Skip to content

Wilf invokes 1958 championship game in vote against overtime

Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf cast one of the four “no” votes on the proposal to modify overtime for the playoffs. In footage from the league meetings that aired today on NFL Network, Wilf said he based his “no” vote in part on his appreciation for the 1958 NFL Championship Game — making an argument that, frankly, makes no sense.

“I object and I will be voting against this rules change for the following reasons,” Wilf said. “First, from a consistency standpoint, I think to have one rule for overtime in the regular season and to have a different set of rules for the postseason is totally inconsistent. There are a lot of unintended consequences by using different strategies for practicing during the season and the postseason. So from that standpoint, I think it’s inconsistent.

“Now, I’m one of the newer owners here, but I never thought I was a traditionalist. But I still remember that the Greatest Game Ever Played was a true sudden-death overtime. People remember those sudden-death overtimes.”

Wilf’s invocation of the “Greatest Game Ever Played,” in which the Colts beat the Giants in the first-ever overtime game, flies in the face of his argument against different rules for the regular season and postseason. In 1958, overtime wasn’t used in the regular season; a game tied at the end of the fourth quarter ended as a tie. In 1958, the rules were different in the regular season and the postsason — exactly what Wilf now says he opposes.

Furthermore, Wilf seems to be forgetting that the great ending to the 1958 Greatest Game would not happen under the modern-day sudden-death format. That game ended with a brilliant Colts drive that culminated in a one-yard touchdown plunge by Alan Ameche. In the modern-day NFL, teams rarely attempt to score one-yard touchdowns in overtime. Once they get into field goal range, they send in the kicker.

If the 1958 Colts had a modern kicker and used modern strategies, the game wouldn’t have ended with Ameche’s touchdown. It would have ended once the Colts got down to the 20-yard line, with Johnny Unitas taking a knee in the middle of the field on first down and the game-winning field goal on second down.

If you believe the 1958 game truly was the greatest game ever played, you’re suggesting that games are more exciting when they end with touchdowns than with field goals. Yesterday’s vote was a step in that direction.

Permalink 72 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
72 Responses to “Wilf invokes 1958 championship game in vote against overtime”
  1. JoeSixPack says: Mar 24, 2010 12:28 PM

    Wilfy… you lost me at “1958”

  2. jsdarkman says: Mar 24, 2010 12:33 PM

    Right. The playoffs have different rules now as it is: Playoffs, teams play until they win; regular season, if no one scores in OT, game ends in a tie.
    cc. D. McNabb

  3. D.R.Universal says: Mar 24, 2010 12:34 PM

    People act like the teams dont play 60 minutes of football BEFORE overtime!
    Leave it the way it is…you get plenty of shots to outscore the other team during the regulation..
    Overtime should be first team to score wins…dont wanna hear the “fair” crap b/c again, you had 60 whole minutes to win the game. So WHY should you get another chance after you couldn’t stop the opposing team?
    This is part of the new era where even the 10th place finisher gets a trophy…lets just give everyone rings so no one feels bad ok? Or why not put all 32 teams in the playoffs to give everyone a “fair shot” at winning??
    STUPID….I bet if Lord Favre wasnt affected last year this wouldnt be a topic kinda like when the Colts WRs got bullied by the Pats, boom–next year the illegal contact rule comes in…or when Brady got hurt, boom–no hitting the QB anywhere
    The league is a trip..one of their “golden boys” gets affected and all hell breaks loose..we gotta change rules for them!
    No rule change for brothas with dreadlocks tho..thats still totally legal! Nice..

  4. DirtMcGirt24 says: Mar 24, 2010 12:35 PM

    And you’re an idiot.

  5. Jeff says: Mar 24, 2010 12:36 PM

    Why isn’t the headline to this article “Wilf Cries About 1958 Championship Game”?

  6. Cleric John Preston says: Mar 24, 2010 12:40 PM

    Great point, re, the greatest game ever played ending in a TD and not a field goal.
    Again, the problem with sudden death by FG is that modern kickers can kick 50 yarders with decent accuracy. Everything Rich McCay and the committee brought up statiscally is true.
    The new rule is complicated. Its sudden death by TD. Whoever scores a TD 1st is guaranteed to win.

  7. lebowski says: Mar 24, 2010 12:40 PM

    What do you expect from a guy named Ziggy.

