NFC Championship game: VIKINGS vs SAINTS

_Buck Rogers · 27-01-2010 1:28am

Saints

Sorry Chucky but most if not all of your posts in this thread have been BS. There is no point in quoting them as there is just too many to quote. Your claims in general go against the statistics and Qb ratings. Your dislike for certain players is shining through and you are just derailing this thread completely.

Chucky the tree · 27-01-2010 1:35am

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Dan Marino must be the ultimate choker then.

Never saw him play, before my time. But his post season stats are pretty awful. 8-10 record with 27TD's a 25 Turnover for a 76 rating.

_Buck Rogers wrote: »

Sorry Chucky but most if not all of your posts in this thread have been BS. There is no point in quoting them as there is just too many to quote. Your claims in general go against the statistics and Qb ratings. Your dislike for certain players is shining through and you are just derailing this thread completely.

Report my posts and put him on ignore then.

Edit: just to compare Favre stats post-season, whos a nailed on 1st ballot HOFer, to Kurt Warner who while a likely HOFer isn't nailed on. Lloyd made this post in the Kurt Warner thread before this seasons play-offs. Warner only has one ring but I certainly wouldn't call him a choker.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's only the NFL that is really considered relevant. And while I hear what you're saying, Warner is a little different though! Post season numbers after 12 games in the playoffs:

Completions 300
Attempts 436
Comp Pct 68.8
Yards 3747
TD's 31
Int 13
Yds\Att 8.59
Rush TD 2

I can't find any passer in league history who's done better in the post season and Warner's numbers aren't going down as the sample size increases.

EDIT: Montana is probably better on reflection! Being runner up to Joe Ballgame is no disgrace though.

This year in the play-offs he finished with stats

completetion PCT: 78
Yards: 584
TD's: 5
Int's: 1
Avg. 9.9
Rating 129.1

Simple fact is Favre has a history of making boneheaded play at crucial times in play-offs, dont really see how anyone can claim otherwise.

davyjose · 27-01-2010 10:14am

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

If Manning doesnt win another superbowl before his career is over he'll go down as a choker, don't know how anyone can disagree and it should also leave him out of "best QB ever" debates.

Who'd be your best ever then? Terry Bradshaw?

Chucky the tree · 27-01-2010 10:44am

davyjose wrote: »

Who'd be your best ever then? Terry Bradshaw?

Can't answer best ever, haven't seen every QB to play in the nfl. But if Brady finished his career with 3 rings and Manning only one then I'd struggle to see why Manning would be considered better then Brady.

death1234567 · 27-01-2010 10:48am

Chucky the tree wrote: »

But if Brady finished his career with 3 rings and Manning only one then I'd struggle to see why Manning would be considered better then Brady.

Why, Manning is clearly better. Its not all about rings when it comes to individual performance, rings are won by teams not QB's.

Chucky the tree · 27-01-2010 11:07am

death1234567 wrote: »

Why, Manning is clearly better. Its not all about rings when it comes to individual performance, rings are won by teams not QB's.

How would you rate Mannings individual performances in the play-offs? Do you think it's been as good as his regular season form through the years?

davyjose · 27-01-2010 11:08am

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Can't answer best ever, haven't seen every QB to play in the nfl. But if Brady finished his career with 3 rings and Manning only one then I'd struggle to see why Manning would be considered better then Brady.

Well, then you have to say the same about Troy Aikman? Do you think Aikman was a better QB than Manning?

Edit: FWIW I'm not making comparisons between Brady and Manning, I just find the "more rings you have, better you are as a QB" argument to be a deeply flawed one. Marino was one of the best QB's the game has seen, and has less rings than Trent dilfer.

Chucky the tree · 27-01-2010 11:24am

davyjose wrote: »

Well, then you have to say the same about Troy Aikman? Do you think Aikman was a better QB than Manning?

Edit: FWIW I'm not making comparisons between Brady and Manning, I just find the "more rings you have, better you are as a QB" argument to be a deeply flawed one. Marino was one of the best QB's the game has seen, and has less rings than Trent dilfer.

Massive difference between Aikman's compared to Brady and Mannings. Aikman has 161 TD's 141 Ints and 81 QB rating, Brady has 225 TD's 99 Ints and a 93 QB rating. I fail to see why Manning is clearly a better QB then Brady, to me both players are excellent, however if I had to pick one I'd go with Brady purely based on rings and his play-off record.

