Jermichael Finley Tweet Sets Off Viki...

Jermichael Finley Tweet Sets Off Vikings Speculation

There are 235 comments on the TheVikingAge story from May 25, 2014, titled Jermichael Finley Tweet Sets Off Vikings Speculation. In it, TheVikingAge reports that:

Oct 20, 2013; Green Bay, WI, USA; Green Bay Packers tight end Jermichael Finley celebrates a play during the first quarter against the Cleveland Browns at Lambeau Field.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TheVikingAge.

“HHhhhoooowwwlll”

Since: Feb 08

Craigville

#141 Jun 6, 2014
GBPfan wrote:
<quoted text>
As Adrian Peterson goes, so go ... oops .. it doesn't matter how well he plays. The Vikings suck whether he plays or not. Is there a Viking player that could raise the Vikings to average? ROFLMAO
Precisely. Vikes have been one sided for many moons, the best RB won't win you Sheit without at least a serviceable QB.
Now, with Lacy, GB has a chance to even it out a bit on offense. Improvement on Special Teams, Offensive Line, and Defense would work wonders to again vie for a title.
Quit licking the windows, sea gulls don't take kindly after such precise aim.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#142 Jun 7, 2014
40for60 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've always felt that you are a bit more grounded when it comes to the Packers, not getting carried away with trivialities, and willing to criticize TT or whoever makes a bad decision. I guess that was years ago though, now you're more into proving no more than a jackanapes lost in 400 acres of standing corn.
This here story, written for The Viking Age, but high jacked by illiterate outsiders who think they can make up some sort of rules, is Viking territory.
Dead horse bay could use some excitement, I'll let you know when another Viking story hits the press, so the cheddar heads can wake from their drunken stupor long enough to summon the three people in GB who can actually read.
The green bay train wreck is just around the corner, and 2014 looks to be the corner it derails.
Keep hoping for that Packer downfall. It will happen one of these decades .. or not. In any event, when and if it happens do you think the Packers downfall will make the Vikings any better? Or will the Vikings still suck? Do you want some company at the bottom of the division? ROFLMAO

You whiny Viking fans need to man up! The hissy fits don't make your team any better. You merely make it so that a shitty team has equally shitty fans.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#143 Jun 7, 2014
40for60 wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely. Vikes have been one sided for many moons, the best RB won't win you Sheit without at least a serviceable QB.
Now, with Lacy, GB has a chance to even it out a bit on offense. Improvement on Special Teams, Offensive Line, and Defense would work wonders to again vie for a title.
Quit licking the windows, sea gulls don't take kindly after such precise aim.
Wow. Some rare objectivity from a Viking fan. Thank you for proving that at least one Viking fan can do it. I actually think the Vikings may have found a QB in Bridgewater. I wouldn't expect too much this season, but I think he may have a big impact by next season. As for the Packers, you hit the nail on the head about where we need some improvement. Clinton Dix, Peppers and Guion will help the defense. And hopefully a little better luck on the injury front. Our O-line was very young. A year's extra experience and development should help. Special teams? Who knows. It probably can't get any worse!
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#144 Jun 7, 2014
BTW eric doesn't represent ALL Packer fans. I don't consider Aaron Rodgers the best QB in the NFL. And I don't consider Aaron the best Packer QB ever. I might by the time his career is over.
Packer Backer WichitaKs

Wichita, KS

#145 Jun 7, 2014
who="GBPfan"]BTW eric doesn't represent ALL Packer fans. I don't consider Aaron Rodgers the best QB in the NFL. And I don't consider Aaron the best Packer QB ever. I might by the time his career is over.
Aaron Rodgers is in the top 3, at least, in the current NFL. Bart Starr is still the best QB in Packer history. Simply because he fit in well and led the Lombardi Packers to all of those championships. Favre, Rodgers, Dickey etc all had better physical abilities and most likely better stats. While Favre and Rodgers could possibly go down as Top 10 QB's of all time, Starr just simply went out and won games. Granted, there were numerous HOF's on the Lombardi teams, but somebody had to run the engine and nobody did it better than Starr and nobody could have. Perfect QB for the perfect situation.
eric

