Originally Posted by H3F Carnage

Having 1 good 1/2 a season doesn't make you good. In the NFL I've seen bigger flops.

Again, why assume it's going to be a fluke and just recognize how good he is now?


Well in comparison the Packers didn't do squat without Brett Farve, so who's to assume they will.

What? Favre has been their for 16 years. I'm sure you have no clue how they will fair without him in the lineup just as much as I.

The Packers PASSING defense is better, the Vikings had the best rush defense in the league. Now with Jared Allen their Pass defense is going to be better.

You do realize that we also have one of the best pass rushers in the league as well in Kampman? Along with very good depth on the defensive line. Statistically we were better than the Vikings defensively last year.

Rodgers isn't as proven has Jackson is, don't be a homer. Rodgers hasn't even started a game.

I'm not being a homer you retard. I'm just saying that I don't know what good things you've seen from Jackson that you can assume he is better than Rodgers.

10

Characters

On the Rodgers thing, just look at what Matt Hasselback did once he got to start in Seattle. I mean, he's a pretty good QB now, he even led his team to a Super Bowl.

Originally Posted by LionHearT

Again, why assume it's going to be a fluke and just recognize how good he is now?

What? Favre has been their for 16 years. I'm sure you have no clue how they will fair without him in the lineup just as much as I.

You do realize that we also have one of the best pass rushers in the league as well in Kampman? Along with very good depth on the defensive line. Statistically we were better than the Vikings defensively last year.

'm not being a homer you retard. I'm just saying that I don't know what good things you've seen from Jackson that you can assume he is better than Rodgers.

I never said he is going to be a fluke, I said he might be. It has happen before, a lot of times a guy will have 1 good season, so he'll get the starting job and he's just terrible for the rest of his career.


Well considering Farve won the games, not Aaron Rodgers, why would you think Aaron would be as good as Farve?

You didn't read what I said, I said the Vikings have the better RUSH defense. The Packers have the better pass defense. With the addition of Jared Allen the Vikings will have a better pass defense. This has nothing to do with the Packers pass defense, but the Vikings pass defense. I didn't say that because the Vikings got Jared Allen that they would have the better pass defense.

I SAID Jackson is more proven then Rodgers. Rodgers hasn't even started a game yet. Jackson has started 16. Jackson isn't great, or good, but he has proven he can manage a game and win. Until Rodgers gets on the field, he hasn't PROVEN anything.

Originally Posted by H3F Carnage

I never said he is going to be a fluke, I said he might be. It has happen before, a lot of times a guy will have 1 good season, so he'll get the starting job and he's just terrible for the rest of his career.


Well considering Farve won the games, not Aaron Rodgers, why would you think Aaron would be as good as Farve?

You didn't read what I said, I said the Vikings have the better RUSH defense. The Packers have the better pass defense. With the addition of Jared Allen the Vikings will have a better pass defense. This has nothing to do with the Packers pass defense, but the Vikings pass defense. I didn't say that because the Vikings got Jared Allen that they would have the better pass defense.

I SAID Jackson is more proven then Rodgers. Rodgers hasn't even started a game yet. Jackson has started 16. Jackson isn't great, or good, but he has proven he can manage a game and win. Until Rodgers gets on the field, he hasn't PROVEN anything.

Basically you didn't say anything to prove your point. Other than the fact that you think Grant will be a 1 year wonder, and that you think Rodgers is going to be worse than Jackson is. You also think that because of Jared Allen being added that they now have the advantage not only at rush defense, but at pass defense as well.

The Vikings ARE NOT better than the Packers yet. They are as unproven as Rodgers is as QB. IF they beat us on the MNF game on September 9th, you can talk to me about putting the Vikings ahead of the Packers. Until then, keep speculating and STFU.

Originally Posted by LionHearT

Basically you didn't say anything to prove your point. Other than the fact that you think Grant will be a 1 year wonder, and that you think Rodgers is going to be worse than Jackson is. You also think that because of Jared Allen being added that they now have the advantage not only at rush defense, but at pass defense as well.

