Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38
  1. #11
    Vikes_King's Avatar
    Vikes_King is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,104

    Re: ESPN's Matt Mosly Rankings

    "midgensa" wrote:
    Like I have said in previous posts ... I think we are better than this, but it does not make this guy a jerk because he lists his 32 teams and has us on the low in. Hell, we picked 7th in the draft ... that means right there that 25 teams were better than us last year ... and now with an unproven QB while a handful of teams people at least THINK got better (Detroit for example), I can see why someone would have us in the 30 spot. I think it is a little low, but what did you expect? We are a team with no proven WR's, no proven QB, a coach who looked a little stagnant on offense last year and lost his defensive "genius," a lack of pass rush which kills our pass defense, suspect returning special teams and in the division with the NFC Champs. I think it would be a little much to think analysts would be running around saying "The Vikes are going to the Super Bowl!"
    where are your purple shades!!!?!??! how dare you come onto these boards and tell us ... the truth!


    http://vikesking.blogspot.com/

    "We’ll win our own Super Bowl, with our own players. Real Vikings. Something Brett Favre can never be."

    - Dan Calabrese

  2. #12
    midgensa's Avatar
    midgensa is offline Jersey Retired Free Kick Specialist 3 Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,228

    Re: ESPN's Matt Mosly Rankings

    "Vikes_King" wrote:
    "midgensa" wrote:
    Like I have said in previous posts ... I think we are better than this, but it does not make this guy a jerk because he lists his 32 teams and has us on the low in. Hell, we picked 7th in the draft ... that means right there that 25 teams were better than us last year ... and now with an unproven QB while a handful of teams people at least THINK got better (Detroit for example), I can see why someone would have us in the 30 spot. I think it is a little low, but what did you expect? We are a team with no proven WR's, no proven QB, a coach who looked a little stagnant on offense last year and lost his defensive "genius," a lack of pass rush which kills our pass defense, suspect returning special teams and in the division with the NFC Champs. I think it would be a little much to think analysts would be running around saying "The Vikes are going to the Super Bowl!"
    where are your purple shades!!!?!??! how dare you come onto these boards and tell us ... the truth!
    Hey I got the purple shades too brother ... but I think there is an awful lot of journalism bashing on this site and it just gets under my skin sometimes (I happen to be in the field).
    Journalists bashed the Colts when they sucked, they bashed the Bengals when they sucked, etc. and they love them now (well did the Bengals til they started getting arrested and not winning). We have to earn respect and we have not done a great job of it the last few years. I hope this is the beggining of turning them all around.

    P.S. Go back and read any old papers, magazines, etc. from the 70s. Journalists loved the MET, Grant and the Purple People Eaters ... they always like winners.

  3. #13
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: ESPN's Matt Mosly Rankings

    "midgensa" wrote:
    Like I have said in previous posts ... I think we are better than this, but it does not make this guy a jerk because he lists his 32 teams and has us on the low in. Hell, we picked 7th in the draft ... that means right there that 25 teams were better than us last year ... and now with an unproven QB while a handful of teams people at least THINK got better (Detroit for example), I can see why someone would have us in the 30 spot. I think it is a little low, but what did you expect? We are a team with no proven WR's, no proven QB, a coach who looked a little stagnant on offense last year and lost his defensive "genius," a lack of pass rush which kills our pass defense, suspect returning special teams and in the division with the NFC Champs. I think it would be a little much to think analysts would be running around saying "The Vikes are going to the Super Bowl!"
    This was a perfectly fine thread until you ruined it with clear thinking.

    Goddamn it.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  4. #14
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: ESPN's Matt Mosly Rankings

    "midgensa" wrote:
    P.S. Go back and read any old papers, magazines, etc. from the 70s. Journalists loved the MET, Grant and the Purple People Eaters ... they always like winners.
    They didn't love the Vikings in the 98-2000 years.
    We were pretty damn good then...
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  5. #15
    MaxVike's Avatar
    MaxVike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,507

    Re: ESPN's Matt Mosly Rankings

    "midgensa" wrote:
    "Vikes_King" wrote:
    "midgensa" wrote:
    Like I have said in previous posts ... I think we are better than this, but it does not make this guy a jerk because he lists his 32 teams and has us on the low in. Hell, we picked 7th in the draft ... that means right there that 25 teams were better than us last year ... and now with an unproven QB while a handful of teams people at least THINK got better (Detroit for example), I can see why someone would have us in the 30 spot. I think it is a little low, but what did you expect? We are a team with no proven WR's, no proven QB, a coach who looked a little stagnant on offense last year and lost his defensive "genius," a lack of pass rush which kills our pass defense, suspect returning special teams and in the division with the NFC Champs. I think it would be a little much to think analysts would be running around saying "The Vikes are going to the Super Bowl!"
    where are your purple shades!!!?!??! how dare you come onto these boards and tell us ... the truth!
    Hey I got the purple shades too brother ... but I think there is an awful lot of journalism bashing on this site and it just gets under my skin sometimes (I happen to be in the field).
    Journalists bashed the Colts when they sucked, they bashed the Bengals when they sucked, etc. and they love them now (well did the Bengals til they started getting arrested and not winning). We have to earn respect and we have not done a great job of it the last few years. I hope this is the beggining of turning them all around.

    P.S. Go back and read any old papers, magazines, etc. from the 70s. Journalists loved the MET, Grant and the Purple People Eaters ... they always like winners.
    I don't view myself as a journalist basher, although, maybe calling some of them hacks qualifies me.
    In fact, I studied journalism in college (it was my major for three years) and have done my share of writing, albeit not professionally as a jounalist.


    You actually accentuated my point...hear me out; your post was more thoughtful and insightful than that of the journalist who wrote the article and posted his rankings.
    That is, he made his deadline, with material that I, among others disagree with; leading me to conclude that he didn't thoroughly research ALL teams.
    You brought forward points that are logical and certainly contribute to those with more objective views than I, as well as those who don't dig deeper than the obvious.
    Also, he is from Dallas, so I'm naturally biased against him.

    Good counterpoints, thanks.

    Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent
    ----------------------------------------------
    As a matter of fact, I do know

  6. #16
    CCthebest's Avatar
    CCthebest is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,270

    Re: ESPN's Matt Mosly Rankings

    What have we done this season to make you think we are that much better then last year? AP? Rice? 2 raw rookies who have never played.

    This is truely Childress's team. Hardly anyone remains from the Tice era. And I dont see much of an improvement. Unless we actually can pass protect, pass rush, and catch some balls we could be worse then last year. Since this is childress's second year, are people still going to have excuses for him if he sucks this year? How about next year?

  7. #17
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: ESPN's Matt Mosly Rankings

    "CCthebest" wrote:
    What have we done this season to make you think we are that much better then last year? AP? Rice? 2 raw rookies who have never played.

    This is truely Childress's team. Hardly anyone remains from the Tice era. And I dont see much of an improvement. Unless we actually can pass protect, pass rush, and catch some balls we could be worse then last year. Since this is childress's second year, are people still going to have excuses for him if he sucks this year? How about next year?
    Whoo hoo!
    CC's back.
    I missed his sunshine-like posts in the morning.

    Joking aside, you did point out the key areas that need to improve if we want to finish with a better record this year.
    Let's hope that they do.
    And for the record, if Childress does not improve this year, then no, I will not make any excuses for him.
    I have said all along that I expect improvement each year.

    Now if (when) Childress does improve this year, will you be man enough to admit that your Childress-hate was misplaced?
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  8. #18
    BloodyHorns82's Avatar
    BloodyHorns82 is offline Jersey Retired Feed The Frog Champion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,691

    Re: ESPN's Matt Mosly Rankings

    I don't think CC is too far off base with his post.
    We really haven't done anything drastic that would justify a much improved 07' season.
    I do disagree with the ranking though...with the running game and defense we should be ranked several spots higher.
    I think with a full year of the new system in place, and not losing any critical talent, that we should expect to improve some over last year...but I would be very surprised if we improved enough to put us in the playoff contender category.
    8-8 seams like a realistic record for this season.
    Then maybe 10-6 for 08'?
    Finally 12-4 for 09' placing us in the superbowl!
    woot woot!

  9. #19
    PAvikesfan's Avatar
    PAvikesfan is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,037

    Re: ESPN's Matt Mosly Rankings

    he spent no thought into ranking these.

  10. #20
    Billy Boy is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,426

    Re: ESPN's Matt Mosly Rankings

    "CCthebest" wrote:
    What have we done this season to make you think we are that much better then last year? AP? Rice? 2 raw rookies who have never played.

    This is truely Childress's team. Hardly anyone remains from the Tice era. And I dont see much of an improvement. Unless we actually can pass protect, pass rush, and catch some balls we could be worse then last year. Since this is childress's second year, are people still going to have excuses for him if he sucks this year? How about next year?
    Or if we improved on any one of those this year we should be quite a bit better.
    BTW the Vikings passing completion percentage was 13th (two behind NWE).

    "PAvikesfan" wrote:
    he spent no thought into ranking these.
    That's the thing.
    Thats why these "writers" are bashed.
    They are often erroneous or in cases like these don't say anything pertinent anyhow.


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

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. ESPN's New QB Stat
    By Marrdro in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-16-2011, 06:23 PM
  2. ESPN's Power Rankings make no sense
    By StillPurple in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 04:48 PM
  3. ESPN's top 64 Receivers
    By bleedpurple in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-02-2008, 10:35 PM
  4. ESPN's Page 2
    By gr8vike in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-31-2007, 11:14 AM
  5. ESPN's power rankings
    By farvathevikinglover in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-22-2006, 05:17 AM

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
  •