Edit: I'm definitely not saying rings are the be all and end all. I certainly don't think Trent Dilfer is a better QB then Marino or just as good as Manning or Favre. But I think when you have two great QB's(like Brady and Manning for example) that the number of rings each player has and there play-off stats should definitely factor into an argument about who is better. Same reason I think Favre lack of rings and poor play-off performances should count against him when talking about the best of the best in terms of QBs.

davyjose · 27-01-2010 11:41am

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Massive difference between Aikman's compared to Brady and Mannings. Aikman has 161 TD's 141 Ints and 81 QB rating, Brady has 225 TD's 99 Ints and a 93 QB rating. I fail to see why Manning is clearly a better QB then Brady, to me both players are excellent, however if I had to pick one I'd go with Brady purely based on rings and his play-off record.

Edit: I'm definitely not saying rings are the be all and end all. I certainly don't think Trent Dilfer is a better QB then Marino or just as good as Manning or Favre. But I think when you have two great QB's(like Brady and Manning for example) that the number of rings each player has and there play-off stats should definitely factor into an argument about who is better. Same reason I think Favre lack of rings and poor play-off performances should count against him when talking about the best of the best in terms of QBs.

i accept what you're saying, but it's still a flawed argument, to me. Let's take an example: Sunday week, the Colts are ahead 30-28, and the Saints have a 50 yard field goal with 5 seconds on the clock. the Saint's score, Manning is a very good QB; the Saints miss, Manning becomes one of the greats. That makes no sense. And tbh, that's what so many people are effectively saying.

Karlusss · 27-01-2010 1:59pm

And you can extend that metaphor to the idea of clutch quarterbacks in general, a fifty yard kick being good or no good could easily be what wins or loses a ring for a quarterback. Or a running back fumbling. Or any amount of other things.

To consider Peyton Manning of all people a failure if he ends his career with one ring is ridiculous. There are thirty-two teams competing for that championship in a salary-capped league with a rookie draft. He starts every single year with, theoretically, the same chance of winning as everyone else (and bear in mind that a lot of the reason the Colts are considered elite IS Peyton Manning, so that hardly militates in his favour), and he managed to win a ring, make another Super Bowl that he hasn't lost yet, and make the playoffs a bunch of other times.

And, as four regular season MVPs would seem to indicate, the guy is a) consistent on a level almost no-one else has ever been and b) the player who is of most value to his team maybe of anyone ever.

Story moral: if Peyton Manning retires tomorrow, he's still in the conversation for GOAT.

bruschi · 27-01-2010 2:26pm

dont think anyone ever said Manning would be a failure if he retires with one ring, just that some would see rings being an important factor in a discussion on the best ever QB. its an opinion of someone, it doesnt mean they are wrong. some place importance on getting the job done and getting the main prize, others see it in stats and records.

davyjose · 27-01-2010 2:36pm

Saints

bruschi wrote: »

dont think anyone ever said Manning would be a failure if he retires with one ring, just that some would see rings being an important factor in a discussion on the best ever QB. its an opinion of someone, it doesnt mean they are wrong. some place importance on getting the job done and getting the main prize, others see it in stats and records.

But a QB takes way too much blame/glory for wins. It doesn't really have any bearing on how good they are.
You're a Pats fan, well, Brady, through no fault of his own could have only 1 ring. The fact is, he relied on teammates to finish off certain games. So how would that make him less of a QB than he is today? Do you really think Brady would be worse if Adam V had missed those kicks?
Edit: it's the same with Favre - he didn't lose the game the other night. He threw the INT, but that game should have been well wrapped up by then.

bruschi · 27-01-2010 3:12pm

davyjose wrote: »

But a QB takes way too much blame/glory for wins. It doesn't really have any bearing on how good they are.
You're a Pats fan, well, Brady, through no fault of his own could have only 1 ring. The fact is, he relied on teammates to finish off certain games. So how would that make him less of a QB than he is today? Do you really think Brady would be worse if Adam V had missed those kicks?
Edit: it's the same with Favre - he didn't lose the game the other night. He threw the INT, but that game should have been well wrapped up by then.

wasnt my opinion, was just pointing out that people are over reacting to someone else's opinion, and it is just that, an opinion.

