Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11
    Vikes_King's Avatar
    Vikes_King is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,104

    Re: Four Downs: NFC North

    "kevoncox" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "BleedinPandG" wrote:
    I was more intrigued with this:

    With Peterson and Chester Taylor occupying the top of the running back depth chart, situational rusher Mewelde Moore will look for steadier work with another team. Tony Richardson would like to return, but with Childress suggesting that he would like to see Peterson and Taylor on the field together more often, it’s not clear there will be much need for a full-time fullback.
    I've been preaching for that sort of formation since signing on here!
    TJack in the shotgun... 2 receivers and a tight end in, CT on one side... AD on the other... play after play out of that formation... run the draw... throw the screen... throw the slant... max protect and go deep... let the TE slip out into the flat while a RB picks up a block... so many options... over and over...
    You should have been a bit more exuberant when they did run it then.
    Maybe you missed it.
    ;D
    They ran it some towrds the end of the season.
    People keep forgetting that despite AD's amazing talent as a runner, he was NOT very good at pass protection.
    So unfortunately teams were able to load the box whenever AD was in.
    The occasional times we left AD in to pass block ended up with the QB on his back more times than not.

    [s]If[/s] When AD gets better as pass protection, you will see him in a lot more on passing downs, which should open up our offense considerably more.
    Still no one answers this question......

    Why is AD blocking? Why is he not
    runnin g a route?
    We have a FB, let him pass block instead of running the route. This is the things people say without considering the whole picture.

    Ask yourself which is more idiotic:
    Letting eveyone know that you're running the ball by subbing AD in?
    or
    Modifying a few schemes to leave him in on passing plays to run routes?


    There is plenty of cases where the HB will be the sole back behind the QB, and no FB will be in the play.
    Also, it doesn't matter, some plays he'll run routes, some he'll run, some he'll block.
    Thats the NFL, and if you want to be a complete back you need to do all three.


    http://vikesking.blogspot.com/

    "We’ll win our own Super Bowl, with our own players. Real Vikings. Something Brett Favre can never be."

    - Dan Calabrese

  2. #12
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,916

    Re: Four Downs: NFC North

    "kevoncox" wrote:
    Still no one answers this question......

    Why is AD blocking? Why is he not
    runnin g a route?
    We have a FB, let him pass block instead of running the route. This is the things people say without considering the whole picture.
    Ask yourself which is more idiotic:
    Letting eveyone know that you're running the ball by subbing AD in?
    or
    Modifying a few schemes to leave him in on passing plays to run routes?
    Your kidding right.
    I am not trying to slam here but I think your knowledge of the game is above that.

    Who comes out in passing situations? (FB so he isn't there to block anymore.
    A WR or TE is inserted)
    Who is left in the backfield to pick up the delayed blitz? (RB)
    Who then (if no blitz) goes out to the flat/void left when LB/CB's go with WR and TE? (RB)

    Comeon my friend, you act as if this is something new when dealing with rookie RB's and Pass Blocking in thier first year when in fact it isn't.
    Additionally to think that a RB just runs routes in passing plays is also a break from the way things really work in the NFL.

    Sure RB's run routes, sure they put them in motion out of the backfield in 3 WR sets but that happens when the D allows it.

    Both CB's go to press coverage on thier WR's.
    FS covers down on slot guy with a LB or RDE dropping back into Zone to take away short slant.

    Either the MLB or LB behind LDE can then delay blitz in a myriad of fashions so that one can come free (all designed to confuse the C, QB and RB) up the A gap or both can come up the middle or the MLB can come up the middle and the LB behind the LDE would come on either side of the RT.

    The RB's first response in this scheme is to stay in and block the guy identified in the pre-snap read by the C and QB and then, and only if no blitz comes, roll out into the flat or in the zone emptied by the LB's and Secondary players.























