Ed Hoyle Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I certainly think McCarthy has demonstrated he is a decent OC, average-to-poor HC. All talk. I'd like to see the players with a better coach before I call for Thompson's head. But, in the end TT hired McCarthy. SO, that is his fault too. The lack of talent and no FA is on his shoulders. Chmura's radio show on ESPN radio said TT may have to fire MM to save his job. But, he didn't think Mark Murphy had the guts to fire TT too. Either way, both TT and MM are both proving to be quite incompetent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 At least for now, the Vikings look poised to get in the Playoffs. How about Green Bay? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Thompson and McCarthy are NOT the answers in Green Bay. Minnesota has a "TEAM" right now. Ha ha ha ha. Proof again that you are not (maybe you never were?) a Green bay Packer fan. You are a FAVRE fan. It's OK, you can admit that you just follow one player, no matter where he goes without any team loyalty at all. I think the first step is admitting you have a problem . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 But, in the end TT hired McCarthy. SO, that is his fault too.The lack of talent and no FA is on his shoulders. Chmura's radio show on ESPN radio said TT may have to fire MM to save his job. But, he didn't think Mark Murphy had the guts to fire TT too. Either way, both TT and MM are both Ed Hoyle is proving to be quite incompetent. Fixed the above for accuracy. Hoyle you are a freaking idiot - so does Favre have a big unit or is it usually too close to your face to really see it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Here fishy fishies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hoyle Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Fixed the above for accuracy. Hoyle you are a freaking idiot - so does Favre have a big unit or is it usually too close to your face to really see it? Whatever. The Packers downfall started with TT. Say what you will. I never brought Favre into the discussion. But, when you have a poopyty team, GM, and HC...you will grasp at straws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 The Packers downfall started with TT. Say what you will. So when Favre was considered done by everyone outside of Green Bay, Mike Sherman had ran the team into the ground with little to no talent and they were 4-12, they were still on the upswing? You can talk all day about the Vikings, they're a better team right now, but to say the downfall was because of Ted Thompson is asinine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 to say the downfall was because of Ted Thompson is asinine. +1 TT is not the problem at this point, assuming he reads the situation correctly and makes serious changes. He's gotta re-evaluate Dom's 34 scheme and obviously swap out some players (cough Kampman cough) if he wants to stick to it. The offense needs to change with these deep drops, which just get Rodgers killed. Quick slants and play action need to be brought back in. Hopefully next year's draft picks will consist of nothing but lineman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valhalla Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Vikings are resting and smiling. No competition in this division for them now. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted November 9, 2009 Author Share Posted November 9, 2009 Whatever. The Packers downfall started with TT. Say what you will. I never brought Favre into the discussion. But, when you have a poopyty team, GM, and HC...you will grasp at straws. Kind of what Minnesota has had for pretty much its entire existence (except for about 5 years) as an NFL franchise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Kind of what Minnesota has had for pretty much its entire existence (except for about 5 years) as an NFL franchise. You really might want to learn some NFL history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted November 9, 2009 Author Share Posted November 9, 2009 You really might want to learn some NFL history. Why don't you enlighten me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Why don't you enlighten me. They did have this guy named Tarkenton and some Purple people eaters back in the 70's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hoyle Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 +1 TT is not the problem at this point, assuming he reads the situation correctly and makes serious changes. He's gotta re-evaluate Dom's 34 scheme and obviously swap out some players (cough Kampman cough) if he wants to stick to it. The offense needs to change with these deep drops, which just get Rodgers killed. Quick slants and play action need to be brought back in. Hopefully next year's draft picks will consist of nothing but lineman. How is he NOT the big issue? He is making the draft picks. If he would spend a little bit of money on FA he may have a team that cannot implode. What exactly has TT done through the draft outside of Jennings Finley and Jones? Harrel is a stud. So is Radji. Matthews is still a rookie, but looking okay. The OL has been an issue for two years now. But, the D/ST took most of the heat last year. A competent GM would make some FA moves so they don't have to rely on the Draft so much. How can a team go from 13-3 to 6=10 and 4-4 and falling....? It must be the GM and Coaching. Who would you put the blame on? Listen to ESPN radio...Even Chmura said the "team" is not playing with desire. There are a lot of GB fans calling in with the same perspective. They are saying the same thing about Dear 'Ol TT. If these two seasons do not resemble the mid-late 80s, well, you are looking through rose-colored glasses. Hopefully next year's draft picks will consist of nothing but lineman. Wow...isn't that a hopeful comment from a fan. You'd think more would be calling for a purge of the coaching staff and GM. MN is one example of how to build from BOTH the draft and FA. For once this is not about Favre...this is all about how TT and MM are running the team into the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted November 9, 2009 Author Share Posted November 9, 2009 They did have this guy named Tarkenton and some Purple people eaters back in the 70's. Yes, I know. Those are the years I'm talking about. Well, maybe '98 (or was it '99?) as well. Okay so maybe 6 or 7 years instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Why don't you enlighten me. Trick question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hoyle Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Fixed the above for accuracy. Hoyle you are a freaking idiot - so does Favre have a big unit or is it usually too close to your face to really see it? You say idiot, but where is GB right now you tool. I've been saying MM is a moron as is TT. If I were WRONG, GB would not be where they are...grasping at a playoff berth...and grasping at an 8-8 season. Unfortunately you haven't manned up for a meeting place to get your teeth handed to you. TT and MM will be on the unemployment line at season's end. If they don't Murphy and the stockholders are as blind as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Why don't you enlighten me. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/min/ From 68-78 they went to 4 SB, had no losing records, had a HoF head coach, a HoF QB (sometimes), a DL that was NFL MVP (Alan Page), several HoF caliber-players scattered on the roster (Page, Eller, Tinglehoff, Yary, Tarkenton, Krause, Marshall). I mean, go ahead and rip the Vikes for continually coming up short in the biggest games, but to call their history utter crap is just ridiculous. Minny really hasn't even had the decency to be really, truly horrid for a long stretch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 (edited) Why don't you enlighten me. Tosberg....you're profile says you're 40 years old, so let's just deal with the years in your lifetime... Starting in 1968 thru til 1980....those 12 years the Pack had a whopping THREE winning seasons during that time. 8-6 in '69, 10-4 in '72 and a kickass record of 8-7-1 in 1978. During the same time span, the Vikes had 7 Division titles, played in 5 NFC Championship games and those 4 dreaded Super Bowls. That brings us to the 80's. This 10 year span the Pack had TWO winning seasons, a 5-3-1 record in '82, the strike year and a 10-6 record in '89. Which by the way wasn't good enough to win the division, as again the Vikes were the division champs that year. In the 90's the Pack started to turn it around a little finally having a winning season in 1992....but let's go back and add this up...from 1968 thru 1992....FIVE winning seasons in those 25 seasons. Is that the 5 years you were refering too? I thought you were talking about the Vikings. Granted, the Vikes haven't won the big one...yet. But their worst stretch in the Super Bowl era is missing the playoffs 4 straight years in the early 80s, Then again since the turn of the century they have had a couple stretches of missing the playoffs. But at the same time, they have also made their way to the NFC Title game in every decade of their existence. You're talking out your ass again son. Edited November 9, 2009 by BillyBalata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Yes, I know. Those are the years I'm talking about. Well, maybe '98 (or was it '99?) as well. Okay so maybe 6 or 7 years instead. They were relevant for about 9 years during that stretch, then about 5-6 years in the 90's. Excepting the championships, they've been as relevant as any other NFL franchise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted November 9, 2009 Author Share Posted November 9, 2009 (edited) Tosberg....you're profile says you're 40 years old, so let's just deal with the years in your lifetime... Starting in 1968 thru til 1980....those 12 years the Pack had a whopping THREE winning seasons during that time. 8-6 in '69, 10-4 in '72 and a kickass record of 8-7-1 in 1978. During the same time span, the Vikes had 7 Division titles, played in 5 NFC Championship games and those 4 dreaded Super Bowls. That brings us to the 80's. This 10 year span the Pack had TWO winning seasons, a 5-3-1 record in '82, the strike year and a 10-6 record in '89. Which by the way wasn't good enough to win the division, as again the Vikes were the division champs that year. In the 90's the Pack started to turn it around a little finally having a winning season in 1992....but let's go back and add this up...from 1968 thru 1992....FIVE winning seasons in those 25 seasons. Is that the 5 years you were refering too? I thought you were talking about the Vikings. Granted, the Vikes haven't won the big one...yet. But their worst stretch in the Super Bowl era is missing the playoffs 4 straight years in the early 80s, Then again since the turn of the century they have had a couple stretches of missing the playoffs. But at the same time, they have also made their way to the NFC Title game in every decade of their existence. You're talking out your ass again son. Hmmmm...did I say the Packers history or the Vikings? Because if you're talking Packers history you're going to have to go a lot farther back than that. Or is this your Viking "revisionist" history? Ignoring all the Packer years before 1968? And do you really want to talk about NFL titles to a Packers fan? Granted, I was EXAGGERATING about the Vikings history but compared to Packers history, Vikings history pales in comparison. Edited November 9, 2009 by tosberg34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Tosberg....you're profile says you're 40 years old Really? He comes across like he's about 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted November 9, 2009 Author Share Posted November 9, 2009 Really? He comes across like he's about 15. Hah. Chavez funny. Is that the pot calling the kettle black? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 They were relevant for about 9 years during that stretch, then about 5-6 years in the 90's. Excepting the championships, they've been as relevant as any other NFL franchise. Pitt is regarded as the "team of the 70s" - and justifiably so. Miami and Dallas get a lot of love as well; Minny would be right there with them as far as regular-season dominance and such goes. Minny is very comparable to the Raiders over the decade of the 70s, aside from Oak winning their ONLY SB (vs the Vikes, how about that?), Minny making 3 but coming up short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Hah. Chavez funny. Is that the pot calling the kettle black? Yep, I act like a 15 year old around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted November 9, 2009 Author Share Posted November 9, 2009 Yep, I act like a 15 year old around here. Well, congratulations. Then it appears we have something in common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.