www.nfl.com
click on it an the first thing youll see will make u sick...the pic of tjack on there is nasty an embrassing
Printable View
www.nfl.com
click on it an the first thing youll see will make u sick...the pic of tjack on there is nasty an embrassing
I kinda agree with them to the point that we pursued no QBs during the offseason but we are going to be a running team now so we don't need a qb anmore. Infact, they should let AP line up under the center and Taylor to line up behind him.
Isn't he just wiping his face?
http://images.nfl.com/photos/img10237899.jpg
"BadlandsViking" wrote:
look at his arm it looks like he stuck it up a horse's assQuote:
LOL it does look like poo.
Maybe he has another job on the side.
Where does it say he's a loser? Was that just a cheap trick to get us to come in and buy something?
He calls Wade a good receiver but then criticizes the Vikes for not improving at WR.
Did he expect us to acquire all FA receivers this year?
Quote:
Larger problems figure to loom within an offense that lost a highly explosive running back (Travis Henry, to Denver) and two good receivers (Drew Bennett, to St. Louis, and Bobby Wade, to Minnesota).
"SharperImage" wrote:
Quote:
"BadlandsViking" wrote:
look at his arm it looks like he stuck it up a horse's assQuote:
That's the line paint from the field.
We all know that this years crop of FA's was considered widely among commentators and front offices to be one of the weakest in years so it doesn't make me feel bad to see the Vikes criticized for not being very active in the FA period. Carucci just needed something to write about. His article has the appearance of being lightly researched, not going far beyond the signings of the biggest names and it seems like he ran out steam toward the end.
That is an unfortunate picture of T. Jack though!!
I don't see where T-Jack was called a loser.
They called the Vikings losers, but not T-Jack.
I find it interesting that they said the Titians were losers, in part because they lost a good receiver, WADE, to us . . . yet in his next breath, he picks on our receiving corps . . . without any mention of WADE.
So which is it?
Thats a good point about the receivers.... weak article..
The "losers" title is only implied in that it is placed over T. Jacks head on the teaser.. so really it is referring to just the teams viewed as not having done enough in the offseason.
...in contrast with T. Brady under the "winners"
portion...
the fact, that they even bothered with a pic of T. Jack shows they think he is an interesting subject
What a jerk Carucci is .... in the article he says "The Vikings did add a dynamic playmaker in first-round draft pick Adrian Peterson (Oklahoma), but their offense could muddle along with second-year project Tarvaris Jackson or unproven Brooks Bollinger at quarterback"
and yet on his offseason update on June 4th he said
"This is what I like about the Minnesota Vikings' offseason moves: They resisted the temptation to use the seventh overall pick of the draft on Brady Quinn, a quarterback who would need developing, and stuck to the plan of continuing to develop 2006 quarterback selection Tarvaris Jackson while also having him compete with Brooks Bollinger for the starting job. "
So Vic is it a good plan or are they just muddling along ??