Wild Card Weekend: Minnesota Vikings at Green Bay Packers

[Deus Irae]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

Can't argue that. Those players work too hard to look back and say "Oh if only we could have earned this ring by beating Manning instead of Flacco". Especially considering how close this team has come seemingly year after year since 2006.

Absolutely. We never see Manning/Colts supporters saying "Well, we don't really count 2006 as a Super Bowl win because the Bears were a fraud team."

 

[PatriotSeven]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

That's foolish. That's really, really foolish.



Yes, it is true. Nobody cares who the winner beat, except for the momentous occasions. This isn't you against Bob from down the road in the all-neighborhood chess championships. This is the big time, and winning's what matters. Who you beat doesn't mean a damned thing.

Yes it does.

I suppose you also care to watch defending boxing champions rack up W's against scrubs.

Sorry, competition matters to me. I want to see Bruce Lee vs Chuck Norris, not Jackie Chan versus Mickey Mouse.

 

[ALP]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

Up to last year i wanted to face the best teams possible...this year? Give me a SB win, and if a "sucky" team makes it to the SB, hopefully we get to win a ring and blow the other team out as well

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

Yes it does.

I suppose you also care to watch defending boxing champions rack up W's against scrubs.

You're trying to equate an individual sport where one is already the champion to a team sport where a new champion is declared every year. They aren't analogous.

Sorry, competition matters to me. I want to see Bruce Lee vs Chuck Norris, not Jackie Chan versus Mickey Mouse.

Professional sports is about winning. It's not about playing everyone or handing out participation trophies. If the only team that beat you in the regular season loses in the playoffs, that's a good thing, because it means you don't have to play them again.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

If that scrub is the title holder, absolutely.



Then you should stick to backyard sports.

And you should pull up videos of bullies beating up on little kids and fist pump. Don't tell me what to stick to. I'll watch for whatever reasons I care about.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

And you should pull up videos of bullies beating up on little kids and fist pump. Don't tell me what to stick to. I'll watch for whatever reasons I care about.

Good for you. Go watch little Jimmy battle for the neighborhood chess crown. They have playoffs for a reason. That reason is so that several teams have a chance to win the title. Since none of the top 4 US pro leagues has a round robin system, the smart person hopes for what's called an easy draw.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

Good for you. Go watch little Jimmy battle for the neighborhood chess crown.

That sounds more like something you care about.

Dude, I'm sorry but the majority of people disagree with you and you are in total denial if you don't think most sports fan care about quality competitions and big match ups.

Just like people care more about seeing the Patriots versus the 49ers or Texans in the regular season, it's no different in Superbowl match ups.

Most people would put more weight on Patriots vs Green Bay or 49ers than if the Vikings made it. As they should.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

Dude, I'm sorry but the majority of people disagree with you

No, they don't.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

Most people would put more weight on Patriots vs Green Bay or 49ers than if the Vikings made it. As they should.

What a load of nonsense. Nobody says "Montana's the best because he beat the Bengals instead of the __________"

Nobody cares who you beat. They only care who wins. That's pro sports.


To put it another way......

In 2004, the Red Sox won their first title in decades. Do you hear people walking around saying "Thank goodness they did it by beating the Cardinals with their 105 wins instead of the Dodgers and their paltry 93 wins.?

Do they want to give back the 2007 championship because it was against the wild card Rockies instead of a division winner?

 

[PatriotSeven]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

What a load of nonsense. Nobody says "Montana's the best because he beat the Bengals instead of the __________"

Nobody cares who you beat. They only care who wins.

I care and so do plenty of others. People always say "who have they beat"?

Dude, I'm sorry but your way of thinking just comes off as cowardly.

If you want to be the best, you beat the best. You don't shy away, scare away from it or take the easy road out. You embrace it. And I bet money, our quarterback, Brady, doesn't think like you do.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

I care and so do plenty of others. People always say "who have they beat"?

Nobody says that. And, by nobody, I mean that I've never once heard a single human being denigrating the Super Bowl champions by saying "But who have they beat?", five years after the game was played. The win is what matters, not the opponent.

Then again, most people understand the concept of a single elimination playoff system.

Dude, I'm sorry but your way of thinking just comes off as cowardly.

Only to the clueless.

If you want to be the best, you beat the best. You don't shy away, scare away from it or take the easy road out. You embrace it. And I bet money, our quarterback, Brady, doesn't think like you do.

No, if you want to be the "best" you win the title by defeating the teams in front of you. Who you beat is irrelevant, as long as they were the teams that were supposed to be there according to the playoff rules of the league. If the Jaguars had beaten the Patriots in the first round of the 2007 playoffs, and then lost to another team after that, nobody would have said that the Jaguars were the best team in football. That title would still have gone to the team that won the Super Bowl, despite the fact that the Patriots were clearly the best team in the NFL that season.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

Nobody says that. And, by nobody, I mean that I've never once heard a single human being denigrating the Super Bowl champions by saying "But who have they beat?".

Then again, most people understand the concept of a single elimination playoff system.



Only to the clueless.



No, if you want to be the "best" you win the title by defeating the teams in front of you. Who you beat is irrelevant, as long as they were the teams that were supposed to be there according to the playoff rules of the league. If the Jaguars had beaten the Patriots in the first round of the 2007 playoffs, and then lost to another team after that, nobody would have said that the Jaguars were the best team in football. That award would still have gone to the team that won the Super Bowl, despite the fact that the Patriots were clearly the best team in the NFL that season.

