• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Vikings at Packers(-5.5)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
I'm really not sold on Tavaris Jackson and considering he didn't play in the first game between these two, who knows how he'll play. Peterson only had 12 carries in the first match up, but still piled up 112 yards. I think we'll see a heavy dose of him and I like the Vikings to cover the spread. I'll take the Packers by 3
 
Upvote 0
MD Buckeye;986069; said:
I'm really not sold on Tavaris Jackson and considering he didn't play in the first game between these two, who knows how he'll play. Peterson only had 12 carries in the first match up, but still piled up 112 yards. I think we'll see a heavy dose of him and I like the Vikings to cover the spread. I'll take the Packers by 3
Click to expand...

The GB team struggles at home, especially if there is bad weather. The GB coach also seems to struggle making adjustments in close games. The Vikings will give up some Field Goals but are pretty good at preventing TD's. Minnesota pulls off two straight upsets.
 
Upvote 0
I wish I would have checked out these odds ahead of time. 5.5?!#$#@!$ with Bollinger and a sub standard pass defense. I think that was a fairly predictable outcome.

Doreen Sharper finally helped us for the first time in his career. God knows he was the bane of our existence allowing 4th and 26 and 4th and goal from the 40 in the playoffs to both the Eagles and 9ers. And no I'm not retroactively blaming that dope. Stop talking unless you can back it up for once, Doreen.

Good game for Hawk and company on that Big Ten laden defense. He and the others had the medicine for Peterson. All you have to do is stack the box with 8-9 players, stay in your lanes, and tackle with some intent.

GO PACK!
 
Upvote 0
Bernini;991115; said:
I wish I would have checked out these odds ahead of time. 5.5?!#$#@!$ with Bollinger and a sub standard pass defense. I think that was a fairly predictable outcome.

Doreen Sharper finally helped us for the first time in his career. God knows he was the bane of our existence allowing 4th and 26 and 4th and goal from the 40 in the playoffs to both the Eagles and 9ers. And no I'm not retroactively blaming that dope. Stop talking unless you can back it up for once, Doreen.

Good game for Hawk and company on that Big Ten laden defense. He and the others had the medicine for Peterson. All you have to do is stack the box with 8-9 players, stay in your lanes, and tackle with some intent.

GO PACK!
Click to expand...
After GB barely won the first game, then sucked at Chicago and Minnesota knocked off SD, both teams seemed to have reversed direction. And who knows how much the Troy Williamson thing disrupted Minnesota's focus.

Nice to see GB is out of their conservative offense. That seem to have a running game again too.
 
Upvote 0
kartaron;991126; said:
After GB barely won the first game, then sucked at Chicago and Minnesota knocked off SD, both teams seemed to have reversed direction. And who knows how much the Troy Williamson thing disrupted Minnesota's focus.

Nice to see GB is out of their conservative offense. That seem to have a running game again too.
Click to expand...

I don't think those contests should have been considered negative indicators for the Packers. Green Bay had 5 turnovers against Chicago. I'd say about 3 were self inflicted. 2 unforced/weakly forced fumbles and an inexplicable dump pass to Brian Urlacher immediately before he was running out of bounds. The Packers should have finished that game in the first quarter when they were moving the ball at will against Chicago, but continually shot themselves in the foot.

And the first Viking-Packer game wasn't close in reality. The Packers were up 23-9 late. Went in a prevent shell. And then fumbled a handoff when trying to knee the ball down.

Packers and Cowboys are neck and neck for the best team in the AFC. I think the Packers win that game if Favre is not haunted by year's past in that stadium. Favre is Romo's idle growing up in Wisconsin, so he'll surely have the butterflies. If the Packers establishing a running game is legit (I believe that's the case, I like Grant to an extent), then they have fewer weaknesses.
 
Upvote 0
Bernini;991139; said:
I don't think those contests should have been considered negative indicators for the Packers. Green Bay had 5 turnovers against Chicago. I'd say about 3 were self inflicted. 2 unforced/weakly forced fumbles and an inexplicable dump pass to Brian Urlacher immediately before he was running out of bounds. The Packers should have finished that game in the first quarter when they were moving the ball at will against Chicago, but continually shot themselves in the foot.

And the first Viking-Packer game wasn't close in reality. The Packers were up 23-9 late. Went in a prevent shell. And then fumbled a handoff when trying to knee the ball down.

Packers and Cowboys are neck and neck for the best team in the AFC. I think the Packers win that game if Favre is not haunted by year's past in that stadium. Favre is Romo's idle growing up in Wisconsin, so he'll surely have the butterflies. If the Packers establishing a running game is legit (I believe that's the case, I like Grant to an extent), then they have fewer weaknesses.
Click to expand...

Actually I agree with everything you are saying but GB was continuing the same conservative second halves despite it nearly costing them 3 wins. I like the Vikings team and how they fight, and you cant go conservative on a team like that. I wasnt going to expect them to change it when it should have been clear to them that it should have been changed after the near disaster in the Bears game.

I dont like the way GB plays to have them favored against Dallas but they are in striking distance...
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top