  8. kr says: Mar 24, 2010 12:44 PM

    he’s not wrong that it’s ridiculous to have teams coaching to one set of rules and then adapt to a new strategy for the first time in the playoffs.
    and as for the argument of the casual fan watching the Super Bowl and being confused how it ended with only one team having a shot at the ball, just wait for their confusion when the new rules are explained to them, with all their contingencies

  9. Jess says: Mar 24, 2010 12:45 PM

    I believe it was the greatest game ever played..but not because it ended with a touchdown.
    (Disclaimer: I’m very opinionated with this overtime thing. I’m very much against it.) But it’s not like scoring a field goal is that easy to begin with. If that were the case, every team would score every time the offense had it. Especially last year, with all the kickers seeming to suck, (Kaeding) setting up at the 35 wasn’t a gimme.
    I wish my team would win it in regulation, but if they don’t, and lose in OT because the other team kicks a field goal, I’m not going to be anymore upset than I would be if they lost in regulation. FG’s are valid points, I’m not sure why they’re now cheapened to the touchdown in regards to Playoff (only) football.
    This whole, give everyone a shot at winning seems so sissified and pop-warnerish, it makes sick.

  10. Taxlaw26 says: Mar 24, 2010 12:45 PM

    MDS –
    He didn’t say he had fond memories of the 1958 season and subsequent overtime championship game. He said he had fond memories of the championship game, which indeed had the “true sudden-death overtime.” And he is correct in his assessment that people remember those things. When either team can win on any given play it heightens the experience. That is now gone.
    Further, you’re putting words in his mouth when you extrapolate the thought that he’s saying the 1958 game was only the greatest because it ended in a touchdown. Nonsense, he states that nowhere. You’re doing this to promote the only ‘advantage’ of the new rule you support, which is it will create more OT TDs.

  11. jd says: Mar 24, 2010 12:47 PM

    The new rule also wouldn’t apply to the 1958 game because THEY SCORED A TOUCHDOWN.

  12. CaptainFantastik says: Mar 24, 2010 12:47 PM

    Wilf is a moron. Using a game from 1958 regarding an issue that pertains to 2010…..a time when the NFL rulebook heavily skews in the offense’s favor. I can think of two notable playoff games the last 2 seasons where debatable calls on the field in OT were an advantage for the offense in driving into scoring position for the win: The Chargers/Colts game of 08/09 and the Saints/Vikes game of 09/10.
    A game played in 1958 does not apply in hte least.

  13. CaptainMarvel says: Mar 24, 2010 12:54 PM

    Wilf just doesn’t want to seem like he has sour grapes over the way the Vikings/Saints game ended. Maybe he was promised something this year, like favorable officiating to make up for the Katrina Payback overtime officiating.

  14. Tim Tebow's Prayers says: Mar 24, 2010 1:01 PM

    The 1958 championship game! Of course!

  15. Bubby Brister says: Mar 24, 2010 1:03 PM

    You knocked this one out of the park, Florio. As with everything else you’ve written on this topic. Good work.

  16. gyldenlove says: Mar 24, 2010 1:04 PM

    There already are different OT rules for playoffs compared to regular season, just ask Donovan Mcnabb. A regular season game ends after 15 minutes of overtime if no team has scored, a playoff game doesn’t.
    Wilf you are a moron and your team is a fail.

  17. DCViking says: Mar 24, 2010 1:05 PM

    @lebowski –
    That’s Zygmund to you!

  18. Jeff says: Mar 24, 2010 1:06 PM

    Maybe he was promised something this year, like favorable officiating to make up for the Katrina Payback overtime officiating.
    ________________________________
    Dude, seek psychiatric help, please. You really think this game was “payback” for a hurricane. Do you know how stupid you sound.
    And you do realize that that 12 people in the huddle call right before Favre’s INT was the freaking SECOND penalty of the game called on the Vikings? The second? Are you freaking kidding me? Yeah–the refs cheated for the Saints. That’s why the Vikings were penalized twice in regulation.

  19. NoKoolaidCowboy says: Mar 24, 2010 1:07 PM

    I thought a Wilf was a Wife I’d Like to….oh, nevermind.

  20. Hauschild says: Mar 24, 2010 1:16 PM

    Let’s see if I can get this straight….
    Wilf does not want the overtime rules modified, yet Florio does. As a result and according to Florio, this makes Wilf’s argument nonsensical and flawed; if for no other reason than Wilf’s beliefs differ from Florio’s.
    Typical arguments you run into nowadays – bereft of sound reasoning and facts, but full of hot air and BS.

  21. Chris Tencha says: Mar 24, 2010 1:33 PM

    I’m surprised at the amount of fans reducing the new overtime rules to “little league’ rules or handing out trophies to everybody. If you feel this way then it must piss you off that each team gets a possession at the start of each half. In your case the team that had the ball at the end of the first half should continue to have ball at the start of the second half.

