Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 69
  1. #11
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,859

    Re:Vikings versus Saints

    Just spent the weekend partying on the lake with 40,000 other drunk people. It started out with 2 boys from the Big Easy who drove through the night to get their spot in line. I greeted them by having them move their tiny little boat over so the big boys could take their rightful place in line.

    When I found out they were from NO and big Saints fans (according to them, long before the bandwagon nation started) I had to get their take. All I really got out of them was, we're going to kill Favre next time. Obviously their best chance to beat us, can't argue their strategy.

    They were actually two good guys just out to have a little fun, which I'm sure they did, even though they decided to leave our line and tie up next to boats more their size.

  2. #12
    gagarr's Avatar
    gagarr is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,411

    Re:Vikings versus Saints

    locuomotion wrote:
    I think it is a pretty even matchup just as it was last season, however, I give the Vikings an edge for the revenge factor. 27-24 Vikings.
    Even matchup???

    Look at the stats!
    TOP 36:49 to 27:56
    Total yds: 475 to 257
    Passing yards: 310 to 189
    BB way 8 yds shy of beating NO's top 3 receivers COMBINED
    Rushing yds: 165 to 68
    yds per rush: 4.6 to 3.0
    1st downs 31 to 15


    The only thing that stopped this game from being a total slaughter of NO was having 6 fumbles losing 3 and 2 INT's to NO's 3 fumble losing 1 and not INT's

    EVEN with a -4 in turnovers and the Vikes were a couple stupid mistakes from winning the game.

    If the TO's were even the Vikes would have won by 20+.

    I'm predicting a blowout in favor of the Vikes.
    [size=12pt]
    Page 148.5 **Doleman 150.5 **Randle 137.5 **Allen 73+
    [/size]

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,061

    Re:Vikings versus Saints

    gagarr wrote:
    locuomotion wrote:
    I think it is a pretty even matchup just as it was last season, however, I give the Vikings an edge for the revenge factor. 27-24 Vikings.
    Even matchup???

    Look at the stats!
    TOP 36:49 to 27:56
    Total yds: 475 to 257
    Passing yards: 310 to 189
    BB way 8 yds shy of beating NO's top 3 receivers COMBINED
    Rushing yds: 165 to 68
    yds per rush: 4.6 to 3.0
    1st downs 31 to 15


    The only thing that stopped this game from being a total slaughter of NO was having 6 fumbles losing 3 and 2 INT's to NO's 3 fumble losing 1 and not INT's

    EVEN with a -4 in turnovers and the Vikes were a couple stupid mistakes from winning the game.

    If the TO's were even the Vikes would have won by 20+.

    I'm predicting a blowout in favor of the Vikes.
    So an oppertunistic defense beats out a reckless offense. Apparently, it evened it out enough for the Saints to win.

    There's two ways to look at these turnovers and everyone on PP.O seems to be going the "our mistake" way. Thing is, a defense like the Saints won that Super Bowl on risky plays, heaving blitzing and creating turnovers.

    Of course a large portion off this is on AP, as well, but the Saints had a hand in this.
    "You can look pretty smart if you have a knack for planning ahead. That's Ted. The Packers are in good hands." - Ron Wolf


  4. #14
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,777
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re:Vikings versus Saints

    We were a dropped handoff from winning
    (End of first half, Bush fumbles punt, We recover, handoff at the goalline, Peterson drops, Saints take over, end half.)

    We were a stupid fumble from harvin deep in our end from winning. (two plays later, Saints TD)

    We were a Berrian fumble while driving in our end from winning (From the 18, lets call that a 3 point swing)

    Then an interception in FG range (3 point swing)

    Assiming all that, there would be no OT, and no game winner)

    If not for those 4 plays, instead of being 31-28 Saints, it could have been 41-21. Thats not a stretch either.

  5. #15
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,777
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re:Vikings versus Saints

    Rockmolder wrote:
    gagarr wrote:
    locuomotion wrote:
    I think it is a pretty even matchup just as it was last season, however, I give the Vikings an edge for the revenge factor. 27-24 Vikings.
    Even matchup???

