Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

Superbowl or Bust.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

The Eagles still should have beaten you guys in week one. Now we've just crawled back to 4-5 with the 0-9 Dolphins coming up. Should set up a fun 5-5 Eagles team against a 10-0 Patriots team. Yay.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

Die.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

Ah yes, we beat you guys today...Well, you embarrassed us at home so it all evens out, huh?

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

Sigh.... As a Vikings fan, I am ashamed :-(

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

Honestly, it must be hard being a Vikings fan, in all seriousness.

I felt bad for them as I left Lambeau Field with a smile on my face. :)

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

I feel even more special, my team handed The Packer's their only loss - at Lambeau Field nonetheless.

I kid though, Adrian Peterson ass-raped the Bear's D. I was rooting for Green Bay all the way today against the Vikings, and Green Bay came up with an amazing victory. As much as I loathe Favre, I also have immense respect for him, he's so fun to watch.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

Aye, it is. Ever since Chris Carter retired, we've just gone down hill.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

I know he got injured, but you guys do have possibly the best running back in the league, and he's a rookie. That's got to be worth something.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

Ye Olde gunslinger is looking pretty good this season. Packers could go far. They are lucky they dont have to play Pittsburgh. New England is not so lucky, and will lose to Pittsburgh December 9th, ruining their perfect season.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

That will be a close game... New England is such a machine this year though, it's really amazing.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

The Steelers have a real chance...New England is overrated. The Colts didn't play all that well and should have beaten them.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

Maybe New England is a little overrated, especially with the weak division they're in, but they're still 9-0. Hard to argue against that record.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

Actually I think it could be argued that the Patriots didn't play all that well in that game and still came back from a 10 point deficit on the road against the only other undefeated team in the league. Plus, I watched that game, the refs sucked and were completely in favor of the Colts.

Perhaps the Colts showed themselves to be the overrated team with Manning's six pick game and Vinetari's choke job?

/Not a Patriots fan, but I give credit where credit is due. They are VERY good. They are going to massacre my Eagles in two weeks, or at least I expect that to happen. 19-0

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

What are your feelings on Donovan McNabb, Germy?

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

McNabb is cracking on all the unnecessary pressure put on him because he is black. That was sarcasm, but there is no way the Eagles are going anywhere this year. The Cowboys and the Packers actually look like contenders for the AFC this year...however, the Patriots have been a machine thus far.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

Is McNabb's contract up or did he sign a long-term deal?

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

McNabb's contract runs through 2010. It was part of the enormous $100 million plus deal he got a few years ago.

How do I feel about McNabb? I actually agree with him a lot in terms of the criticism he gets. Do I feel that it is always about race? Not always, but I would argue that it definitely contributes to some of the haters reasons for disliking him. He is the best quarterback in Philadelphia Eagles franchise history. Think about that. For the amount of grief he gets you think he was the second coming of Doug Pederson or Bobby Hoying. I will also agree that sometimes his comments pass the boundaries of reasonable to just plain annoying, especially when your mom posts on a blog that your feelings are hurt, but as far as I'm concerned he's backed up his actions on the field.

Sure, I think after all the injuries he has lost a step and he has never been an accurate thrower, but the 2000's have been a pretty good decade for Eagles fans. The key point here is that the Eagles have only almost won a Super Bowl during their dominant era. If McNabb had just one ring he would probably rule the city that hasn't won a championship (in any sport) since 1983. Basically, us Philadelphians/surrounding area fans are desperate for a title parade and being a predominately football city, we're going to complain about everything we can if things aren't going right.

In my mind, a lot of this season is on Andy Reid. His sons are heroin addicts and no matter how good of a coach you are, that is a huge distraction. McNabb will be gone in a year or two and we'll see if the Kevin Kolb pick is a good one.

This season sucks, but I'm still a McNabb fan and if we can somehow upset 2/3 of the following (Dallas, New England, NY Giants) we still might sneak into the playoffs. I expect something more like 8-8, but I also thought there wasn't a chance in Hell we would win the division last year. Same goes for the Phillies on that matter.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

When did I say the Colts were super almighty or weren't overrated? If anything, that just further proves my point that the Pats are as well. You can't go and say "the only other undefeated team" and then call them overrated, that's flawed logic and I expect more from you Germ.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

Fair enough, you didn't say that the Colts weren't overrated, but you said that the Patriots were overrated. And also, I never said that you said the Colts weren't overrated. I made that remark on my own after seeing what a lackluster game they just had. Plus, that was phrased as a question (a leading question of course), and I see that you agree that they may be overrated. My point is that the Patriots are not.

Basically, I don't understand how you can overrate statistically the BEST NFL TEAM EVER (so far). There's just no comparison, really. That's the top rating you could ever get, and what is there to say that that's incorrect, really? On pace for most points, margin of victory, QB rating, wins, etc ever in a different era where you aren't supposed to be able to build a team like this. Sure, their division is extremely weak, but it's not like they've just sneaked by those teams, they've absolutely dismantled them. They also handled the 8-1 Cowboys, 5-4 Redskins, 5-4 Chargers, rather easily and have beaten the 7-2 Colts on the road despite poor one-sided officiating.

If they struggle against the Steelers or anyone else on their road to what I believe will at least be 14-0 start, then we'll have a discussion. But for now, they are the best team ever, and I don't think any kind of "overratedness"(?) is involved. To me, it's a fact but you can of course disagree.

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

as a vikings fan.... i'm not surprised. Oh well, i'll be patient and wait until they become good again. In the meantime, I'm praying Colt McCoy doesn't screw the pooch against A&M

Re: Packers vs. Vikings: 34-0.
 

the officiating had less of an impact than many like to think. you sound like a bill simmons reader. also, dont forget we had nobody on offense against the chargers. im not saying thats why they played bad (because they did) but it had an awful lot to do with it. we were missing 4 key players including 3 of our top 4 receivers and lost 2 O-Linemen during the game. we had 5 O-Lineman for the 2nd half of that game...including a practice squad player. one more guy goes down, a backup TE would have had to come in and play guard.

this colts team, when healthy, is better than last year's by a noticeable margin (we overachieved big time last year, the opposite of the year before. 2005 colts > 2006 colts). i would put the patriots slightly ahead of them, which to me makes the "best team evar by far!" talk enough to call them overrated. they'll likely win the Superbowl, but I was laughing when people were saying the Colts wouldn't come within 14 points of them.