the point about Brady is a bit mute tho, if I am going to directly respond to it. It was Brady who got them into the position where vinatieri could kick it. if he had thrown an interception, and lost the game, then you could argue he wasnt as good. but he didnt, he made completions and got them a chance to win, the trademarks of a QB who is better than good.

you are right though about the blame/glory element of it. QBs only have to have a decent year to be an MVP, or do ok in the 'bowl to win MVP. A running back or WR has to be unbelievably excellent, and a defensive player has no chance.

davyjose · 27-01-2010 3:47pm

Saints

bruschi wrote: »

the point about Brady is a bit mute tho, if I am going to directly respond to it. It was Brady who got them into the position where vinatieri could kick it. if he had thrown an interception, and lost the game, then you could argue he wasnt as good. but he didnt, he made completions and got them a chance to win, the trademarks of a QB who is better than good.

Exactly my point. Brady was brilliant for those Rings, that's the point - if Adam V had missed would that make him any less of a QB? Of course not, but you'd have people going "ah brady only has X amount of Rings".

eagle eye · 27-01-2010 4:16pm

Russian Roulette with a gun

Karlusss wrote: »

And you can extend that metaphor to the idea of clutch quarterbacks in general, a fifty yard kick being good or no good could easily be what wins or loses a ring for a quarterback. Or a running back fumbling. Or any amount of other things.
To consider Peyton Manning of all people a failure if he ends his career with one ring is ridiculous. There are thirty-two teams competing for that championship in a salary-capped league with a rookie draft. He starts every single year with, theoretically, the same chance of winning as everyone else (and bear in mind that a lot of the reason the Colts are considered elite IS Peyton Manning, so that hardly militates in his favour), and he managed to win a ring, make another Super Bowl that he hasn't lost yet, and make the playoffs a bunch of other times.

You see here is the crux of the matter, you want to credit Manning with making the Colts an elite team but then when he doesn't do it in the playoffs you want to say its not his fault. Thats just ridiculous.

Karlusss wrote: »

And, as four regular season MVPs would seem to indicate, the guy is a) consistent on a level almost no-one else has ever been and b) the player who is of most value to his team maybe of anyone ever.

And here we have it, nobody is questioning that Manning has been stunning in the regular season, but he has been extremely poor in most tight playoff games.

Karlusss wrote: »

Story moral: if Peyton Manning retires tomorrow, he's still in the conversation for GOAT.

Not a chance, Montana is the undoubted no.1 and the only one thats playing right now that has any chance to overtake him is Tom Brady and thats if he manages to get another ring and has a season like 2007.
If Manning gets to three rings he will certainly be in the conversation but he is nowhere near it right now.

How did we get into a Manning debate by the way

davyjose · 27-01-2010 4:40pm

Saints

eagle eye wrote: »

And here we have it, nobody is questioning that Manning has been stunning in the regular season, but he has been extremely poor in most tight playoff games.

Sorry to stray even further OT, but that's a bit of a fallacy you seem to push, eagle - since 2003, Manning has had 1 losing game with a less than 90 passer rating. Ironically the Super Bowl winning year his passer rating was generally low, but the '05 Steelers loss, and the two San diego games he had a passer rating in the 90's.

eagle eye wrote: »

How did we get into a Manning debate by the way

Lol, I think he's just a good example of the Rings Vs Ability debate.

bruschi · 27-01-2010 4:50pm

davyjose wrote: »

Exactly my point. Brady was brilliant for those Rings, that's the point - if Adam V had missed would that make him any less of a QB? Of course not, but you'd have people going "ah brady only has X amount of Rings".

think this is kinda going in circles here. Manning had chances to beat other teams, but his mistakes in playoff games cost him. Same with Favre the other night, he had a chance to have a good finish, but didnt, he threw an interception. It had nothing to do with a kicker missing, it had all to do with an interception. throwing an interception to lose a game, or a kicker missing after you drive down the field are not the same.

if Brady didnt give Vinatieri a chance to kick, then people would say he only has x amount of rings.

this is worryingly turning into another Manning/brady dick measuring competition which it shouldnt be, so I'm out!