The Vikings ARE NOT better than the Packers yet. They are as unproven as Rodgers is as QB. IF they beat us on the MNF game on September 9th, you can talk to me about putting the Vikings ahead of the Packers. Until then, keep speculating and STFU.

For the last f..king time, in case you can't f..king read, I'll quote what the f..k I said.

I never said he is going to be a fluke, I said he might be.

I didn't say Jackson is better then Rodgers, I said Jackson has proven more than Rodgers. How could you say otherwise, when Rodgers hasn't even started an NFL game.

The Vikings aren't unproven, they have every single person returning from last year and they have a better Defensive line. The Packers have an entirely different QB, which means that it makes more since to assume that the Vikings are a safer bet then the Packers because with the Packers having an unproven QB you can't assume they'll be just as good as when they had Farve starting for them. It can't be said any simpler then that.

Originally Posted by H3F Carnage

For the last f.cking time, in case you can't f.cking read, I'll quote what the f.ck I said.



I didn't say Jackson is better then Rodgers, I said Jackson has proven more than Rodgers. How could you say otherwise, when Rodgers hasn't even started an NFL game.

The Vikings aren't unproven, they have every single person returning from last year and they have a better Defensive line. The Packers have an entirely different QB, which means that it makes more since to assume that the Vikings are a safer bet then the Packers because with the Packers having an unproven QB you can't assume they'll be just as good as when they had Farve starting for them. It can't be said any simpler then that.

The Vikings ARE unproven until the season starts and the have a better record than the Packers. That's what I'm getting at. They haven't proven they can beat the Pack, and it is all speculation that they'll be better than they were last year. We'll find out.

Questioning Grant is basically saying the same thing dude. He's not a fluke. He's a good player.

The Vikings aren't safer bet, just because they have Jackson and we have Rodgers. Jackson BLOWS. That said, we have a better team all around Rodgers to bet on rather than an 8-8 team last year.

Originally Posted by LionHearT

The Vikings ARE unproven until the season starts and the have a better record than the Packers. That's what I'm getting at. They haven't proven they can beat the Pack, and it is all speculation that they'll be better than they were last year. We'll find out.

Ok, did you read when I said their a team I would bank on, I never said they're going to come out and go 16 and 0. I implied they have logically a good chance of improving. For obvious reasons I've already stated.

Questioning Grant is basically saying the same thing dude. He's not a fluke. He's a good player.

No it's not.

If it was the same thing, you wouldn't have to use the word "basically" and since it's basically not the same thing why don't you just stop saying I'm saying or implying that Grant is bad.

The Vikings aren't safer bet, just because they have Jackson and we have Rodgers. Jackson BLOWS. That said, we have a better team all around Rodgers to bet on rather than an 8-8 team last year.

Jackson doens't "blow" hes inexperienced and inconsistent, but at least hes actually played so that the team can know what to expect of him and mold the game plan around his skills.

With Rodgers you can't say sh.t because he hasn't even played a game.

Originally Posted by H3F Carnage

Ok, did you read when I said their a team I would bank on, I never said they're going to come out and go 16 and 0. I implied they have logically a good chance of improving. For obvious reasons I've already stated.

No it's not.

If it was the same thing, you wouldn't have to use the word "basically" and since it's basically not the same thing why don't you just stop saying I'm saying or implying that Grant is bad.


Jackson doens't "blow" hes inexperienced and inconsistent, but at least hes actually played so that the team can know what to expect of him and mold the game plan around his skills.

With Rodgers you can't say sh.t because he hasn't even played a game.

I get what you're saying dude, but Jackson isn't good. I understand you have nothing but Rodgers college to base what he will do. But he was 24th overall and was projected higher. Plus, he's coming off the bench after watching and learning from Favre of all people. Look at what Hasselback did when he went to Seattle.

Really all this is, is speculation. Banking on a team that went 8-8 over a team that went 13-3 is somewhat foolish, even if they lost their QB. We still have a more well rounded team than the Vikings backing Rodgers. Plus, we have Brian Brohm if Rodgers is to fail.

Anyways, I'm not arguing with you anymore dude. I'll leave it at that.

Top teams to watch for next season!


ESPN Power Rankings

No more Brett Favre.....