    S

















    LB



    MLB


    LB
    CB







    S




    RDE

    NT
    NT


    LDE



    CB
    WR







    WR



    LT
    LG
    C
    RG
    RT





    WR




























    TE






















    QB






















    RB

    Again, I ask, your kidding right or have you looked at a different picture that this?
    :
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  3. #13
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,910

    Re: Four Downs: NFC North

    "Vikes_King" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "BleedinPandG" wrote:
    I was more intrigued with this:

    With Peterson and Chester Taylor occupying the top of the running back depth chart, situational rusher Mewelde Moore will look for steadier work with another team. Tony Richardson would like to return, but with Childress suggesting that he would like to see Peterson and Taylor on the field together more often, it’s not clear there will be much need for a full-time fullback.
    I've been preaching for that sort of formation since signing on here!
    TJack in the shotgun... 2 receivers and a tight end in, CT on one side... AD on the other... play after play out of that formation... run the draw... throw the screen... throw the slant... max protect and go deep... let the TE slip out into the flat while a RB picks up a block... so many options... over and over...
    You should have been a bit more exuberant when they did run it then.
    Maybe you missed it.

    ;D
    They ran it some towrds the end of the season.
    People keep forgetting that despite AD's amazing talent as a runner, he was NOT very good at pass protection.
    So unfortunately teams were able to load the box whenever AD was in.
    The occasional times we left AD in to pass block ended up with the QB on his back more times than not.

    [s]If[/s] When AD gets better as pass protection, you will see him in a lot more on passing downs, which should open up our offense considerably more.
    Still no one answers this question......

    Why is AD blocking? Why is he not
    runnin g a route?
    We have a FB, let him pass block instead of running the route. This is the things people say without considering the whole picture.

    Ask yourself which is more idiotic:
    Letting eveyone know that you're running the ball by subbing AD in?
    or
    Modifying a few schemes to leave him in on passing plays to run routes?


    There is plenty of cases where the HB will be the sole back behind the QB, and no FB will be in the play.
    Also, it doesn't matter, some plays he'll run routes, some he'll run, some he'll block.
    Thats the NFL, and if you want to be a complete back you need to do all three.
    We all agree he wasn't a complete back this year. Like I said modify the scheme.
    I assume you would realize that we shouldn't call a passing play out of a formation that has no full back back there to block. Most teams have hundreds of plays but most a variants out of different formations. is there any reason we cannot utilize a HB.
    Is it my job to come up with a way to utilize last years most explosive weapon in the passing game?
    You can't seriously agree that putting him on the
    sideline for passing plays and bringing him in for obvious running plays was a great idea. That was a high school football moment. Are we really so poor a team that we can run a passing play with a running back running a slide route?

  4. #14
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,916

    Re: Four Downs: NFC North

    "kevoncox" wrote:
    We all agree he wasn't a complete back this year. Like I said modify the scheme.
    I assume you would realize that we shouldn't call a passing play out of a formation that has no full back back there to block. Most teams have hundreds of plays but most a variants out of different formations. is there any reason we cannot utilize a HB.
    Is it my job to come up with a way to utilize last years most explosive weapon in the passing game?
    You can't seriously agree that putting him on the
    sideline for passing plays and bringing him in for obvious running plays was a great idea. That was a high school football moment. Are we really so poor a team that we can run a passing play with a running back running a slide route?
    WHAT.

    Are you trying to convince me that teams don't use RB's to block only FB's.
    Now you are really loosing me.

    Is it my job to come up with a way to utilize last years most explosive weapon in the passing game?
    Good lord no or he probably wouldn't have won ROY, lead the NFC in rushing and came in second to one of the best backs in the whole NFL even after missing a few games.

    It would be a high school moment to think anything other than that.

    Face it my friend, the kid had limitations last year that all rookie RB's had.
    It is a good thing that we had CT in there who when put in ran pretty damn effectively in running situations and caught the ball/blocked pretty damn good in passing situations.

    Gotta have a FB in on all passing plays.........
    LOL.
    Your just trying to crack me up.
    ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  5. #15
    happy camper's Avatar
    happy camper is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,445

    Re: Four Downs: NFC North

    You can't have Peterson running a route in every passing play. He must be able to stay in to help pass protect as well.