Chucky the tree · 27-01-2010 8:36pm

The reason it wouldn't make Brady any less of a QB is because in those games he performed brillianty. Something Favre(and Manning for the most part) can't do in the play-offs consistently. Lets say Viniteri miss all those SB kicks and the patriots lost all 3 Superbowls Brady would have still finished with the following stats:

2001 1-0 Rating 88.6
2003 3-1 rating 100.5
2004 2-0 rating 110
Totat: 6-1 Rating 98.6

Compare that to Favre post-season performance is games his team has lost

1993 Lose to Cowboys - 2-2 80.9 rating
1994 lose to Cowboys - 0-1 58.2 rating
1995 Lose to cowboys - 3-2 84
1997 Lose to Denver 3-1 91.0
1998 Lose to 49ers 2-2 79.7
2001 Lose to the Rams 2-6 53.5
2002 Lose to falcons 1-2 54.5
2003 Lose to eagles 2-1 82.4
2004 Lose to Vikings 1-4 55.4
2007 Lose to Giants 2-2 70.7
2009 Lose to Saints 1-2 70

19-25 Rating 64.

Those stats say it all to me, simple fact is Favre's post-season loses come when he generally posts up some shocking numbers. Warner lost his last Superbowl against the Steelers after throwing 3TD to 1 Int and posting a 117 QB rating. While Brady's lose to the giants in the 07 final was poor for him he still didnt throw an Int and posted a rating that is better then all of the ratings Favre has posted bar 2.

Pherekydes · 27-01-2010 10:29pm

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The reason...

You're comparing games Favre lost with games Brady MIGHT have lost if his kicker missed?

Buddy, you've completely lost the plot.

Favre didn't lose to the Eagles in '03. His Fcuking defence did. Remember 4th and 26? In 2007, Favre should never have thrown that int in OT because Tynes should have kicked that FG as time expired. It was simply amazing that a 38 year-old QB was able to throw in minus 22 degrees, let alone play 5 quarters. In SB32, the D let them down big time. And this year, the Vikes' all-history RB, Adrian 'butterfingers' Peterson, spent all day putting the perfectly good ball on the turf. Not Brett Favre's fault.

Chucky the tree · 27-01-2010 11:38pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

You're comparing games Favre lost with games Brady MIGHT have lost if his kicker missed?

Buddy, you've completely lost the plot.

Favre didn't lose to the Eagles in '03. His Fcuking defence did. Remember 4th and 26? In 2007, Favre should never have thrown that int in OT because Tynes should have kicked that FG as time expired. It was simply amazing that a 38 year-old QB was able to throw in minus 22 degrees, let alone play 5 quarters. In SB32, the D let them down big time. And this year, the Vikes' all-history RB, Adrian 'butterfingers' Peterson, spent all day putting the perfectly good ball on the turf. Not Brett Favre's fault.

I did it because other people claimed that the only difference between Brady and Mannin/Favre is the fact Vinetari nailed his kicks when that isn't true. The difference is Brady performed to his regular season standard and came up with the throws when it mattered. Brady leads his team into FG situations twice in OT to secure Superbowl victory so you can't say he had it easy. Favre didn't either but instead Favre throws crucial int's where as Brady doesn't. To me it seems it's never Favres fault, it's always his defence, or his running back, or because the teams opposition kicker misses a FG to win a game and and it gives Favre another chance to throw an int. :rolleyes: :pac: Amazed you can actually use that as an excuse to defend Favres int.

Pherekydes · 28-01-2010 12:33am

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Amazed you can actually use that as an excuse to defend Favres int.

Well duh yeah. It is a valid defence. If the Giants won the game in regulation, Favre wouldn't have thrown that int. Simple as.

It seems like with you that it's always Favre's fault when his team loses. The operative word in that sentence is TEAM. Bad defence, fumbleitis, dropitis. A lot of the time the QB gets the blame when he didn't drive his team to within FG range, but people (who like to blame the QB) conveniently omit the 3 lost fumbles that might have made a world of difference.

tallaghtoutlaws · 28-01-2010 12:46am

Saints

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well duh yeah. It is a valid defence. If the Giants won the game in regulation, Favre wouldn't have thrown that int. Simple as.

It seems like with you that it's always Favre's fault when his team loses. The operative word in that sentence is TEAM. Bad defence, fumbleitis, dropitis. A lot of the time the QB gets the blame when he didn't drive his team to within FG range, but people (who like to blame the QB) conveniently omit the 3 lost fumbles that might have made a world of difference.

I have to agree with this. Ever since Passing the Football became more popular in the NFL the QB's are now the worst enemy and apparently always at fault for a team losing the game. But with guys like Brett Favre who clearly make a difference to a team like he did for the Packers he will always get blamed for the team failing.