  22. LarryBird18 says: Mar 24, 2010 1:34 PM

    I feel sorry for the crap lousy loser who spent minutes of his life critiquing and nit pickin an owners comments in passing?
    wow, grade a journalism here.
    compelling and rich

  23. hizzle1281 says: Mar 24, 2010 1:34 PM

    NoKoolaidCowby-
    hahaha comment of the week

  24. lifelongphinfan says: Mar 24, 2010 1:34 PM

    i’m glad they changed it it’s a good thing for the game.and i’m really sick of hearing that this is all about favre from so many uninformed posters on this site, i dont claim to be an nfl guru but i know that sudden death has been a topic for fans for a very long time and brett farve is not the reason for this change, and why would he be? all he would do is throw the game winning interception to the other side anyway. this subject was brought up by fans & players before favre even came into the nfl in 91′ so please stop giving the nfl’s all time interception king credit for this rules change, the nfl knows he’d blow it in ot just like he does in regulation
    for a fact that this overtime change i’m 100 perce

  25. daskcool says: Mar 24, 2010 1:37 PM

    Giving each team one possession before sudden death kicks in makes sense in light of the rule changes that have taken place over the years. The rules have been severely skewed to favor the offense. So much so that it isnt’ fair to compare the records set by Manning etc to those of the old era. Giving each team the chance to play offense in overtime makes sense from this standpoint.

  26. genelb says: Mar 24, 2010 1:43 PM

    The overtime rule for football is just stupid. At all levels. High School, College and the NFL. It should be like basketball. If there is a tie at the end of regulation, put 15 min on the game clock and whoever has the most points at the end of the 15 minutes wins… SIMPLE … and go to Double and Triple OT if necessary.. that way McNabb isn’t confused and everyone is happy!! And keep the kickoffs in the game. 2 timeouts per overtime that don’t overlap and booth reviews all the challenges.

  27. Wiscdave says: Mar 24, 2010 1:43 PM

    Does Florio have some rule that each and every post about the Vikings has to make the team look bad. Wilf’s comments were made in the context of the vote to change the overtime rule for the playoffs. He voted against the rule change because he thinks true sudden death is more entertaining for the fans. The 1958 championship game is the example he used–it’s called the greatest game ever played in part because of the drama of sudden-death overtime (Wilf was a long-time Giants fan, with season tickets). He will now vote to extend the change to the regular season for the sake of consistency. He didn’t cite the 1958 game as a reason for his position on the second vote. Is that so hard to understand?

  28. AboutFootball says: Mar 24, 2010 2:04 PM

    @Hauschild… I don’t see where this is a case of criticism because Florio’s beliefs differ from Wilf’s. I think Florio has a good point that Wilf’s reasoning is flawed. Under the rule that was passed this week, the 1958 game would have ended exactly as it did… with Ameche’s touchdown. And Wilf is complaining about the rule not being consistent with the regular season when the rule was not consistent in 1958 either since there was no overtime during the regular season back then.
    With those points clearly being made, I fail to see how you came to the conclusion that the argument was “bereft of sound reasoning and facts”. If any argument was lacking sound reasoning, it was Wilf’s. And that’s the whole point of the article.

  29. AboutFootball says: Mar 24, 2010 2:09 PM

    A lot of people seem to be missing the point of this rule change. It has nothing to do with any team in particular. It has to do with what is fair for both teams in overtime, and statistics show that since the league moved the kickoff back to promote more returns, the team to receive the opening kick in overtime wins 60% of the time and that advantage is simply unacceptable. Maybe you don’t feel this is the ideal solution, but something had to be done. I can only hope they expand the rule to include the regular season.

  30. vikesscsu says: Mar 24, 2010 2:14 PM

    lifelongphinfan,
    thank you, everyone’s idea that this is all about “lord favre” is acting like he is the only one who has ever been affected by stupid overtime rules

  31. AllThat says: Mar 24, 2010 2:18 PM

    Somebody has to win a playoff game right. You are reading him wrong on his interpretation.
    I think he knew that 4 quarters and a tie score is a tie on your record in 1958.
    They should have left it alone——Period

  32. chickenragnar says: Mar 24, 2010 2:18 PM

    CaptainFantastik says:
    March 24, 2010 12:47 PM
    Wilf is a moron. Using a game from 1958 regarding an issue that pertains to 2010…..a time when the NFL rulebook heavily skews in the offense’s favor. I can think of two notable playoff games the last 2 seasons where debatable calls on the field in OT were an advantage for the offense in driving into scoring position for the win: The Chargers/Colts game of 08/09 and the Saints/Vikes game of 09/10.
    A game played in 1958 does not apply in hte least.
    ==================================
    Exactly Capt. That is what I’ve been telling you Packer fans about the 1966,67 and 1996 Super Bowls!!!!!
    Using games from 14-44 years ago whilst talking about present day(2009-2010) teams does not apply in the least.
    Or, are you going to be hypocritical about it?