    "There is good and there is evil. And evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I will not compromise."

  6. #16
    Schutz's Avatar
    Schutz is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Four Downs: NFC North

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    We all agree he wasn't a complete back this year. Like I said modify the scheme.
    I assume you would realize that we shouldn't call a passing play out of a formation that has no full back back there to block. Most teams have hundreds of plays but most a variants out of different formations. is there any reason we cannot utilize a HB.
    Is it my job to come up with a way to utilize last years most explosive weapon in the passing game?
    You can't seriously agree that putting him on the
    sideline for passing plays and bringing him in for obvious running plays was a great idea. That was a high school football moment. Are we really so poor a team that we can run a passing play with a running back running a slide route?
    WHAT.

    Are you trying to convince me that teams don't use RB's to block only FB's.
    Now you are really loosing me.

    Is it my job to come up with a way to utilize last years most explosive weapon in the passing game?
    Good lord no or he probably wouldn't have won ROY, lead the NFC in rushing and came in second to one of the best backs in the whole NFL even after missing a few games.

    It would be a high school moment to think anything other than that.

    Face it my friend, the kid had limitations last year that all rookie RB's had.
    It is a good thing that we had CT in there who when put in ran pretty gol 'darnit effectively in running situations and caught the ball/blocked pretty gol 'darnit good in passing situations.

    Gotta have a FB in on all passing plays.........
    LOL.
    Your just trying to crack me up.
    ;D
    See I disagree to the point that I don't actually believe FB should be a position.
    I just find them useless and don't like using them.
    Instead of having a FB on the field why not put in a TE who can be more useful.
    Full Backs just make me mad, especially when teams hand off to them in the stupidest situations thinking "they'll never see the FB coming", why not just run the ball with your HB, that's why you freaking have him.
    Maybe it's just in the way you look at the position, but I'd rather have CT and AP out there than Richardson.
    Did I mention how useless I think a FB is?

    As for Peterson I think we should have just thrown him in there, our pass protection was nothing special anyways, and it wasn't like we were going to win the super bowl or anything.
    Might as well give AP some exp with pass blocking, and actually make teams think about whether he is running or not.
    Every time we subbed in AP it was like giving the other team a giant sign that said "hey look, AP is going to get the ball".

  7. #17
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,916

    Re: Four Downs: NFC North

    "Schutz" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    We all agree he wasn't a complete back this year. Like I said modify the scheme.
    I assume you would realize that we shouldn't call a passing play out of a formation that has no full back back there to block. Most teams have hundreds of plays but most a variants out of different formations. is there any reason we cannot utilize a HB.
    Is it my job to come up with a way to utilize last years most explosive weapon in the passing game?
    You can't seriously agree that putting him on the
    sideline for passing plays and bringing him in for obvious running plays was a great idea. That was a high school football moment. Are we really so poor a team that we can run a passing play with a running back running a slide route?
    WHAT.

    Are you trying to convince me that teams don't use RB's to block only FB's.
    Now you are really loosing me.

    Is it my job to come up with a way to utilize last years most explosive weapon in the passing game?
    Good lord no or he probably wouldn't have won ROY, lead the NFC in rushing and came in second to one of the best backs in the whole NFL even after missing a few games.

    It would be a high school moment to think anything other than that.

    Face it my friend, the kid had limitations last year that all rookie RB's had.
    It is a good thing that we had CT in there who when put in ran pretty gol 'darnit effectively in running situations and caught the ball/blocked pretty gol 'darnit good in passing situations.

    Gotta have a FB in on all passing plays.........

    LOL.
    Your just trying to crack me up.