Take Tom Brady. He was getting blamed for being sh1t all season long and I said it on many occaisons he was not 100% to blame and I was told I was wrong. Then when the Pats crash out of the playoffs people were still blaming Brady. But to sum up the Pats this season they were not good enough all round contrary to many beliefs including Pats fans. Our defense was pathetic but yet people defended it. And low and behold the Ravens proved it in the Wild card game.

QBs are not a Super breed and always depend on the others around them to also perform. If his O-line don't perform he is put on his ass, if his WR don't perform they don't catch footballs, when his RB doesn't perform he is put in a position to throw more and my last point when his defense don't do jack sh1t it forces the Offense especially the QB to perform even more.

Have we all forgotten American Football is a team sport? This thread has become redonculous at this point.

Chucky the tree · 28-01-2010 1:00am

Pherekydes wrote: »

You're comparing games Favre lost with games Brady MIGHT have lost if his kicker missed?

Buddy, you've completely lost the plot.

Favre didn't lose to the Eagles in '03. His Fcuking defence did. Remember 4th and 26? In 2007, Favre should never have thrown that int in OT because Tynes should have kicked that FG as time expired. It was simply amazing that a 38 year-old QB was able to throw in minus 22 degrees, let alone play 5 quarters. In SB32, the D let them down big time. And this year, the Vikes' all-history RB, Adrian 'butterfingers' Peterson, spent all day putting the perfectly good ball on the turf. Not Brett Favre's fault.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well duh yeah. It is a valid defence. If the Giants won the game in regulation, Favre wouldn't have thrown that int. Simple as.

It seems like with you that it's always Favre's fault when his team loses. The operative word in that sentence is TEAM. Bad defence, fumbleitis, dropitis. A lot of the time the QB gets the blame when he didn't drive his team to within FG range, but people (who like to blame the QB) conveniently omit the 3 lost fumbles that might have made a world of difference.

You've changed your tune quickly. It's either a team game or it isn't. The QB gets the blame just like a lot of the time he unfairly gets the credit, it's the nature of the position. I find it amazing everyone ready to jump to Favre defence and claim it's a team game and it's not his fault while throwing Peterson, the HC and god knows who else under the bus in place of Favre. If it weren't for Peterson and his 3 TD's the game wouldn't have even gone to overtime, and that's before we even remember Peterson never even turned the ball over in the game.

tallaghtoutlaws · 28-01-2010 1:11am

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You've changed your tune quickly. It's either a team game or it isn't. The QB gets the blame just like a lot of the time he unfairly gets the credit, it's the nature of the position. I find it amazing everyone ready to jump to Favre defence and claim it's a team game and it's not his fault while throwing Peterson, the HC and god knows who else under the bus in place of Favre. If it weren't for Peterson and his 3 TD's the game wouldn't have even gone to overtime, and that's before we even remember Peterson never even turned the ball over in the game.

In the same boat of you and others throwing Favre under the bus.

And are you seriously trying to Defend 3 fumbles? Yes I say 3 because the one Favre is credited for was also Peterson's fault. So that classes as a turnover on him not Favre in my book and anyone with common sense and knowledge of the game. That was his first. His second lost them 10 yards and Brett Favre got them down to the Goal line where Peterson punched it in for 1yd for a TD hardly prolific running. other TDs were a 2 yard run and a 19yard run. Hardly on top of his game. On the short yard ones Taylor would have done the same thing.

Who lost the game for the Vikings? I will tell you: ALL OF THEM, Favre 2 turnovers, Peterson's bad running and drop, Harvins drop, Berrians Drop and Childress for bad play calling at times. And the Defense played well at times and sucked at other times.

But to blame it on Brett Favre solely when in fact his last Int didn't lose the game for them is madness.

Pherekydes · 28-01-2010 1:25am

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You've changed your tune quickly. It's either a team game or it isn't.

Not at all. Everyone knows it's a team game. And there are 3 teams: Offence, defence and STs. The Defensive team lost the Packers that game against the Eagles. 4th and 26. pffft.

Peterson gets undue credit for the scores (as do a lot of RBs who punch the ball in from 1 yard). He gets little blame despite his fumbleitis. And he had two turnovers. He lost 1 in the official game stats and the handoff fumble was his fault too, even though the official stats credit it to your favourite #4.

Chucky the tree · 28-01-2010 4:20pm

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

In the same boat of you and others throwing Favre under the bus.

