What happened to beavis and butthead?
Jim "Rongway" Marshall was supposed to keep an eye on it...
quote:Originally posted by Salmon Dave:
God, I can't wait to get out of Minnesota. I'm moving in a couple of weeks to a small town in rural Kentucky, a place where people still run out into the front yard to point at airplanes. I'm on my way back to the Cities right now from a week I spent down there doing some work on a couple of our houses, and the thing that struck me over and over again all week was how much more intelligent the conversation is down there than I'm used to in Minnesota. I feel like I'm moving from Hooterville to Harvard.
Totally missed this in the windstorm. Best wishes with the move and congrats!
I missed it too. I hope Salmon Dave isn't in a dry county, though.
He'll just make his own shine. I think somebody down there can teach him. 
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:
What is the argument here? The Vikings are a better organization than the Packers? How can anyone really argue that point. I don't care if you're talking about entire history or recent history, there's no contest.
Beyond any opinions of towns, fanbases, owners, or anything of that sort, the numbers don't lie. Even with rough patches in the 70's and 80's, the Packers have averaged more success since the Vikings existed...and they have existed for 40 years longer.
No, the numbers don't lie. In terms of league championships won, the Packers obviously have a huge edge. Beyond that, it depends on where you want to set the bar.
Regular season winning %: Packers .570/Vikings .545
Wins in head-to-head rivalry: 55/49
Playoff appearances: 28/27
Central/North titles: 11/18
Super Bowl appearances: 5/4
NFC Championship appearances: 7/9
Etc. Both teams have the edge in different areas.
And during that 25-year "rough patch" the Packers had, the Vikings were the superior organization by such a wide margin that it was almost comical. For a period representing half their history, the Vikings were much better.
So again, yes, we hate the Vikings. But when we look at the total history, let's not make it seem like the Packers hold some Harlem Globetrotters vs. Washington Generals dominance over them, because it ain't so.
Here's another stat:
SB winning %:
Packers .750
Queens .000
SB winning %:
Packers .750
Queens .000
quote:Originally posted by CitizenDan:
Regular season winning %: Packers .570/Vikings .545
Wins in head-to-head rivalry: 55/49
Playoff appearances: 28/27
Central/North titles: 11/18
Super Bowl appearances: 5/4
NFC Championship appearances: 7/9
Before Wolf came the Vikings had such huge edge in all of these (except championships) that it seemed almost impossible that the Pack could ever catch up, much less take the lead.
It's been an amazing 20 year run, especially considering that the Vikings during that same stretch have only had 4 seasons under .500.
quote:Here's another stat:
SB winning %:Packers .750
Four SB victories; one defeat. That's a .800 average.
I agree with you about Minnesota's average, however.
quote:Originally posted by michiganjoe:
Here's another stat:
SB winning %:
Packers .750
Queens .000
This would have been even more clever if you'd gotten GB's % correct.
I thought it was pretty clever. Did he get your Vikings % right?
quote:Originally posted by CitizenDan:
This would have been even more clever if you'd gotten GB's % correct.
It's early and you get the point. Would you rather go to five SBs and come up empty or not go at all?
quote:Originally posted by michiganjoe:
It's early and you get the point. Would you rather go to five SBs and come up empty or not go at all?
Yes, I get the point. I mentioned the disparity in championships. Hope you got my point as well.
is it in the water over there?
quote:minnesotablizzard says: Mar 21, 2013 12:14 AM
Talk to Favre, come play your last season in the Tampa 2 under the dome..it’s nice and warm in the winter on your old bones. Hopefully if Urlacher signs with the Vikings they also draft an LB or two to have around the Urlacher lead defensive meetings/locker room their rookie seasons. Also for young guys like Erin Henderson and Harrison Smith. Urlacher is an investment for more than his on field production, just like Favre was.
quote:Originally posted by Fedya:
Four SB victories; one defeat. That's a .800 average.
I agree with you about Minnesota's average, however.
I think my math was right. Wins divided by total games.
quote:Originally posted by Tdog:
is it in the water over there?
quote:minnesotablizzard says: Mar 21, 2013 12:14 AM
Talk to Favre, come play your last season in the Tampa 2 under the dome..it’s nice and warm in the winter on your old bones. Hopefully if Urlacher signs with the Vikings they also draft an LB or two to have around the Urlacher lead defensive meetings/locker room their rookie seasons. Also for young guys like Erin Henderson and Harrison Smith. Urlacher is an investment for more than his on field production, just like Favre was.
Might as well back up the garbage scow at queentard headquarters' loading dock.
The dimwits can't get enough.
Doesn't seem right that the Vikings Super Bowl winning % should only be .000
In their 4 Super Bowls they never held a lead at any point of any game. Should at least be an asterisk next to .000
In their 4 Super Bowls they never held a lead at any point of any game. Should at least be an asterisk next to .000
quote:Originally posted by CitizenDan:
Hope you got my point as well.
I actually liked and respected the franchise when Grant was there and those were some very good teams. There doesn't appear to be any mutual respect between the teams of late and the Vikings do appear to have a case of franchise envy.
quote:I actually liked and respected the franchise when Grant was there and those were some very good teams.
same here
jesus ****....this place has morphed into a ****ing math bee.
Dip****, drooling, tool queen fan shows up and the dum wears off on other parts of the board.
Dip****, drooling, tool queen fan shows up and the dum wears off on other parts of the board.
math bee....
damn that's some funny **** right there.
damn that's some funny **** right there.
quote:Originally posted by CitizenDan:quote:Originally posted by michiganjoe:
Here's another stat:
SB winning %:
Packers .750
Queens .000
This would have been even more clever if you'd gotten GB's % correct.