  33. KC_Snakebyte says: Mar 24, 2010 2:49 PM

    This new rule is not exactly “sudden death by TD”. The game will actually end if a Safety is scored. Not exactly a TD needs to be scored to win as someone earlier stated.
    Your defense can actually come in, do their job and possibly win the game.

  34. Other Bears says: Mar 24, 2010 2:57 PM

    I still can’t believe no one has addressed the possibility of a safety on the first drive and what that would mean. Although – that would make it more likely to happen, so I guess it’s cool!

  35. AllThat says: Mar 24, 2010 3:12 PM

    how many playoff OT games have there been?

  36. Supersuckers says: Mar 24, 2010 3:25 PM

    fans of teams that have won 12 world championships like CaptainAmerica here get to have their voice hears a little louder then, well….you know..

  37. MyNo.1Fan says: Mar 24, 2010 3:38 PM

    This years Super Bowl Champion played a overtime game against the Washington Redskins this past year where the Saints tried to get a TD during OT, couldn’t and settled for a game winning field goal. I am so sick of this OT situation. The rules were just fine the way they were! Alas, it’ll never be again…

  38. CanadianVikingFan says: Mar 24, 2010 3:45 PM

    We all know Wilf isn’t the smartest in regards to football, but you have to hand it to him, he picks a pretty good staff. Yes, even Chilly. The guy has improved the team each year by two games reg. season and 1 game post season. Not to mention the players brought on board and drafted.

  39. Ambrose says: Mar 24, 2010 3:52 PM

    chickenragnar says:
    March 24, 2010 2:18 PM
    Using games from 14-44 years ago whilst talking about present day(2009-2010) teams does not apply in the least.
    _________________________________
    I agree that bragging about championships from long ago doesn’t (at least) do the young fans any good. But the old bragging points are a feather in the cap of PackerNation, as opposed to the kicks-in-the-nuts the Viking fans continue to have. You’d have it be the other way around in a heartbeat, if you could. But it is much easier to simply say it doesn’t matter, right? Doesn’t matter to you…because you don’t have a choice.

  40. Supersuckers says: Mar 24, 2010 3:57 PM

    HEARD that is. before I get called on it.

  41. Wonderlic__myballs says: Mar 24, 2010 4:54 PM

    Supersuckers- Dinosaur era championships mean nothing to anyone but losers!
    Ambrose- PackerNation! LMAO Only real tools call themselves Nation. You are a Packer fan though,so makes perfect sense! Carry on…

  42. rcunningham says: Mar 24, 2010 5:12 PM

    The people scoffing about the 1958 Championship game are idiots.
    Have you people never heard of the Greatest Game Ever Played? Learn some football history before you start spewing crap.

  43. sand0 says: Mar 24, 2010 5:32 PM

    Wilf did pick an odd example seeing as though that game ended in an overtime TD. Furthermore that finish would have been even better under the new rule. If the guy fails to get in from the 1 in the old rules you still had a 95% chance to hit the field goal and win. Under new rules that 1 yard TD would have meant not giving the other team a chance to beat you.
    But Florio saying Wilf’s point is that games are best when they end in a TD is beyond retarded. I don’t see how he comes up with that.
    The rule is convuluted but the more I think about it the more I warm up to it. You are still going to have a game that is decided on the last play. It will still be a thrilling finish no matter what. And you eliminate the chance of a team like the Vikings losing in OT due to bad officiating.
    The Vikings made a 4th down stop and a stop on 3rd and long and both were negated by very poor officiating. Not that the rest of the game was much different. And it isn’t to say the refs wouldn’t have just started tossing phantom holding flags on the ensuing drive. But at least they would have had a chance.

  44. JimmySmith says: Mar 24, 2010 5:35 PM

    Wilf is not to bright but I am with him on this one. The change in the rules will come a year too late to help the Vikings but no worries, they will find a new way to choke and lose a championship game, they always do.