And are you seriously trying to Defend 3 fumbles? Yes I say 3 because the one Favre is credited for was also Peterson's fault. So that classes as a turnover on him not Favre in my book and anyone with common sense and knowledge of the game. That was his first. His second lost them 10 yards and Brett Favre got them down to the Goal line where Peterson punched it in for 1yd for a TD hardly prolific running. other TDs were a 2 yard run and a 19yard run. Hardly on top of his game. On the short yard ones Taylor would have done the same thing.

Who lost the game for the Vikings? I will tell you: ALL OF THEM, Favre 2 turnovers, Peterson's bad running and drop, Harvins drop, Berrians Drop and Childress for bad play calling at times. And the Defense played well at times and sucked at other times.

But to blame it on Brett Favre solely when in fact his last Int didn't lose the game for them is madness.

So the rule makes don't have common sense or knowledge of the game? Interesting. yep, lets just ignore the other 100 odd yards Peterson rushed for. Again you claim it's a team game and then come out with "Favre got them down to the goal line" completely ignoring the amazing catch by schanko(sp?). Just to point out I never once said it's Favres fault they lost, I just said he throw a stupid int when he didn't need to and it's not the first time he's done that in the play-offs at a crucial time.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Not at all. Everyone knows it's a team game. And there are 3 teams: Offence, defence and STs. The Defensive team lost the Packers that game against the Eagles. 4th and 26. pffft.

Peterson gets undue credit for the scores (as do a lot of RBs who punch the ball in from 1 yard). He gets little blame despite his fumbleitis. And he had two turnovers. He lost 1 in the official game stats and the handoff fumble was his fault too, even though the official stats credit it to your favourite #4.

So then you think it was the offense that's lead by my favourite #4 that lost the game to the Saints?

tallaghtoutlaws · 28-01-2010 4:43pm

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So the rule makes don't have common sense or knowledge of the game?

What are you babbling on about? The Fumble was acredited to Favre because the ball never got in to the hands of Peterson so by default the "rule makers" as you call it have to credit Favre with the Fumble. That still doesn't take away from the FACT it was Peterson's fault. I can't believe you would try use that as an argument. Pathetic really and you are clearly reaching at this point. And you missed my point when I say bad running with Peterson so I will leave it there because at this point you are all over the shop trying to defend your own comments. :rolleyes:

Chucky the tree · 28-01-2010 4:57pm

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

What are you babbling on about? The Fumble was acredited to Favre because the ball never got in to the hands of Peterson so by default the "rule makers" as you call it have to credit Favre with the Fumble. That still doesn't take away from the FACT it was Peterson's fault. I can't believe you would try use that as an argument. Pathetic really and you are clearly reaching at this point. And you missed my point when I say bad running with Peterson so I will leave it there because at this point you are all over the shop trying to defend your own comments. :rolleyes:

Exactly, Favre never got the ball to Peterson, he fumbled it. As Maurci said it takes two to make an exchange. I did miss the point, because I have no idea what was so bad about Peterson running. Was it his 3 TD's? His 122 yards and 4.4 yards per carry? Disgraceful from AP alright. I'm shocked the vikings haven't cut him yet.

tallaghtoutlaws · 28-01-2010 5:01pm

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Exactly, Favre never got the ball to Peterson, he fumbled it. I did miss the point, because I have no idea what was so bad about Peterson running. Was it his 3 TD's? His 122 yards and 4.4 yards per carry? Disgraceful from AP alright. I'm shocked the vikings haven't cut him yet.

The ball got to Peterson and Peterson didn't have his arms open enough to receive it. Anyone who watches football and knows the game will tell you that was Peterson's fault. The commentators said it, The analysts said it, The reports said it and about everyone I know said it and a lot on here said it. You truly are reaching to bolster your argument. Just because they had to give it to Favre by Default it doesn't mean it was his fault. The hand off was perfect but Peterson's arms were positioned wrong. :rolleyes:

tallaghtoutlaws · 28-01-2010 5:02pm

Saints

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'm shocked the vikings haven't cut him yet.

Grow up already will you :rolleyes: We all know that isn't going to happen especially after one game. You are seriously tarnishing your credibility as a poster with the nonsense you are coming out with. You have gone from very strong poster to babbling on about nothing with sh1te like the above.:rolleyes:

NFC Championship game: VIKINGS vs SAINTS

Comments