Verona, WI

#146 Jun 7, 2014
Packer Backer WichitaKs wrote:
<quoted text>Aaron Rodgers is in the top 3, at least, in the current NFL. Bart Starr is still the best QB in Packer history. Simply because he fit in well and led the Lombardi Packers to all of those championships. Favre, Rodgers, Dickey etc all had better physical abilities and most likely better stats. While Favre and Rodgers could possibly go down as Top 10 QB's of all time, Starr just simply went out and won games. Granted, there were numerous HOF's on the Lombardi teams, but somebody had to run the engine and nobody did it better than Starr and nobody could have. Perfect QB for the perfect situation.
There you go! very well said!.Exactly why i said Rodgers is the best qb in the NFL today and could be in Packer history except for maybe Starr..I don't think Rodgers will quite have enough years to catch Favre in Yards but i do think Rodgers has or will prove to be a better all around qb, I still say Rodgers will win another SB or 2 and another MVP or so
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#147 Jun 7, 2014
eric wrote:
<quoted text>There you go! very well said!.Exactly why i said Rodgers is the best qb in the NFL today and could be in Packer history except for maybe Starr..I don't think Rodgers will quite have enough years to catch Favre in Yards but i do think Rodgers has or will prove to be a better all around qb, I still say Rodgers will win another SB or 2 and another MVP or so
You may be right about what Aaron will do, but until he does, it ain't been done. Sterling Sharp was one of the best receivers of all time. Compare Sterling's seven seasons to Jerry Rice's first seven. And Sterling was at his peak when he left the game. Sterling had more catches, yards and TDs than Rice from 1992 to 1994, his final 3 seasons. He may not ever make it into the HOF. Players don't get recognition as one of the greatest without the numbers and accomplishments. "Potential" isn't enough.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#148 Jun 7, 2014
Sterling's numbers compare very well to Rice's numbers. Keep in mind Sterling only had Favre the last 3 seasons, and he did out perform Rice during those years. Rice had Montana for his first seven years. If Sterling had Favre during his seven seasons his numbers certainly would have been better than what they were: 595 receptions, 8134 yards and 65 TDs. 314 of the receptions and 42 of the TDs were after Favre became the starter. It's scary to think what Sharp might have accomplished . . . but he didn't.
eric

Verona, WI

#149 Jun 7, 2014
Sterling had Don Majkowski his first couple,( no Joe Montana or Steve Young but certainly not a either) but im all in favor of Sharpe going into the HOF but his career was a year or 2 short,which is a shame.
Its all a matter of opinion and every one has 1. There are some who should be in the HOF ( Jerry Kramer comes to mind immediately).
His numbers will/will not put him in but based on the first 5 years as a starter AR numbers are right there with the best of them AND he has a Championship which some guys can not claim
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#150 Jun 7, 2014
That's my point eric. His career was insufficient So is Aaron Rodger's career right now. You can't put someone in the HOF or declare them one of the greatest by projecting out what could have happened or what might happen in the future. If it worked like that, Sterling Sharpe would already be in the HOF. One Championship is not enough to get a QB in the HOF. I'm not saying he won't get there. I'm merely pointing out that he isn't there yet.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#151 Jun 7, 2014
Starr is already in the HOF and Favre is a first ballot lock for the HOF.
viking nation

Madera, CA

#152 Jun 7, 2014
I wouldn't go as far to say that Rodgers is the best QB playing today. He has One super bowl win after all .& only One MVP. Manning has one super bowl win & Five MVP. With more TDs in a single season then any QB in NFL history. Having a better passer rating ( 122.5 Aaron To Manning 121.1 ) doesn't make you the best QB in the NFL . We all have seen what's said of Manning being a choker in the playoffs & he has a better over all record with one superbowl & 5 MVPs & the best single season TD record & his QB is right up thier with Rodgers. I know you all love Aaron but he isn't the best QB playing today. I would say He one of them but not the best.
GBPmies

Finland

#153 Jun 8, 2014
IMO it really shouldn’t matter if Rodgers is considered the best QB in the NFL by whatever fans, players, or pundits. Everybody knows he is awesome, it is not a secret. Everyone is going to see it differently and that is OK. I know Rodgers is a damn good QB, he is actually really fucking good!

Is he better than Manning? Brady? Brees? Others? It all depends who you ask and what they base thier OPINIONS on….. I could care less.

