Vikings would be team hit hardest by lockout
Vikings would be team hit hardest by lockout
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/116427204.html
Re: Vikings would be team hit hardest by lockout
Looks like the Favre experiment could end up costing us playoffs in 2011 as well.
Re: Vikings would be team hit hardest by lockout
That is the price the ownership pays for failing to see what was in store for them with that coach and no GM to control the situation. Now they are going at it again without a GM and my only hope is this coach has someone to reign him in if it becomes necessary.
Re: Vikings would be team hit hardest by lockout
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089898
Looks like the [strike]Favre[/strike]Childress experiment could end up costing us playoffs in 2011 as well.
I fixed it for you.
Had Brett never been on the team we would be in no different situation now other than we MIGHT still have sage on the team to be a stop gap QB. The real problem was with Childress and he was going to tear the team apart whether we had Brett or not. In reality all Brett probably did is extend the Childress era by a year with the phenomenal season he turned in in 2009. Without him Childress probably didn't get an extension and faced with what he had at QB he might have been out the door after that season.
Re: Vikings would be team hit hardest by lockout
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1089900
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089898
Looks like the [strike]Favre[/strike]Childress experiment could end up costing us playoffs in 2011 as well.
I fixed it for you.
Had Brett never been on the team we would be in no different situation now other than we MIGHT still have sage on the team to be a stop gap QB. The real problem was with Childress and he was going to tear the team apart whether we had Brett or not. In reality all Brett probably did is extend the Childress era by a year with the phenomenal season he turned in in 2009. Without him Childress probably didn't get an extension and faced with what he had at QB he might have been out the door after that season.
No you didn't.
Had we not acquired Favre & started TJ or Sage in 2009, we'd have already signed a better QB in 2010 or drafted one in 2009/2010 & been a year or two ahead of the game.
Re: Vikings would be team hit hardest by lockout
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089902
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1089900
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089898
Looks like the [strike]Favre[/strike]Childress experiment could end up costing us playoffs in 2011 as well.
I fixed it for you.
Had Brett never been on the team we would be in no different situation now other than we MIGHT still have sage on the team to be a stop gap QB. The real problem was with Childress and he was going to tear the team apart whether we had Brett or not. In reality all Brett probably did is extend the Childress era by a year with the phenomenal season he turned in in 2009. Without him Childress probably didn't get an extension and faced with what he had at QB he might have been out the door after that season.
No you didn't.
Had we not acquired Favre & started TJ or Sage in 2009, we'd have already signed a better QB in 2010 or drafted one in 2009/2010 & been a year or two ahead of the game.
As Marrdro is fond of asking when this line of talk arises....
"Who would we have signed"? Or, more telling, "Who would we have drafted"?
Everyone - except Childress it seems - knew Favre was a 1-2 year band-aid on the QB position, but Chiller did NOTHING to address it while he had the opportunity. NOTHING.
And, based upon Chiller track record, he more than likely would have brought in over-the-hill QB's to help train Jackson, and kept Tarvaris in there despite a (likely) series of forgettable games and a flurry of fan backlash...punctuated by a slew of excuses for why it wasn't Jackson's fault, and he just needs "more time" or "a better line" or "different receivers".
No, this was Childress's fault all the way. He spent 5 years NOT addressing the QB issue...Favre didn't alter that.
Caine
Re: Vikings would be team hit hardest by lockout
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Caine" #1089903
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089902
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1089900
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089898
Looks like the [strike]Favre[/strike]Childress experiment could end up costing us playoffs in 2011 as well.
I fixed it for you.
Had Brett never been on the team we would be in no different situation now other than we MIGHT still have sage on the team to be a stop gap QB. The real problem was with Childress and he was going to tear the team apart whether we had Brett or not. In reality all Brett probably did is extend the Childress era by a year with the phenomenal season he turned in in 2009. Without him Childress probably didn't get an extension and faced with what he had at QB he might have been out the door after that season.
No you didn't.
Had we not acquired Favre & started TJ or Sage in 2009, we'd have already signed a better QB in 2010 or drafted one in 2009/2010 & been a year or two ahead of the game.
As Marrdro is fond of asking when this line of talk arises....
"Who would we have signed"? Or, more telling, "Who would we have drafted"?
Everyone - except Childress it seems - knew Favre was a 1-2 year band-aid on the QB position, but Chiller did NOTHING to address it while he had the opportunity. NOTHING.
And, based upon Chiller track record, he more than likely would have brought in over-the-hill QB's to help train Jackson, and kept Tarvaris in there despite a (likely) series of forgettable games and a flurry of fan backlash...punctuated by a slew of excuses for why it wasn't Jackson's fault, and he just needs "more time" or "a better line" or "different receivers".