  45. Ambrose says: Mar 24, 2010 5:51 PM

    Wonderlic__myballs says:
    March 24, 2010 4:54 PM
    Ambrose- PackerNation! LMAO Only real tools call themselves Nation. You are a Packer fan though,so makes perfect sense! Carry on…
    _________________________________
    You mean like this?
    http://thevikingnation.proboards.com/index.cgi

  46. chickenragnar says: Mar 24, 2010 6:15 PM

    Supersuckers says:
    March 24, 2010 3:25 PM
    fans of teams that have won 12 world championships like CaptainAmerica here get to have their voice hears a little louder then, well….you know..
    =================================
    Dumbest argument by you yet. And that is saying alot.
    Absolute turd of a post by an absolute turd of a poster.
    ============Ambrose says:
    March 24, 2010 3:52 PM
    chickenragnar says:
    March 24, 2010 2:18 PM
    Using games from 14-44 years ago whilst talking about present day(2009-2010) teams does not apply in the least.
    _________________________________
    I agree that bragging about championships from long ago doesn’t (at least) do the young fans any good. But the old bragging points are a feather in the cap of PackerNation, as opposed to the kicks-in-the-nuts the Viking fans continue to have. You’d have it be the other way around in a heartbeat, if you could. But it is much easier to simply say it doesn’t matter, right? Doesn’t matter to you…because you don’t have a choice.
    ======================
    No turd, it doesn’t matter.
    As I have posted before.
    This is like a Twins fan bragging about how many WS trophies they have. Twins 3 ( 1 as Senators) Brewers 0. It simply just doesn’t happen. Hell the Cubs have 2.
    They don’t do it, because it’s an asinine argument.
    For the Twins, 87 and 91 are years past. What’s it have to do with 2010?
    that “argument” and the Vikes to LA is all you have. It’s pathetic.

  47. Wonderlic__myballs says: Mar 24, 2010 6:27 PM

    I don’t know anyone who approves of that site Pembro, like I said…tools

  48. Beer Cheese Soup says: Mar 24, 2010 7:29 PM

    Wonderlic__myballs says:
    Supersuckers- Dinosaur era championships mean nothing to anyone but losers!
    Ambrose- PackerNation! LMAO Only real tools call themselves Nation. You are a Packer fan though,so makes perfect sense! Carry on…
    ____________________________________
    “Losers” Are the ones who don’t have ANY championships. We’d rather have some recent ones too, but we’ll happily take our ancient ones over none whatsoever.
    We of the Nation seem to all be tools then. I can live with that, but you have to see the irony in us being called that by a member of the fanbase known as Purple Pride..
    “The Greatest Game ever Played” hasn’t been that in quite a while. The Ice Bowl, the Snow Plow game, last year’s NFCCG, and At least four Super Bowls have beaten it.
    I understand it was probably one of Wilf’s fondest memories, being the hardcore Giants fan that he is. However, though I agree with him that the rule should never have been changed, it seems to me he could have provided some better reasoning.

  49. Beer Cheese Soup says: Mar 24, 2010 7:37 PM

    sand0 says:
    ..And you eliminate the chance of a team like the Vikings losing in OT due to bad officiating.
    The Vikings made a 4th down stop and a stop on 3rd and long and both were negated by very poor officiating. Not that the rest of the game was much different. And it isn’t to say the refs wouldn’t have just started tossing phantom holding flags on the ensuing drive. But at least they would have had a chance.
    ____________________________________
    How long are you gonna keep whining about that? The refs didn’t send twelve men on the field, and the refs didn’t put the ball on the ground five times.
    You lost. We lost too, but I’m not crying about it. It’s over now. It’s a new season, with a whole new set of disappointments for you. You need to let it go.

  50. sand0 says: Mar 25, 2010 8:21 AM

    Beer Cheese,
    This may come to a shock to you, but some people actually make posts that have to do with the actual article. Packer fans just go to Vikes threads, because secretly you admire us apparently, and post the same juvenile insults over and over. Like animals in a zoo, your fans are capable of only making the same noise over and over.
    My team, the Vikings, played an even regulation with the Saints. While my team made more good plays, it also made more bad plays. End of regulation, tied. Vikes on the road, underdogs, in a hostile environment. All things considered, not so bad. Hey, we’re at least still in it. Coming into the game there was serious concern about the Saints overwhelming us. After all, they were the best team in the NFL overall.
    Then comes OT. Bad officiating. Officials later admit to the bad PI call and give a really bad excuse for not respotting the ball on 4th down. They admit the ball was temporarily loose but say they couldn’t be exactly sure where to spot it, even though it was obvious that the true spot was behind the sticks.
    The league didn’t like this. The super bowl was decided by bad officiating when the teams couldn’t out do each other in reg. So, in response, they change a really old rule. That rule doesn’t get changed if the Saints don’t get those calls in OT.
    So here I come, Vikings fan, and make a comment about the heart of this thread. Then here comes moron fan of other team, that’s you, criticizing me for it. The irony. A packer fan posting in another team’s thread about a fan “whining” about the last game his team played. The same fan that bases 75% of his posts on crap that did or didn’t happen years ago. A packer fan basically accusing me of not letting go of the past, when the past is the last game we played and the subject of the thread. Idiot.
    All you Packer fans do is post the same simple juvenile insults over and over. It is sad. Your fans don’t deserve a winning team.