    ;D
    See I disagree to the point that I don't actually believe FB should be a position.
    I just find them useless and don't like using them.
    Instead of having a FB on the field why not put in a TE who can be more useful.
    Full Backs just make me mad, especially when teams hand off to them in the stupidest situations thinking "they'll never see the FB coming", why not just run the ball with your HB, that's why you freaking have him.
    Maybe it's just in the way you look at the position, but I'd rather have CT and AP out there than Richardson.
    Did I mention how useless I think a FB is?

    As for Peterson I think we should have just thrown him in there, our pass protection was nothing special anyways, and it wasn't like we were going to win the super bowl or anything.
    Might as well give AP some exp with pass blocking, and actually make teams think about whether he is running or not.
    Every time we subbed in AP it was like giving the other team a giant sign that said "hey look, AP is going to get the ball".
    You know, its been awhile since you have moved but I am gonna bump you up a column.
    Excellent post.

    I think that the rest of the NFL thinks the same way and that is why you have very few teams that use (waste a roster spot) a "Full Time" FB on thier roster.

    Truth be told, if one were to closely look at how this staff has manned those positions you see more and more of the FB (that used to be a TE) kindof guy on the roster (ala Dugan, Sauce) and why I am almost totally convinced Mills will be a slotted as a FB next year.

    Excellent post my friend.

    (with one exception......Letting AD learn to block at TJ's expense.
    That just cracks me up.
    I can just hear the chit chat after the game between AD and TJ......... ;D)
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  8. #18
    kevoncox's Avatar
    kevoncox is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,910

    Re: Four Downs: NFC North

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    Still no one answers this question......

    Why is AD blocking? Why is he not
    runnin g a route?
    We have a FB, let him pass block instead of running the route. This is the things people say without considering the whole picture.
    Ask yourself which is more idiotic:
    Letting eveyone know that you're running the ball by subbing AD in?
    or
    Modifying a few schemes to leave him in on passing plays to run routes?
    Your kidding right.
    I am not trying to slam here but I think your knowledge of the game is above that.

    Who comes out in passing situations? (FB so he isn't there to block anymore.
    A WR or TE is inserted)
    Who is left in the backfield to pick up the delayed blitz? (RB)
    Who then (if no blitz) goes out to the flat/void left when LB/CB's go with WR and TE? (RB)

    Comeon my friend, you act as if this is something new when dealing with rookie RB's and Pass Blocking in thier first year when in fact it isn't.
    Additionally to think that a RB just runs routes in passing plays is also a break from the way things really work in the NFL.

    Sure RB's run routes, sure they put them in motion out of the backfield in 3 WR sets but that happens when the D allows it.

    Both CB's go to press coverage on thier WR's.
    FS covers down on slot guy with a LB or RDE dropping back into Zone to take away short slant.

    Either the MLB or LB behind LDE can then delay blitz in a myriad of fashions so that one can come free (all designed to confuse the C, QB and RB) up the A gap or both can come up the middle or the MLB can come up the middle and the LB behind the LDE would come on either side of the RT.

    The RB's first response in this scheme is to stay in and block the guy identified in the pre-snap read by the C and QB and then, and only if no blitz comes, roll out into the flat or in the zone emptied by the LB's and Secondary players.
























    S


















    LB




    MLB


    LB
    CB








    S





    RDE

    NT
    NT


    LDE



    CB
    WR







    WR



    LT
    LG
    C
    RG
    RT






    WR





























    TE






















    QB






















    RB

    Again, I ask, your kidding right or have you looked at a different picture that this?

    :
    You've chosen a formation that would leave AD as the only back in the back field.


















    S











    S

















    LB



    MLB


    LB
    CB













    RDE

    NT
    NT


    LDE






    CB
    WR













    LT
    LG
    C
    RG
    RT
    TE






    WR
















































    RB QB AD


    or















    S














    S

















    LB



    MLB


    LB
    CB













    RDE

    NT
    NT


    LDE










    CB
    WR













    LT
    LG
    C
    RG
    RT
    TE









    WR






















    QB




























    RB






















    AD


    Like I said, It's not my job to think up new ways to get get our best weapon involved in the passing game.
    It's the coach. However, taking him out on 3rd and 5 tips our hands and makes defenses relax.

