Pack is for real, But

With their D playing like it is, and running the ball as they are? Love doesnt have to be Favre or Rogers re-incarnate

Jacobs and Parsons were great pick-up's and LaFleur is a good coach.

Hats off to Gutekunst I guess?

15, long weeks to go

I wasn't impressed with the Lions or the Commanders. Not to say the Packers D didn't have something to do with that, but anointing them after these 2 wins is a bit early. Everyone expected the Lions to take a few steps back and WA was super flat.

That is why strength of schedule is such a pile of crap. This looked like a super tough 1st 2 weeks, but things change so much year to year.

greediron wrote:
I wasn't impressed with the Lions or the Commanders.  Not to say the Packers D didn't have something to do with that, but anointing them after these 2 wins is a bit early.  Everyone expected the Lions to take a few steps back and WA was super flat.

That is why strength of schedule is such a pile of crap.  This looked like a super tough 1st 2 weeks, but things change so much year to year.

I certainly was not impressed with the Commanders last night.
They seemed flat the entire game.

greediron wrote:
I wasn't impressed with the Lions or the Commanders.  Not to say the Packers D didn't have something to do with that, but anointing them after these 2 wins is a bit early.  Everyone expected the Lions to take a few steps back and WA was super flat.

That is why strength of schedule is such a pile of crap.  This looked like a super tough 1st 2 weeks, but things change so much year to year.

They definitely haven't been challenged yet.

StickierBuns wrote:

So its the old chicken or the egg thing: do teams look bad against Green Bay because the Packers are making them look that way or did the Lions and Commanders just have dud games?

I know how I'd be feeling right now if I wore green/gold.

Probably similar to how I felt after we beat the 49'ers last year.

StickierBuns wrote:

So its the old chicken or the egg thing: do teams look bad against Green Bay because the Packers are making them look that way or did the Lions and Commanders just have dud games?

Ask me after week 8 or so. Juries are still out on most of the NFL as they work the offseason dust out.

I think we have to admit that Green Bay is better this year than last year. They dominated two playoff teams, and while those teams may have been flat, you have to give Green Bay some credit for making them look that way. 

That said, it's a long season and they're just as vulnerable to key injuries and cold streaks as any other team. It's been said a million times on this board, but Bud was exactly right when he said "it's not who you play, but when you play them." If the Vikings can avoid key injuries, I think they'll be a much better team later in the year. Will the Packers? Who knows. I think their corners are actually worse than ours. Right now, their pass rush is hiding that fact. A team with a better offensive line could expose them.

MaroonBells wrote:
I think we have to admit that Green Bay is better this year than last year. They dominated two playoff teams, and while those teams may have been flat, you have to give Green Bay some credit for making them look that way. 

That said, it's a long season and they're just as vulnerable to key injuries and cold streaks as any other team. It's been said a million times on this board, but Bud was exactly right when he said "it's not who you play, but when you play them." If the Vikings can avoid key injuries, I think they'll be a much better team later in the year. Will the Packers? Who knows. I think their corners are actually worse than ours. Right now, their pass rush is hiding that fact. A team with a better offensive line could expose them.

I watched both games.  Their D is better than it was last year.  Parson's will do that for a D. But I see he is already whining about not getting enough playing time.

Their offense has been ok.  TE Clark was left wide open by the commanders.  He ran free repeatedly, not sure what that was about.  They schemed some good openings, but I didn't see anything special by their WRs or Love.  Most of his hits were easy throws and he hasn't been hit or hurried in the first 2 weeks.  Their o-line is a weakness, but neither team seemed to bring any pressure.  Leave alone and comfortable, LaFleur is going to get people open.  But bring some heat and Love's accuracy suffers.

greediron wrote:

I watched both games.  Their D is better than it was last year.  Parson's will do that for a D. But I see he is already whining about not getting enough playing time.

Their offense has been ok.  TE Clark was left wide open by the commanders.  He ran free repeatedly, not sure what that was about.  They schemed some good openings, but I didn't see anything special by their WRs or Love.  Most of his hits were easy throws and he hasn't been hit or hurried in the first 2 weeks.  Their o-line is a weakness, but neither team seemed to bring any pressure.  Leave alone and comfortable, LaFleur is going to get people open.  But bring some heat and Love's accuracy suffers.

Their O line is a stregth but Thursday night two starters were missing. Once their WRs pick up their game (Golden etc.) Look out. I have watched both of their games and when you take the purple glasses off, they look pretty impressive compared to what I have seen around the league so far.

kmillard wrote:

Their O line is a stregth but Thursday night two starters were missing. Once their WRs pick up their game (Golden etc.) Look out. I have watched both of their games and when you take the purple glasses off, they look pretty impressive compared to what I have seen around the league so far.

I have watched both games.  I wasn't impressed with their offense.  Like I detailed above.  The commanders were sluggish and played soft on D, letting guys like Clark run wide open.  They brought no pressure to test those backups on the o-line.  

Maybe your pessimism is tainting your view.

greediron wrote:

I have watched both games.  I wasn't impressed with their offense.  Like I detailed above.  The commanders were sluggish and played soft on D, letting guys like Clark run wide open.  They brought no pressure to test those backups on the o-line.  

Maybe your pessimism is tainting your view.

Nah, I think its your glasses. Kraft is the TE BTW.

They have a solid team. Defense is greatly improved and Love has been playing really well. Scary now that he have multiple WR that can stretch the field, a very good TE and that Savion Willians is not bad either

kmillard wrote:

Nah, I think its your glasses. Kraft is the TE BTW.

You are correct about one thing, it is Kraft.  My mistake.

greediron wrote:

You are correct about one thing, it is Kraft.  My mistake.

It's all good. Only football after all.

The Vikings offense hasn't struggled against 6'3 250 OLBs like Parsons or Gary

It's been the Kenny Clark's and Hakeem Nick's defensive lineman that would cause problems. The 6'4 325+ lb defensive lineman that the Vikings had no answer for

Parsons and Gary are very good players, watching them square off versus O'Neill and darrisaw will be worth the price of admission.

This is Clarks 9th year he has 35 in his career, 7 of which were against the Vikings.

watching Clark versus the Vikings new interior offensive line, was gonna be a fair litmus test on how much the oline has improved this year.

addition of Parsons by the subtraction of Clark doesn't scan for me.