Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

    How did we lose to the Redskins twice? Seriously? Vikings = 2 win team, now a 3 win team.

  • #2
    Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

    [quote user="RagingBlue"]How did we lose to the Redskins twice? Seriously? Vikings = 2 win team, now a 3 win team.[/quote]

    Because the GIants are not very good. Thankfully they play in a crappy division.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

      [quote user="Sarcasman"][quote user="RagingBlue"]How did we lose to the Redskins twice? Seriously? Vikings = 2 win team, now a 3 win team.[/quote]

      Because the GIants are not very good. Thankfully they play in a crappy division.[/quote]

      Shutup, Its the NFL, anything and everything happens at any given week. WE ARE GOOD. AND WE CAN BE VERY GOOD.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

        The Giants do good when motivated. We will be motivated next week. I actually hope Romo plays, just to heighten the intensity.
        My body was sculpted to the proportions of Michelangelo's David.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

          and its gonna suck bc had we beat wash. and dallas loses we'd of clinched today.

          ****ing defense and drops...

          at least the d and run game looks like it could get going at the best possible time

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

            [quote user="BeatTHEJETS"][quote user="Sarcasman"][quote user="RagingBlue"]How did we lose to the Redskins twice? Seriously? Vikings = 2 win team, now a 3 win team.[/quote]

            Because the GIants are not very good. Thankfully they play in a crappy division.[/quote]

            Shutup, Its the NFL, anything and everything happens at any given week. WE ARE GOOD. AND WE CAN BE VERY GOOD.[/quote]


            I'm sorry that you don't know enough about football to be able to discuss it intelligently on a message board.

            The good new is that Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer will be on soon! Go get blanky and your stuffed animals, it's a once a year treat!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

              [quote user="giantsfan420"]and its gonna suck bc had we beat wash. and dallas loses we'd of clinched today.

              ****ing defense and drops...

              at least the d and run game looks like it could get going at the best possible time[/quote]

              Yeah, it's amazing that the defense has lowered the bar so much that we are now looking at today's game as a good defensive effort. If we could only play the Browns every week I bet our defense would be considered great!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

                [quote user="RagingBlue"]How did we lose to the Redskins twice? Seriously? Vikings = 2 win team, now a 3 win team.[/quote]Ask Coughlin!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

                  Peteron's knee injury still makes me queasy to my stomach when I think about it. What a shame, that guy was a heck of a runner. I enjoyed watching his runs (except when he played the Giants). I hope he's going to be ok...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

                    [quote user="Sarcasman"][quote user="giantsfan420"]and its gonna suck bc had we beat wash. and dallas loses we'd of clinched today.

                    ****ing defense and drops...

                    at least the d and run game looks like it could get going at the best possible time[/quote]

                    Yeah, it's amazing that the defense has lowered the bar so much that we are now looking at today's game as a good defensive
                    effort. If we could only play the Browns every week I bet our defense would be considered great![/quote]
                    If you think the d played bad today there is something wrong with you.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

                      [quote user="Idkaname"][quote user="Sarcasman"][quote user="giantsfan420"]and its gonna suck bc had we beat wash. and dallas loses we'd of clinched today.

                      ****ing defense and drops...

                      at least the d and run game looks like it could get going at the best possible time[/quote]

                      Yeah, it's amazing that the defense has lowered the bar so much that we are now looking at today's game as a good defensive
                      effort. If we could only play the Browns every week I bet our defense would be considered great![/quote]
                      If you think the d played bad today there is something wrong with you.[/quote]

                      I think the D played OK.

                      I would not confuse the Jets ineptitude with great defense.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

                        [quote user="Sarcasman"][quote user="Idkaname"][quote user="Sarcasman"][quote user="giantsfan420"]and its gonna suck bc had we beat wash. and dallas loses we'd of clinched today.

                        ****ing defense and drops...

                        at least the d and run game looks like it could get going at the best possible time[/quote]

                        Yeah, it's amazing that the defense has lowered the bar so much that we are now looking at today's game as a good defensive
                        effort. If we could only play the Browns every week I bet our defense would be considered great![/quote]
                        If you think the d played bad today there is something wrong with you.[/quote]

                        I think the D played OK.

                        I would not confuse the Jets ineptitude with great defense.[/quote]Right on on that. Sanchez is not one to burn any secondary deep. So they had the luxury of playing closer to the line of scrimmage. Although that drop by Green on a 3rd down was scary because if he had caught it the closer Giants player was about 25 yards down field. So it was a combo of the Giants D playing a little bit better and the Jets shooting themselves most of the time.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

                          [quote user="gmen0820"]The Giants do good when motivated. We will be motivated next week. I actually hope Romo plays, just to heighten the intensity.[/quote]

                          The Redskins seem to be like The Giants in that they play down to worse teams, and the first few offensive series set the tone for the rest of the game.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Vikings beat the Redskins without Peterson

                            [quote user="RagingBlue"]How did we lose to the Redskins twice? Seriously? Vikings = 2 win team, now a 3 win team.[/quote]

                            What I wanna know is: How is it that all those recent years when the Vikings were good, the Gmen had to play them, and the Vikes beat them. Now the one year the Vikings suck, the Gmen don't have to play them during the season.

                            These schedule makers are *** geniuses.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X