    Look at the stats!
    TOP 36:49 to 27:56
    Total yds: 475 to 257
    Passing yards: 310 to 189
    BB way 8 yds shy of beating NO's top 3 receivers COMBINED
    Rushing yds: 165 to 68
    yds per rush: 4.6 to 3.0
    1st downs 31 to 15


    The only thing that stopped this game from being a total slaughter of NO was having 6 fumbles losing 3 and 2 INT's to NO's 3 fumble losing 1 and not INT's

    EVEN with a -4 in turnovers and the Vikes were a couple stupid mistakes from winning the game.

    If the TO's were even the Vikes would have won by 20+.

    I'm predicting a blowout in favor of the Vikes.
    So an oppertunistic defense beats out a reckless offense. Apparently, it evened it out enough for the Saints to win.

    There's two ways to look at these turnovers and everyone on PP.O seems to be going the "our mistake" way. Thing is, a defense like the Saints won that Super Bowl on risky plays, heaving blitzing and creating turnovers.

    Of course a large portion off this is on AP, as well, but the Saints had a hand in this.
    Wasn't so much an opportunistic Defense. The ONE Play, if I were to pick one that killed us was the Peterson fumble from the 4 yard line. That would be an almost sure TD. He wasn't hit, he dropped the handoff. 100% on him, no credit to the Saints for that.

  6. #16
    marshallvike's Avatar
    marshallvike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Posts
    2,469

    Re:Vikings versus Saints

    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Rockmolder wrote:
    gagarr wrote:
    locuomotion wrote:
    I think it is a pretty even matchup just as it was last season, however, I give the Vikings an edge for the revenge factor. 27-24 Vikings.
    Even matchup???

    Look at the stats!
    TOP 36:49 to 27:56
    Total yds: 475 to 257
    Passing yards: 310 to 189
    BB way 8 yds shy of beating NO's top 3 receivers COMBINED
    Rushing yds: 165 to 68
    yds per rush: 4.6 to 3.0
    1st downs 31 to 15


    The only thing that stopped this game from being a total slaughter of NO was having 6 fumbles losing 3 and 2 INT's to NO's 3 fumble losing 1 and not INT's

    EVEN with a -4 in turnovers and the Vikes were a couple stupid mistakes from winning the game.

    If the TO's were even the Vikes would have won by 20+.

    I'm predicting a blowout in favor of the Vikes.
    So an oppertunistic defense beats out a reckless offense. Apparently, it evened it out enough for the Saints to win.

    There's two ways to look at these turnovers and everyone on PP.O seems to be going the "our mistake" way. Thing is, a defense like the Saints won that Super Bowl on risky plays, heaving blitzing and creating turnovers.

    Of course a large portion off this is on AP, as well, but the Saints had a hand in this.
    Wasn't so much an opportunistic Defense. The ONE Play, if I were to pick one that killed us was the Peterson fumble from the 4 yard line. That would be an almost sure TD. He wasn't hit, he dropped the handoff. 100% on him, no credit to the Saints for that.
    uh.... wasn't that Farves' fumble? Just because some schmuck former quarterback like Aikman wants to blame the running back, doesn't make it so.
    Why must you defend everything this FO does....to the point of making your self look like a yes man.

  7. #17
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re:Vikings versus Saints

    marshallvike wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Rockmolder wrote:
    gagarr wrote:
    locuomotion wrote:
    I think it is a pretty even matchup just as it was last season, however, I give the Vikings an edge for the revenge factor. 27-24 Vikings.
    Even matchup???

    Look at the stats!
    TOP 36:49 to 27:56
    Total yds: 475 to 257
    Passing yards: 310 to 189
    BB way 8 yds shy of beating NO's top 3 receivers COMBINED
    Rushing yds: 165 to 68
    yds per rush: 4.6 to 3.0
    1st downs 31 to 15


    The only thing that stopped this game from being a total slaughter of NO was having 6 fumbles losing 3 and 2 INT's to NO's 3 fumble losing 1 and not INT's

    EVEN with a -4 in turnovers and the Vikes were a couple stupid mistakes from winning the game.

    If the TO's were even the Vikes would have won by 20+.

    I'm predicting a blowout in favor of the Vikes.
    So an oppertunistic defense beats out a reckless offense. Apparently, it evened it out enough for the Saints to win.