I see it as the same with Adrian Peterson. Is he the best RB in the NFL? Maybe, hard to say… depends who you ask and why they think the way they do. It is not like there is a one and only set of standards to base your opinions on. Are there many people who think he is the best RB in the NFL? Yes, there are probably more than any other RB. Whether or not he is doesn’t matter to me because he is really fucking good…… and he makes his team that much better when he plays.
If Peterson is going to have his best day, he will be almost impossible to stop or even slow down.
Same goes for Rodgers at QB.

The "who is best” talk are only opinions based on god knows what set of standards and criteria.
Either way there are elite players in the league that will have a bigger effect than most any other player during the course of a game. Rodgers is one, so is Peterson.
viking nation

Madera, CA

#154 Jun 8, 2014
I never said Rodgers wasn't good I Said He wasn't the best QB playing now & he isn't.. However I do think his time is running out. Injurys he has had is starting to take their toll. Maybe this is why he is taking yoga classes lol. I still say how much better could Rodgers be if he had a better front line. Having 50 plus sacks a season is taking its toll. How long can he last taking that many sacks is the question.
viking nation

Madera, CA

#155 Jun 8, 2014
I think every Vikings fan would have loved to have a QB like Rodgers But some are now saying after going one & out for his third playoff loss That he is a choker.
GBPmies

Finland

#156 Jun 8, 2014
Like I said, it is all a matter of opinion. Everyone feels differently for different reasons. Take viking nation here... He makes his opinions based on his Packer hate, delusions, wishful thinking, and just generally being a complete rtard. He is able to focus all his stupidity on few negative things about Rodgers and blow them up to be huge all the while completly ignoring the great great many things about him. Seems rather childish, ignorant, and silly but again... It is viking nation... lmfao... what else can you expect. LOL!

Since: Feb 13

Kaukauna, WI

#157 Jun 8, 2014
All right, I'll jump in (late) and address a few points from the last few days.

Is Rodgers the best? I don't know that I would pick any player as the best at his position. GBPmies summed that up pretty well, you can twist stats to make a case for a lot of different players. I'll settle for saying he is one of the best. I've never agreed with championships as the barometer for great play... that's a measure of team success, not individual player success. I mean, Trent Dilfer was the QB for a Super Bowl champion. Archie Manning never even made the playoffs. Which one of those two had the better career?

Do the Packers suck without Rodgers? Well, looking at last year... yes and no.

They were obviously a LOT better when he was playing. But... let's look at his backups. Truthfully, the Packers were looking at going from one of the best QBs to several of the worst, statistically anyway... Wallace was a disappointment, Tolzien just plain wasn't ready and probably is not talented enough to be a long term starter, and Flynn wasn't exactly healthy either with the elbow problems he had.

So, last year, yes they dropped way off without Rodgers in the lineup. But, if they had even an "average to good" backup (and let's face it, Wallace/Tolzien/Flynn weren't even close to that, at least not last year) they would have showed much better in the games Rodgers missed. If they would have had a Cassell/McCown/Orton type, they probably would have won 2 or 3 more games easily. There was a lot of proven talent on last year's team, but having to basically revamp your entire offensive game plan depending on who the QB is in any given week doesn't work well. The team from a player/talent level was fine (and will be even better this year, respectfully disagreeing with 40for60) and if anything last year's falloff can be blamed on the management not having a good contigency plan in place.

I've not been pleased with Thompson's propensity for not putting more emphasis on having a proven backup QB for years, one of the few disagreements I have with his system. With Rodgers in his prime, the Packers don't need to be "developing a QB for the future" (especially when that future ends up being with another team anyway) but should be using that roster spot on a proven backup who can be, well, at least average. Maybe Flynn will be there this year if his arm problems are behind him.

