Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34
  1. #1
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    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

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  2. #2
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Vikings would be team hit hardest by lockout

    Looks like the Favre experiment could end up costing us playoffs in 2011 as well.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  3. #3
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    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.

  4. #4
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    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.

  5. #5
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    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.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  6. #6
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    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

  7. #7
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    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!"

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  8. #8
    vikinggreg's Avatar
    vikinggreg is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    4,778

    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!"

  9. #9
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    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!"
    You can't see sarcasm without it being pointed out to you?

    **rolls eyes**

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  10. #10
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    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.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Five post-lockout plays for the Vikings
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-05-2011, 07:56 PM
  2. Vikings creative ways to work out during lockout
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-13-2011, 05:20 PM
  3. Vikings plan lockout practices
    By Purple Floyd in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 10:29 PM
  4. A lockout of this game is a lockout of America'
    By Marrdro in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-20-2010, 11:35 AM
  5. Vikings History: The Five Hardest Games to Swallow
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-18-2009, 11:03 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
  •