  51. salmen76 says: Mar 25, 2010 9:16 AM

    Mike Smith, you are a retard……in fact, you insult the integrity of PFT…..that’s not what he was trying to say….you’re just jealous that he’s a rich and successful man and you are a pee-on writer for PFT……he was trying to say that now, under the new OT rules, the end of the game will not always involve the climatic finish of a team “Scoring”……example: If a team wins the toss, goes down and gets a field goal, then kicks off to “Favre on the Ground”, and Favre throws and incomplete pass on 4th down, thats how the game ends,,,,,,with some goober dropping a pass….thats very anticlmatic compared to an OT game always ending with a “Score”…..in an effort to be “Fair” (since when is life fair, fair is boring that’s why we always loved the NFL) they have now taken away the explosive finish winning with a score brings……PFT please fire this goober…..Mike, are you a “Favre on the ground fan?…..ha ha……i laugh in your pathetic face…..guess what Mike, the Saints are still Champs…….get over it…..

  52. Ambrose says: Mar 25, 2010 9:58 AM

    chickenragnar says:
    March 24, 2010 6:15 PM
    This is like a Twins fan bragging about how many WS trophies they have. Twins 3 ( 1 as Senators) Brewers 0. It simply just doesn’t happen. Hell the Cubs have 2.
    They don’t do it, because it’s an asinine argument.
    For the Twins, 87 and 91 are years past. What’s it have to do with 2010
    __________________________________
    Number one…I think you have confused this site for ProBaseballTalk.com. Number two…you have no choice but to proclaim that old championships (in football) do not matter. You don’t have any.

  53. Supersuckers says: Mar 25, 2010 10:10 AM

    sando if favre just runs for the five yards instead of making one of the DUMBEST plays in the history of sports your points are all irrelevant.

  54. Supersuckers says: Mar 25, 2010 10:27 AM

    “salmen76 says:
    March 25, 2010 9:16 AM
    Mike Smith, you are a retard……in fact, you insult the integrity of PFT”
    —-
    Integrity? LOL

  55. chickenragnar says: Mar 25, 2010 10:44 AM

    Supersuckers says:
    March 25, 2010 10:10 AM
    sando if favre just runs for the five yards instead of making one of the DUMBEST plays in the history of sports your points are all irrelevant
    ==================================
    Aren’t you the one who always talks about “field level”? How the fans don’t see what the players and coaches do? How you watch the coaches tapes?
    How do you even know what favre saw?
    How do you know that he wasn’t so beat up, he couldn’t run?
    You know, even had the guy led the Vikes to a SB victory, you guys would have found some reason to bash him or the Vikings.
    I’m sure it would have been something like ” it took a Packer to show you how to do it”
    Conveintly forgetting that Favre was a Falcon before he was a Packer.
    WHo cares, that “argument” is a childish one and it’s to be expected from a Packer fan.
    ==================================
    Ambrose says:
    March 25, 2010 9:58 AM
    chickenragnar says:
    March 24, 2010 6:15 PM
    This is like a Twins fan bragging about how many WS trophies they have. Twins 3 ( 1 as Senators) Brewers 0. It simply just doesn’t happen. Hell the Cubs have 2.
    They don’t do it, because it’s an asinine argument.
    For the Twins, 87 and 91 are years past. What’s it have to do with 2010
    __________________________________
    Number one…I think you have confused this site for ProBaseballTalk.com. Number two…you have no choice but to proclaim that old championships (in football) do not matter. You don’t have any.
    ——————————————-
    Turd:
    I was using it as a comparison. (twins/Brewers)
    Number 2. I say old Champs do not matter because it has nothing to do with the present day teams.
    It’s an asinine argument, but then, I’ve come to expect that out of you.
    Good for you, your team won 11 titles between 1921 and 1967. feel better?
    I’m sure rodgers and CO. do after getting beat.
    Hey at least we have thos 12 titles in the case that we had absolutely nothing to do with!
    Sure as death and taxes, if the Packer is even slighty worse than the Vikes we have to hear about the past.
    Flame on Ambrose, flame on!