  9. #19
    jargomcfargo's Avatar
    jargomcfargo is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,776

    Re: Four Downs: NFC North

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Schutz" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    We all agree he wasn't a complete back this year. Like I said modify the scheme.
    I assume you would realize that we shouldn't call a passing play out of a formation that has no full back back there to block. Most teams have hundreds of plays but most a variants out of different formations. is there any reason we cannot utilize a HB.
    Is it my job to come up with a way to utilize last years most explosive weapon in the passing game?
    You can't seriously agree that putting him on the
    sideline for passing plays and bringing him in for obvious running plays was a great idea. That was a high school football moment. Are we really so poor a team that we can run a passing play with a running back running a slide route?
    WHAT.

    Are you trying to convince me that teams don't use RB's to block only FB's.
    Now you are really loosing me.

    Is it my job to come up with a way to utilize last years most explosive weapon in the passing game?
    Good lord no or he probably wouldn't have won ROY, lead the NFC in rushing and came in second to one of the best backs in the whole NFL even after missing a few games.

    It would be a high school moment to think anything other than that.

    Face it my friend, the kid had limitations last year that all rookie RB's had.
    It is a good thing that we had CT in there who when put in ran pretty gol 'darnit effectively in running situations and caught the ball/blocked pretty gol 'darnit good in passing situations.

    Gotta have a FB in on all passing plays.........

    LOL.
    Your just trying to crack me up.

    ;D
    See I disagree to the point that I don't actually believe FB should be a position.
    I just find them useless and don't like using them.
    Instead of having a FB on the field why not put in a TE who can be more useful.
    Full Backs just make me mad, especially when teams hand off to them in the stupidest situations thinking "they'll never see the FB coming", why not just run the ball with your HB, that's why you freaking have him.
    Maybe it's just in the way you look at the position, but I'd rather have CT and AP out there than Richardson.
    Did I mention how useless I think a FB is?

    As for Peterson I think we should have just thrown him in there, our pass protection was nothing special anyways, and it wasn't like we were going to win the super bowl or anything.
    Might as well give AP some exp with pass blocking, and actually make teams think about whether he is running or not.
    Every time we subbed in AP it was like giving the other team a giant sign that said "hey look, AP is going to get the ball".
    You know, its been awhile since you have moved but I am gonna bump you up a column.
    Excellent post.

    I think that the rest of the NFL thinks the same way and that is why you have very few teams that use (waste a roster spot) a "Full Time" FB on thier roster.

    Truth be told, if one were to closely look at how this staff has manned those positions you see more and more of the FB (that used to be a TE) kindof guy on the roster (ala Dugan, Sauce) and why I am almost totally convinced Mills will be a slotted as a FB next year.

    Excellent post my friend.

    (with one exception......Letting AD learn to block at TJ's expense.
    That just cracks me up.
    I can just hear the chit chat after the game between AD and TJ......... ;D)
    The only way I see fit to answer the FB question is with the following.

    Priest Holmes

    2001
    1555 yds. rushing
    2002
    1615 yds. rushing
    2003
    1420 yds. rushing
    2004

    892 yds. rushing

    Larry Johnson

    2004
    581 yds. rushing
    2005
    1750 yds. rushing

    Chester Taylor

    2006 1216 yds. rushing
    ( FB was out a good portion of this season due to injury)
    2007
    844
    yds. rushing

    Adrian Peterson

    2007
    1341 yds. rushing

    What do they all have in common?