    There's two ways to look at these turnovers and everyone on PP.O seems to be going the "our mistake" way. Thing is, a defense like the Saints won that Super Bowl on risky plays, heaving blitzing and creating turnovers.

    Of course a large portion off this is on AP, as well, but the Saints had a hand in this.
    Wasn't so much an opportunistic Defense. The ONE Play, if I were to pick one that killed us was the Peterson fumble from the 4 yard line. That would be an almost sure TD. He wasn't hit, he dropped the handoff. 100% on him, no credit to the Saints for that.
    uh.... wasn't that Farves' fumble? Just because some schmuck former quarterback like Aikman wants to blame the running back, doesn't make it so.
    All fumbles on the QB->RB exchange are charged to the QB (as far as I know), but that one was all on AD.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  8. #18
    marshallvike's Avatar
    marshallvike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Posts
    2,469

    Re:Vikings versus Saints

    I don't look at this as a revenge game at all. Even if we beat them by 60, it will not even the score for losing the NFCCG.

    It can't take away the hurt.
    Why must you defend everything this FO does....to the point of making your self look like a yes man.

  9. #19
    i_bleed_purple's Avatar
    i_bleed_purple is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Canadialand
    Posts
    16,777
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re:Vikings versus Saints

    marshallvike wrote:
    i_bleed_purple wrote:
    Rockmolder wrote:
    gagarr wrote:
    locuomotion wrote:
    I think it is a pretty even matchup just as it was last season, however, I give the Vikings an edge for the revenge factor. 27-24 Vikings.
    Even matchup???

    Look at the stats!
    TOP 36:49 to 27:56
    Total yds: 475 to 257
    Passing yards: 310 to 189
    BB way 8 yds shy of beating NO's top 3 receivers COMBINED
    Rushing yds: 165 to 68
    yds per rush: 4.6 to 3.0
    1st downs 31 to 15


    The only thing that stopped this game from being a total slaughter of NO was having 6 fumbles losing 3 and 2 INT's to NO's 3 fumble losing 1 and not INT's

    EVEN with a -4 in turnovers and the Vikes were a couple stupid mistakes from winning the game.

    If the TO's were even the Vikes would have won by 20+.

    I'm predicting a blowout in favor of the Vikes.
    So an oppertunistic defense beats out a reckless offense. Apparently, it evened it out enough for the Saints to win.

    There's two ways to look at these turnovers and everyone on PP.O seems to be going the "our mistake" way. Thing is, a defense like the Saints won that Super Bowl on risky plays, heaving blitzing and creating turnovers.

    Of course a large portion off this is on AP, as well, but the Saints had a hand in this.
    Wasn't so much an opportunistic Defense. The ONE Play, if I were to pick one that killed us was the Peterson fumble from the 4 yard line. That would be an almost sure TD. He wasn't hit, he dropped the handoff. 100% on him, no credit to the Saints for that.
    uh.... wasn't that Farves' fumble? Just because some schmuck former quarterback like Aikman wants to blame the running back, doesn't make it so.
    Technically, the fumble gets credited to whoever had posession last, which was Favre. But watch the replay, that was 100% on Peterson.

  10. #20
    locuomotion's Avatar
    locuomotion is offline Training Camp
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    45

    Re:Vikings versus Saints

    I agree that we dominated that game in every aspect except turnovers. But the turnovers have to be factored in since they made such a huge impact on the game. I hope we win by more than a touchdown, I just see it being a close game again.
    "You don't have to have a mullet to cut your sleeves off and be a bad ass." - Jared Allen
    www.hoverstad.com

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. MOVED: Saints versus Vikings
    By None in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-23-2010, 06:59 PM
  2. Vikinggs Pass Rush Versus Saints O-Line
    By SaintManJ83 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-22-2010, 11:04 AM
  3. Jeff Garcia versus the Vikings
    By FuadFan in forum Gameday Previews
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 11-13-2008, 04:13 PM
  4. Steelers versus Vikings....the story.
    By Prophet in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-16-2005, 08:07 PM
  5. Vikings versus Bears: a comparison through week 13
    By Prophet in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 12-07-2005, 10:50 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
  •