  56. Supersuckers says: Mar 25, 2010 11:03 AM

    Chicken,
    favre said himself without looking at film after the game that he “probably should have ran” Also, LOL, HE WAS RUNNING WHEN HE THREW THE BALL! So that debunks the “he was so beat up he couldnt run. Ill send a copy of the play to show you if you have forgotten that the man was running out of the pocket to his right. he didnt have to go any faster then he was.

  57. Ambrose says: Mar 25, 2010 11:42 AM

    chickenragnar says:
    March 25, 2010 10:44 AM
    I say old Champs do not matter because it has nothing to do with the present day teams.
    Flame on Ambrose, flame on.
    ___________________________________
    I know what you are TRYING to say, but it doesn’t make any sense. Can you honestly expect anyone (NFL football fan) to agree that the Steelers should not be proud of having more SuperBowl trophies than any other team, surpassing Dallas and San Francisco? They should only trumpet their pride for the 2006 and 2008 trophies, but not the 1980 that Bradshaw brought home, because it is “too old?” What are you…nuts?
    Flame out Chickenhead, flame out.

  58. chickenragnar says: Mar 25, 2010 11:57 AM

    Not what I am saying at all.
    Be proud of them, hell have sex with them if you want to.
    You should be proud.
    But, when it comes to talking about the 2009 or 2010 teams, what does it have to do with the conversation, really? Nothing at all.
    So, when we are talking about present day teams, the 12 title argument is meaningless….correct?
    =================================
    Supersuckers says:
    March 25, 2010 11:03 AM
    Chicken,
    favre said himself without looking at film after the game that he “probably should have ran” Also, LOL, HE WAS RUNNING WHEN HE THREW THE BALL! So that debunks the “he was so beat up he couldnt run. Ill send a copy of the play to show you if you have forgotten that the man was running out of the pocket to his right. he didnt have to go any faster then he was.
    ———————————————
    Huge difference between “running” on a rollout and running full speed for a 1st down.. you forget, the penalty put him in that position.
    No comment about the field level part of my post, go figure. You ignore what you have no defense for.
    Whatever it takes for you to blame the game all on Favre.
    It’s what turds like you do, because you cannot get over the fact that he is gone.
    If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t continually beat this horse to death.

  59. Supersuckers says: Mar 25, 2010 12:28 PM

    “No comment about the field level part of my post, go figure. You ignore what you have no defense for.
    Whatever it takes for you to blame the game all on Favre.
    It’s what turds like you do, because you cannot get over the fact that he is gone.
    If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t continually beat this horse to death.”
    ——-
    I did address the field level part by saying Favre himself said he should have ran during his post game press conference BEFORE he even looked at the play on tape. Couldn’t be happier he is not a Green Bay Packer any longer. We have our QB at work during the off season. favre is Minnys problem now.
    Ill send you the play on your yahoo.. he was running pretty much full speed.

  60. sand0 says: Mar 25, 2010 1:58 PM

    supersuckers and other various idiotic fans of other teams,
    This thread and my comments are about the topic at hand. About how officials decided the OT of a playoff game and admitted later that the calls were wrong. This led to a very old rule being changed.
    Your comment that if Favre runs and we win in regulation makes my “points” moot? Are you litterally f’ing retarded!? If the Vikes or Saints win in regulation then the refs never botch OT and this rule isn’t passed and we aren’t here discussing it here.
    All you idiots do is constantly hurl the same boring and tired insults regardless of the topic or the thread or reality. You are so damn delusional that you think every thread and every topic is about how “Favre single handedly lost the game” or how the Vikings franchise is the worst in the history of earth.
    Yeah, we get it. Your little bung holes are sore from last season and this is how you lash back. I shouldn’t expect anyone with half a brain to be trolling Vikings threads anyways so maybe it is just stupid of me to even point out how idiotic your logic and arguments are. If you had the sense to make a decent argument you would, like me, have the sense to just follow your own team in the offseason.
    Why are you reading and posting comments here again? Are you a closet Vikes fan because it sure seems like it.

  61. sand0 says: Mar 25, 2010 2:00 PM

    Ambrose,
    Sure the Steelers and Patriots and teams like that should be proud of their recent super bowl triumphs.
    Likewise teams like the Packers and Vikings with less than the average number of trophies in the last 40 seasons should not be proud of it. You are absolutley correct.