    Answer
    Tony Richardson
    What takes a quarterback to the next level is not arm strength or mobility or any of that stuff. Its the ability to play on critical downs. Manage third downs, or red zones or four-minute or two-minute situations"
    Dilfer

  10. #20
    Schutz's Avatar
    Schutz is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Four Downs: NFC North

    "jargomcfargo" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "Schutz" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    We all agree he wasn't a complete back this year. Like I said modify the scheme.
    I assume you would realize that we shouldn't call a passing play out of a formation that has no full back back there to block. Most teams have hundreds of plays but most a variants out of different formations. is there any reason we cannot utilize a HB.
    Is it my job to come up with a way to utilize last years most explosive weapon in the passing game?
    You can't seriously agree that putting him on the
    sideline for passing plays and bringing him in for obvious running plays was a great idea. That was a high school football moment. Are we really so poor a team that we can run a passing play with a running back running a slide route?
    WHAT.

    Are you trying to convince me that teams don't use RB's to block only FB's.
    Now you are really loosing me.

    Is it my job to come up with a way to utilize last years most explosive weapon in the passing game?
    Good lord no or he probably wouldn't have won ROY, lead the NFC in rushing and came in second to one of the best backs in the whole NFL even after missing a few games.

    It would be a high school moment to think anything other than that.

    Face it my friend, the kid had limitations last year that all rookie RB's had.
    It is a good thing that we had CT in there who when put in ran pretty gol 'darnit effectively in running situations and caught the ball/blocked pretty gol 'darnit good in passing situations.

    Gotta have a FB in on all passing plays.........
    LOL.
    Your just trying to crack me up.
    ;D
    See I disagree to the point that I don't actually believe FB should be a position.
    I just find them useless and don't like using them.
    Instead of having a FB on the field why not put in a TE who can be more useful.
    Full Backs just make me mad, especially when teams hand off to them in the stupidest situations thinking "they'll never see the FB coming", why not just run the ball with your HB, that's why you freaking have him.
    Maybe it's just in the way you look at the position, but I'd rather have CT and AP out there than Richardson.
    Did I mention how useless I think a FB is?

    As for Peterson I think we should have just thrown him in there, our pass protection was nothing special anyways, and it wasn't like we were going to win the super bowl or anything.
    Might as well give AP some exp with pass blocking, and actually make teams think about whether he is running or not.
    Every time we subbed in AP it was like giving the other team a giant sign that said "hey look, AP is going to get the ball".
    You know, its been awhile since you have moved but I am gonna bump you up a column.
    Excellent post.

    I think that the rest of the NFL thinks the same way and that is why you have very few teams that use (waste a roster spot) a "Full Time" FB on thier roster.

    Truth be told, if one were to closely look at how this staff has manned those positions you see more and more of the FB (that used to be a TE) kindof guy on the roster (ala Dugan, Sauce) and why I am almost totally convinced Mills will be a slotted as a FB next year.

    Excellent post my friend.

    (with one exception......Letting AD learn to block at TJ's expense.
    That just cracks me up.
    I can just hear the chit chat after the game between AD and TJ......... ;D)
    The only way I see fit to answer the FB question is with the following.

    Priest Holmes

    2001
    1555 yds. rushing
    2002
    1615 yds. rushing
    2003
    1420 yds. rushing
    2004

    892 yds. rushing

    Larry Johnson

    2004
    581 yds. rushing
    2005
    1750 yds. rushing

    Chester Taylor

    2006 1216 yds. rushing
    ( FB was out a good portion of this season due to injury)
    2007
    844
    yds. rushing

    Adrian Peterson

    2007
    1341 yds. rushing

    What do they all have in common?

    Answer
    Tony Richardson
    What about all the running backs who didn't have Tony Richardson?
    Not knocking Richardson, maybe he is versatile, but I'd rather have a TE who can black AND recieve than just a full back who's only purpose is to block.
    Heck Saucer can do that and more, I just don't like the single minded position of FB.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Four Downs: NFC North
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-11-2011, 03:36 PM
  2. Four Downs: NFC North
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-01-2010, 02:26 PM
  3. Four Downs: NFC North
    By Marrdro in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 10:07 AM
  4. Vikings the best at 3rd downs...
    By NodakPaul in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-03-2009, 10:58 PM
  5. Vikings: Ups and Downs
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-29-2007, 12:28 AM

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
  •