Sam Bradford isn't the "beloved" Aaron Rodgers... Kind of what I was getting at with the post. Sam Bradford doesn't have an O-Line that ranks 1st against the pass rush... Sam Bradford has had Diggs, Thielen, Patterson, Wright, and Johnson as his WR... I can keep going if you want
You will have to forgive the viking fans they have not been to talk smack for a while they aren't sure how to do it properly.
Sam Bradford doesn't have an O-Line that ranks 1st against the pass rush... Sam Bradford has had Diggs, Thielen, Patterson, Wright, and Johnson as his WR... I can keep going if you want
I reallyyyyyyyy hope Rodgers and Montgomery go off this week. I have them both in all of my Fanduel and Draft Kings lineups.
Jake I am trying to help you temper your enthusiasm, I have family that are viking fans it almost pains me when I think of the times the viking franchise has dashed their dreams. This team will make you cry.
You have nobody but your GM to blame for the vikings inability to draft and develop receivers and linemen.
Like I said earlier... It honestly does not bother me. If/when we do come up short, it will suck. But you know us Vikes fans - We're used to it by now... wouldn't be surprised if Walsh pulls something like he did last year! As long as Rodgers and Ty make me some money this week... I'll be happy!
Packers are bad. Vikings are good. Rodgers has been playing bad. Bradford has not. Lets keep this thread going till January. Things can change pretty quick in the NFL. And for the record, ill take the 3-2 start with the last 7 years, 7 playoff appearances, a Super Bowl and 2 MVP season out of Rodgers over a 5-0 start and the last 7 years of Vikings play. And i think 100/100 sportscasters and writers would too. This is just an ugly middle chapter. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Looks like the Packers are going to have to start the guy they traded for today at running back on Thursday. They also plan on having 2 wide receivers in the back field. How could TT let the team get in this situation?
That had to be a record number of pages before a packer fan brought up the past. Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
One would never assume your top 2 RBs go down...and being a pass heavy team no molding of a true 3rd RB is done. However, Ty Montgomery is anything but a WR...wouldn't call him a RB though either...however in college there were games where he played far more snaps sometimes at a 3-1 ratio in the backfield versus split out wide. He's comfortable back there, I just don't wanna see Cobb back there a lot. Davis offers a real pass catching RB out of the backfield as well as what appears to be a capable running game too...ball security is his only glaring issue I see. Good trade it seems depending on comp pick back when all said and done... It won't matter though if AR keeps playing bad, fumbles plague all positions and the depleted DBs don't get healthy...or our 4th and 5th CB's start playing way above expectations.
I have to disagree with you on this part. If I were an NFL gm, I would expect at least one of my running backs to be injured at some point in the season. Especially if one of my backs was a between the tackles, pound it type guy like lacy. Just too much of a risk to take if your guy is running into defensive tackles all the time. Also, while lacy isn't particularly injury prone, starks missed time his first 4 years with the packers. So, he's not really dependable.
Yes, you think 1 may go down. Not both at the same time....or at minimum you have to choose do you go deep at WR or deep at RB....very very few teams are deep at both.
Biggest issue I have is that they're deep at wide receiver, yet guys like abrederis, Davis, Janis, and Montgomery aren't a part of the offensive game plan at all.
While that is true, he has also not given up the ball-unlike Rodgers. So, who has been the better game manager to date?
