over analyze everything.
    Your such a fan of T-Jack, you must have really thought they had a change to make as Superbowl run. Don't kid anybody, the season was done-ski.

    Anyways I think you got away from my initial point that your comparison of the two was erroneous.


    All the kids my age pee their pants, it's the coolest.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Bollinger continues to battle for QB spot
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-16-2008, 09:43 PM
  2. Holcomb or Bollinger?
    By Big C in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 10-29-2007, 07:48 AM
  3. The trade for bollinger
    By carta4eva in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-03-2007, 11:44 PM
  4. Bollinger is used to doubts
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2007, 06:44 AM
  5. Bollinger says it's all in the execution
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-27-2007, 08:11 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •