John Krenzke's article(Warning, this is a long post)
I read DarrinNelsonguy's post about the 'Packer Press bashing Culpepper and the Vikes'. Well, I read the article, and was moved to respond to him in an email. Here it is..............
Hi, John. OldManVike here. A Viking fan since 1970. I read your article with interest. Sounds like you're whistling in the graveyard, John.
The Packers offense will still be very good because they have good personnel.
John, the Packers offense is Brett Favre. He is 35. And since you say that NFL players with seven years experience or more are at ...an age when people who have been starters since their early years in the league start to succumb to injury and slow down.... then I guess that Brett will no longer be a factor in the Packers offense, or do your questionable theories apply to Green Bay?
The defense should be improved with the new defensive staff - how much is anyone's guess. The new defensive staff should at least make the defense into something respectable rather than the embarrassment that it was last year.
I'm sure you hope so, John. But the fact is, the staff won't be on the field making plays, the Green Bay defense will. And so far, in the draft and in free agency, no substantial additions have been made to the Packers.
The Vikings have a stable full of good running backs, but all have their problems: .....and Ciatrick Fason is small.
6' 0", and 207 lbs. is small, John? That is the best you can do?
Let me tell you who's small.
Emmitt Smith : 5' 10", 216 lbs.
Barry Sanders : 5' 8", 203 lbs.
Walter Payton : 5' 10", 200 lbs.
Gale Sayers : 6' 0", 198 lbs.
So, John, the above were ....plagued... with problems because they were 'small'?
Don't be brainwashed by the Duante Culpepper hype - Randy Moss helped Culpepper a lot more than Culpepper helped Moss.
If you're going to bash one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, John, you should at least spell his name correctly. It's Daunte, D-A-U-N-T-E, not Duante.
The Packers have lost a lot, but I just don't see how they have fallen way below the Vikings and even below the Lions in some of the national rankings (ESPN has the Vikings at No. 4, the Lions at No. 17, and the Packers at No. 18).
Well, Mr. Krenzke, perhaps it is because you DON'T want to see. Remember, you said at the beginning of your article that... Now I know I am in the vast minority ...., but I don't see how the Vikings are that much better than they were last year.
Well, if you think you are sober, but most everyone else says you're drunk, maybe you better sleep it off. The opinions of the best analysts in the NFL say you are wrong. Whom should we believe?
So how will the NFC North shape-up? Well, according to the national media the Vikings are going to run away with the title. I just don't believe that.
You are to be commended for being a true and loyal Packer fan. But, whether you believe it or not will not change the future of the NFL North Division this season.
The only sure thing is that the division will be much tighter than it has been in the last few years.
Much tighter? In 2003, the Packers won the North by one game. Last year, they won by two games. How much tighter do you predict it will be? A tie?
No, Mr. Krenzke, your article is neither accurate nor especially convincing. You may be justified in outlining your reasons. It's a free country. And everyone has a right to their opinion. And it is my opinion that you and your Packer faithful will not be able to rely on the usual Viking fade in the later part of the season this year to enable your team to ultimately triumph.
Minnesota is on the rise. Green Bay is on the decline.
I usually don't bother to reply to people like this, but his propaganda in the face of reality demanded I do so. SKOL, VIKINGS!
"From the fury of the Northmen, O Lord, save us!"
-- From a monestary in Ireland.