Again, I just don't understand this refusal to look at championships. I've seen a good chunk of games at the old Met and no one doubted Grant and the organization he built. But outside of Grant what is the organization other than loudmouths like Denny Green chock full of bravado, bull**** and failure. As soon as they built the Dump the whole persona of the team changed. Mike Lynn, Red McCombs, a collection of *******s.
Pretty sure I don't need to tell you about innate connection with the fanbase and Green Bay. What and why Green Bay exists IS special. It is unique; a working piece of sports history. So like typical Muricans who choose to ignore/change history I have to listen to some purple truther try to discount the Packers championships?
You can revel in the stats all you like but aren't you playing for championships? For christ's sake, even both sides of the Bay of Pigs has a trophy. When I talk to reasonable fans I don't talk about the Packers history, I talk football in the present. But if some sack of pus is going to run his mouth I'm going to bring down the hammer of historical facts.
I know you're a smart man and I get your point but you're picking the wrong battle on a Packer BB when a couple punk ****s show up to crow over a ****ing signing. Christ, you've picked up the closet truther in your defense.
quote:Originally posted by CitizenDan:
No, the numbers don't lie. In terms of league championships won, the Packers obviously have a huge edge. Beyond that, it depends on where you want to set the bar.
Regular season winning %: Packers .570/Vikings .545
Wins in head-to-head rivalry: 55/49
Playoff appearances: 28/27
Central/North titles: 11/18
Super Bowl appearances: 5/4
NFC Championship appearances: 7/9
Etc. Both teams have the edge in different areas.
And during that 25-year "rough patch" the Packers had, the Vikings were the superior organization by such a wide margin that it was almost comical. For a period representing half their history, the Vikings were much better.
So again, yes, we hate the Vikings. But when we look at the total history, let's not make it seem like the Packers hold some Harlem Globetrotters vs. Washington Generals dominance over them, because it ain't so.
Now who's exaggerating. I didn't live that era, but looking at the numbers alone it looks like the Vikings dominant years were '69 to '76. In that time they averaged 12 wins per season and appeared in 4 SB's...a very good average and does reflect a dominant period considering the Packers only averaged 6 wins in that time. From '77 to '93 (seemingly the end of your 25 year time frame) though they only averaged 7 wins per season. In that same time frame the Packers averaged 6 wins per season...hardly a "comical" gap in superiority. It was a hard time for the Packers definitely, but the Vikes had lean years during that time also.
And honestly, where did I say or even imply the Vikings were a joke? It's clear in almost every respect, whether it be recent history or total history, lean years or strong years, overall the Packers are clearly the superior organization. The Vikes had strong years, there's no denying that, but it doesn't matter if we're looking at the Packers 90+ year history or since the Vikings have existed, the Packers have been stronger overall.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:
Again, I just don't understand this refusal to look at championships.
Not refusing at all. Obviously, championships are the bottom line. I only bring up the other numbers to counter the suggestion that the Vikings have been nothing but cellar dwellers every year of their existence.
Of course there's no organization quite like the Green Bay Packers, and I don't doubt that envy runs deep in Viking country. But over the years, the Vikings have fielded lots of good teams and a few great ones. I guess what I don't understand is the refusal by some to acknowledge that.
I know that whenever I'm confused by complicated math, I immediately turn to my good friend Iowacheese for help.
quote:Originally posted by CitizenDan:quote:Originally posted by Henry:
Again, I just don't understand this refusal to look at championships.
Not refusing at all. Obviously, championships are the bottom line. I only bring up the other numbers to counter the suggestion that the Vikings have been nothing but cellar dwellers every year of their existence.
Of course there's no organization quite like the Green Bay Packers, and I don't doubt that envy runs deep in Viking country. But over the years, the Vikings have fielded lots of good teams and a few great ones. I guess what I don't understand is the refusal by some to acknowledge that.
No refusal on my part but then my focus is on bludgeoning trolls at the moment. I actually miss those Bud Grant teams. I still believe building the Dump was the downfall of that organization and it's mentality.
Saying the Packers are the stronger organization does not imply the Vikings are cellar dwellers. In the Lions 82 year history, they have only had 28 winning seasons and have only strung together back to back winning seasons only about 5 or 6 times. THAT is a cellar dweller. You can have two good organizations and one still be better. The Vikings have had good years, I'm not trying to diminish their history, but the Packers are better.
The Vikings have had some "great" teams as Dan professes. I'm old enough to have seen many of them.
But each and every one of those "great" teams crapped the bed in the end and could not close the deal.
Zero championships in 50 plus years.
But each and every one of those "great" teams crapped the bed in the end and could not close the deal.
Zero championships in 50 plus years.
quote:Originally posted by Iowacheese:
I'm still trying to figure out how Pi is between 0 and 1. That guy must be inssane.
How about asking Buffalo Bills fans how good those stats that Kelly, Thomas, Rison, Beebe, and Lofton put up. My wager is that they hardly make up for that 0-4 Super Bowl mark.
quote:Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:
I'm still trying to figure out how Pi is between 0 and 1. That guy must be inssane.
Brings new meaning to the term, imaginary number.
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:
Saying the Packers are the stronger organization does not imply the Vikings are cellar dwellers.
I know you didn't say that, GD. Others upthread did.
quote:Originally posted by Goalline:quote:Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:
I'm still trying to figure out how Pi is between 0 and 1. That guy must be inssane.
Brings new meaning to the term, imaginary number.