Ummm.. what were the other points? Oh yeah. I won't even get into the best QB in Packers history debate. I can make a case for either Starr or Favre (not Rodgers yet, though I think he's got a very good chance to be that by the time his career is over). I'm partial to Starr, but Favre had a fabulous career with the Packers too.
eric

Verona, WI

#158 Jun 9, 2014
viking nation wrote:
I think every Vikings fan would have loved to have a QB like Rodgers But some are now saying after going one & out for his third playoff loss That he is a choker.
Peyton Manning was one and out more then any modern day QB ( I think its 8 times) So i guess hes a real choker since, he and AR have the same amount of SB Championships and AR hasnt been to the playoffs as many times as he has then
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#159 Jun 9, 2014
answerman75 wrote:
All right, I'll jump in (late) and address a few points from the last few days.
Is Rodgers the best? I don't know that I would pick any player as the best at his position. GBPmies summed that up pretty well, you can twist stats to make a case for a lot of different players. I'll settle for saying he is one of the best. I've never agreed with championships as the barometer for great play... that's a measure of team success, not individual player success. I mean, Trent Dilfer was the QB for a Super Bowl champion. Archie Manning never even made the playoffs. Which one of those two had the better career?
Do the Packers suck without Rodgers? Well, looking at last year... yes and no.
They were obviously a LOT better when he was playing. But... let's look at his backups. Truthfully, the Packers were looking at going from one of the best QBs to several of the worst, statistically anyway... Wallace was a disappointment, Tolzien just plain wasn't ready and probably is not talented enough to be a long term starter, and Flynn wasn't exactly healthy either with the elbow problems he had.
So, last year, yes they dropped way off without Rodgers in the lineup. But, if they had even an "average to good" backup (and let's face it, Wallace/Tolzien/Flynn weren't even close to that, at least not last year) they would have showed much better in the games Rodgers missed. If they would have had a Cassell/McCown/Orton type, they probably would have won 2 or 3 more games easily. There was a lot of proven talent on last year's team, but having to basically revamp your entire offensive game plan depending on who the QB is in any given week doesn't work well. The team from a player/talent level was fine (and will be even better this year, respectfully disagreeing with 40for60) and if anything last year's falloff can be blamed on the management not having a good contigency plan in place.
I've not been pleased with Thompson's propensity for not putting more emphasis on having a proven backup QB for years, one of the few disagreements I have with his system. With Rodgers in his prime, the Packers don't need to be "developing a QB for the future" (especially when that future ends up being with another team anyway) but should be using that roster spot on a proven backup who can be, well, at least average. Maybe Flynn will be there this year if his arm problems are behind him.
Ummm.. what were the other points? Oh yeah. I won't even get into the best QB in Packers history debate. I can make a case for either Starr or Favre (not Rodgers yet, though I think he's got a very good chance to be that by the time his career is over). I'm partial to Starr, but Favre had a fabulous career with the Packers too.
Well said. Would anybody seriously argue Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Marino? Team success is NOT the same as individual ability or accomplishments. Is Adrian Peterson as bad as the Vikings? Does he deserve criticism for the Vikings missing the playoffs or for finishing in last place? I don't think that would fair at all. I also agree with the criticism of Thompson for not addressing backup QB sufficiently. I think management in Green Bay has taken the incredible luck with lack of QB injury for granted. However, I do think a healthy Matt Flynn is an adequate backup. After his failed attempts to become an NFL starter he may be Aaron's backup for a while. As for the QB thing, I'm just thrilled that the Packers have had QBs like Starr, Favre and Rodgers. How many fans wouldn't like to have a debate about which of their QBs is the greatest? Some teams have never had one QB as good as any of our greats.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#160 Jun 9, 2014
eric wrote:
<quoted text>Peyton Manning was one and out more then any modern day QB ( I think its 8 times) So i guess hes a real choker since, he and AR have the same amount of SB Championships and AR hasnt been to the playoffs as many times as he has then
QBs have always received too much credit and too much blame. The NFL has become a passing game, so it's gotten worse. However, knowledgeable football fans (which doesn't include some of the Viking fans on Topix) know that QBs like Manning are great. Peyton Manning has secured a place in Canton no matter what the idiots think. There will always be people that don't understand football. They will be the morons looking to blame an individual for a team failure.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minnesota Vikings Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I'm glad he is not a Viking anymore....... Jun 24 Magnum Man II 1
Happy Fathers Day Jun 19 Magnum Man II 1
News Vikings' OT Phil Loadholt a player for Giants t... Jun 17 Stubby 4
News Minnesota Vikings: 5 positions that could cause... Jun 10 Magnum Man II 1
Happy Memorial Day May '16 Magnum Man II 1
News A year after discontent, Adrian Peterson happy ... May '16 Magnum Man II 2
News Teddy Bridgewater's development is Vikings' big... May '16 Magnum Man II 2
More from around the web