Which is why I don't necessarily like a single elimination playoff format. And I love how anyone who doesn't agree with you is clueless.

And no, if you truly want to be the best you beat the best. Being the best and winning the Superbowl, precisely because it's a single elimination format, isn't always the same thing.

Sorry man, I can't get behind the mentality you have. "Let's hope everyone worth a damn gets sucked out, and knocked out, so we can face a weak opponent and add another ring and trophy to our name..."

Just not something I consider an honorable cause. Not to mention, in the event you lose, it's even worse when you lose to a bad and inconsistent team, like the Giants. I could have bet anything the Giants would not get anywhere this year.

BTW, have you never heard the term "paper champion?" Look it up! People are not as clueless as you think they are.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

Which is why I don't necessarily like a single elimination playoff format.

Again.... Nobody cares. The format is the format.

And I love how anyone who doesn't agree with you is clueless.

I don't think that anyone who doesn't agree with me is clueless. I think that people who meet certain parameters are clueless. In this case, people who believe that it matters who you beat in a single elimination playoff, and that wanting to avoid certain opponents if possible is cowardly, are clueless.

And no, if you truly want to be the best you beat the best. Being the best and winning the Superbowl, precisely because it's a single elimination format, isn't always the same thing.

Nobody cares that the 2007 Patriots were the best team in football, except the fans and members of the 2007 Patriots. To the rest of the world, 18-1 is a punchline, the Giants are the 2007 champions and the 2007 Patriots are losers who couldn't close. Nobody goes around saying "The Giants and Patriots both had a win against the other, but the Patriots went 18-1, while the Giants went 13-6, so the Patriots should still be called the Champions."

Sorry man, I can't get behind the mentality you have. "Let's hope everyone worth a damn gets sucked out, and knocked out, so we can face a weak opponent and add another ring and trophy to our name..."

Just not something I consider an honorable cause. Not to mention, in the event you lose, it's even worse when you lose to a bad and inconsistent team, like the Giants. I could have bet anything the Giants would not get anywhere this year.

Honor has nothing to do with it. When you figure that out, perhaps enlightement will come to you.

BTW, have you never heard the term "paper champion?" Look it up! People are not as clueless as you think they are.

Please, tell me all the times you've heard teams in the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL called paper champions. The next time I hear it used seriously in any of those leagues will be the first.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

Again.... Nobody cares. The format is the format.



I don't think that anyone who doesn't agree with me is clueless. I think that people who meet certain parameters are clueless. In this case, people who believe that it matters who you beat in a single elimination playoff, and that wanting to avoid certain opponents if possible is cowardly, are clueless.



Nobody cares that the 2007 Patriots were the best team in football, except the fans and members of the 2007 Patriots. To the rest of the world, 18-1 is a punchline, the Giants are the 2007 champions and the 2007 Patriots are losers who couldn't close. Nobody goes around saying "The Giants and Patriots both had a win against the other, but the Patriots went 18-1, while the Giants went 13-6, so the Patriots should still be called the Champions."



Honor has nothing to do with it. When you figure that out, perhaps enlightement will come to you.

BTW, have you never heard the term "paper champion?" Look it up! People are not as clueless as you think they are.

Please, tell me all the times you've heard teams in the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL called paper champions. The next time I hear it used in any of those leagues will be the first.

Again, people care. No matter how much you want to state otherwise. Who you play matters. And also, the 2007 Patriots are mentioned far more often today than the 2007 Giants.

But I'm done arguing with you. If rings and championship is all you care about, that's fine. I have standards beyond that and to me who we play and who we beat matters. I'll let you wallow in your disappointed that the Vikings and Joe Webb will not be able to show up against us in the Superbowl for that easy win you want.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

Again, people care. No matter how much you want to state otherwise. Who you play matters. And also, the 2007 Patriots are mentioned far more often today than the 2007 Giants.

But I'm done arguing with you. If rings and championship is all you care about, that's fine. I have standards beyond that and to me who we play and who we beat matters. I'll let you wallow in your disappointed that the Vikings and Joe Webb will not be able to show up against us in the Superbowl for that easy win you want.

The 2007 Patriots are mentioned as the team that blew a chance at 19-0, not "the best team in the NFL in 2007". The 2007 Giants are mentioned as the Super Bowl Champions of 2007.

Go to Pro-Football-Reference.com. You'll find a link that says "Super Bowl", and it leads to data about who won (and lost) the Super Bowl every year. You won't find a link that says "The best team of the year" with a link that lists the "best" team for every season. When you figure out the reason for that, perhaps you'll begin to get the point.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: ****** Unofficial Vikings v. Packers game thread ******

Nobody cares that the 2007 Patriots were the best team in football, except the fans and members of the 2007 Patriots. To the rest of the world, 18-1 is a punchline, the Giants are the 2007 champions and the 2007 Patriots are losers who couldn't close. Nobody goes around saying "The Giants and Patriots both had a win against the other, but the Patriots went 18-1, while the Giants went 13-6, so the Patriots should still be called the Champions."

So sad and so true. I would like to see the NE Patriots win another SB while I'm still above ground. I could not care less whom they play when achieving that goal. It's not a morality play or Olympic Ice Dancing with style points. It's football where paradoxically to the chagrin of some, the playoff team that scores more points than each opponent thereby not losing any playoff game is the champion.