No, this was Childress's fault all the way. He spent 5 years NOT addressing the QB issue...
Favre didn't alter that.
Caine
Favre said "YES!"
Re: Vikings would be team hit hardest by lockout
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089912
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Caine" #1089903
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089902
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1089900
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089898
Looks like the [strike]Favre[/strike]Childress experiment could end up costing us playoffs in 2011 as well.
I fixed it for you.
Had Brett never been on the team we would be in no different situation now other than we MIGHT still have sage on the team to be a stop gap QB. The real problem was with Childress and he was going to tear the team apart whether we had Brett or not. In reality all Brett probably did is extend the Childress era by a year with the phenomenal season he turned in in 2009. Without him Childress probably didn't get an extension and faced with what he had at QB he might have been out the door after that season.
No you didn't.
Had we not acquired Favre & started TJ or Sage in 2009, we'd have already signed a better QB in 2010 or drafted one in 2009/2010 & been a year or two ahead of the game.
As Marrdro is fond of asking when this line of talk arises....
"Who would we have signed"? Or, more telling, "Who would we have drafted"?
Everyone - except Childress it seems - knew Favre was a 1-2 year band-aid on the QB position, but Chiller did NOTHING to address it while he had the opportunity. NOTHING.
And, based upon Chiller track record, he more than likely would have brought in over-the-hill QB's to help train Jackson, and kept Tarvaris in there despite a (likely) series of forgettable games and a flurry of fan backlash...punctuated by a slew of excuses for why it wasn't Jackson's fault, and he just needs "more time" or "a better line" or "different receivers".
No, this was Childress's fault all the way. He spent 5 years NOT addressing the QB issue...
Favre didn't alter that.
Caine
Favre said "YES!"
http://www.funnymotivationalposters....s-Facepalm.jpg
Re: Vikings would be team hit hardest by lockout
Quote:
Originally Posted by "vikinggreg" #1089913
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089912
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Caine" #1089903
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089902
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1089900
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089898
Looks like the [strike]Favre[/strike]Childress experiment could end up costing us playoffs in 2011 as well.
I fixed it for you.
Had Brett never been on the team we would be in no different situation now other than we MIGHT still have sage on the team to be a stop gap QB. The real problem was with Childress and he was going to tear the team apart whether we had Brett or not. In reality all Brett probably did is extend the Childress era by a year with the phenomenal season he turned in in 2009. Without him Childress probably didn't get an extension and faced with what he had at QB he might have been out the door after that season.
No you didn't.
Had we not acquired Favre & started TJ or Sage in 2009, we'd have already signed a better QB in 2010 or drafted one in 2009/2010 & been a year or two ahead of the game.
As Marrdro is fond of asking when this line of talk arises....
"Who would we have signed"? Or, more telling, "Who would we have drafted"?
Everyone - except Childress it seems - knew Favre was a 1-2 year band-aid on the QB position, but Chiller did NOTHING to address it while he had the opportunity. NOTHING.
And, based upon Chiller track record, he more than likely would have brought in over-the-hill QB's to help train Jackson, and kept Tarvaris in there despite a (likely) series of forgettable games and a flurry of fan backlash...punctuated by a slew of excuses for why it wasn't Jackson's fault, and he just needs "more time" or "a better line" or "different receivers".
No, this was Childress's fault all the way. He spent 5 years NOT addressing the QB issue...
Favre didn't alter that.
Caine
Favre said "YES!"
http://www.funnymotivationalposters....s-Facepalm.jpg
You can't see sarcasm without it being pointed out to you?
**rolls eyes**
Re: Vikings would be team hit hardest by lockout
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089902
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1089900
Quote:
Originally Posted by "singersp" #1089898
Looks like the [strike]Favre[/strike]Childress experiment could end up costing us playoffs in 2011 as well.
I fixed it for you.
Had Brett never been on the team we would be in no different situation now other than we MIGHT still have sage on the team to be a stop gap QB. The real problem was with Childress and he was going to tear the team apart whether we had Brett or not. In reality all Brett probably did is extend the Childress era by a year with the phenomenal season he turned in in 2009. Without him Childress probably didn't get an extension and faced with what he had at QB he might have been out the door after that season.
No you didn't.
Had we not acquired Favre & started TJ or Sage in 2009, we'd have already signed a better QB in 2010 or drafted one in 2009/2010 & been a year or two ahead of the game.
What makes you think that? There really wasn't anyone to sign and Childress certainly didn't put a priority on signing any quality QB's in the draft so I really have to wonder how you could have gotten to that conclusion.
The only way we would have been a year or two ahead at this time is if Childress had been fired a year or two earlier.