  62. Supersuckers says: Mar 25, 2010 2:57 PM

    Likewise teams like the Packers and Vikings with less than the average number of trophies in the last 40 seasons should not be proud of it. You are absolutley correct.
    ————–
    We got one!!!! Yep we did!

  63. RickyRudy says: Mar 25, 2010 3:19 PM

    It bothers me when people say that a team’s fan or co-owner in my case cannot enjoy championships of the past. As a proud Green Bay Packer shareholder I take great pride in our record 12 NFL Champiionships.

  64. sand0 says: Mar 25, 2010 4:40 PM

    Brett came here. It was glorious. We won. Two years in a row. Better luck next time.
    Why you Packer fans must continually come to Vikings threads to “brag” about stuff I will never understand. Maybe I’m just not pathetic enough.
    Seriously, are there Vikings losers that are currently doing this crap in your threads? I actually went and checked quick and didn’t see much of it going on at all.
    Are you guys really that much more pathetic than us or is it just because your team got dominated last season? Please verify which.

  65. Supersuckers says: Mar 25, 2010 4:58 PM

    You have some that provoke us.

  66. Ambrose says: Mar 25, 2010 5:21 PM

    sand0 says:
    March 25, 2010 4:40 PM
    Seriously, are there Vikings losers that are currently doing this crap in your threads? I actually went and checked quick and didn’t see much of it going on at all.
    __________________________________
    When you looked, there must not have been enough subject matter on the Packer thread to elicit the (virtually) same reactions you are dismissing (above.) People don’t want to admit it, but when it comes to flinging vitriol back-and-forth, the people, environments, teams, stats, comments, insults, etc.,, etc., etc., are all virtual clones of each other…..in both directions. It does get tiresome.

  67. Pervy Harvin says: Mar 25, 2010 6:48 PM

    Ambrose- Do you need a hug son?

  68. PervySharstainharvin says: Mar 25, 2010 7:09 PM

    Pervy Harvin is a dope.

  69. chickenragnar says: Mar 25, 2010 8:08 PM

    RickyRudy says:
    March 25, 2010 3:19 PM
    It bothers me when people say that a team’s fan or co-owner in my case cannot enjoy championships of the past. As a proud Green Bay Packer shareholder I take great pride in our record 12 NFL Champiionships.
    ================================
    RickyRudy = Supersuckers
    How transparent.

  70. Beer Cheese Soup says: Mar 25, 2010 8:12 PM

    Ambrose says:
    chickenragnar
    Number one…I think you have confused this site for ProBaseballTalk.com. Number two…you have no choice but to proclaim that old championships (in football) do not matter. You don’t have any.
    ____________________________________
    EXACTLY. I don’t often agree with you, but you nailed that one.
    Every team that has ever won a championship, regardless of when it was won, uses that to rag on teams that don’t.
    We’re not anywhere near the only ones that do this. We’re just the ones that do it to the poor forlorn victim Vikings fans, so we get called out for it more often. That’s all.
    Ambrose says:
    People don’t want to admit it, but when it comes to flinging vitriol back-and-forth, the people, environments, teams, stats, comments, insults, etc.,, etc., etc., are all virtual clones of each other…..in both directions. It does get tiresome.
    ___________________________________
    Tiresome? That’s what this site is about. If you wanted peace, love, and insult-free discussion, you came to the wrong place.
    PervySharstainharvin says:
    Pervy Harvin is a dope.
    ___________________________________
    …and in related news, the sky is blue, ice is cold, Dungy is a racist and a number of bears have allegedly been seen sh*tting in the woods.
    The real question is: who’s a bigger moron: Pervy himself, or the douche who names himself after him and makes his every single post about him??

  71. PervySharstainharvin says: Mar 26, 2010 7:37 AM

    Watch this….Beer Cheese Soup is a dope.
    ha

  72. chickenragnar says: Mar 26, 2010 8:44 AM

    Beer:
    Shartstain = RossSweetminus?(whatever that is)
    Shartstain= Favre’sSweethair.
    A moron under 3 screen names.
    As for the titles ragging? It’s lame.
    It’s the last line of defense for a person with no further argument.
    What you had a better record? How many titles you have?
    What you spanked the Pack twice? How many 45 year old titles do you have?
    It’s a ridiculous argument. Stop and think about it.
    I know Steelers and Cowboy fans do it. And Saints fans of all people do it, that doesn’t excuse the fact that it i a witless argument.
    If you are using that line of defense, you are not only losing the argument, you’ve lost the battle and the war.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!