Uhhhh, truthserum4…….The Vikings have been irrelevant for 47 years, if you question that all you have to do it look at their trophy case. Of course, I suppose you would need to have a trophy case to look at.

——————————–

Clearly you don’t have any clue as to the meaning of relevancy if you think it only means championships.

But okay, let’s play your game.

Using your definition then, the Packers (with only 13 championships) have been irrelevant for 78 years!! 78 freaking years getsome!

I only had them down for 27, but hey, thanks for enlightening me. I didn’t realize they were that pathetic.

This whole trophy case thing is a deep-seated defense mechanism present in nearly all long-time Packer fans. It stems from watching a once-proud franchise finish season after season in the bottom of the standings, for nearly a quarter century, while the Vikings fought it out with Dallas to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl every year. Even when Green Bay started to field a competent team again in the 90′s, there were the Vikings, once again, to snatch the division crown off their heads and replace them as the most feared North team, and as the Packers were wasting pick after pick on failed CBs to try to catch up to the Vikings again, all their fans could say was “trophy case”. Eventually, they came to realize that they needed to tear it all down and start all over again if they wanted any hope of once again being a better team than their western rivals. Now, congratulations, you can once again say “trophy case”, but that doesn’t change the fact that all this hatred stems from a period of time where the packers were well and truly irrelevant on the NFL landscape, and the Vikings were annual playoff contenders.

Now, let’s move on to your definition of “relevant”. If I understand you right, the only “relevant” team in any given year would be the one that won the previous year’s championship. After all, isn’t that what your relevance by trophy case argument means? So, if we assume that the Packers don’t win the Super Bowl this year, that would mean that they are just as irrelevant as the Vikings for the 2012 season, correct?

Would you like to revise your definition of relevance yet?

As a side note…. If you, or any of your compadres over there, are also baseball fans, let me put this out to you. If the quantity of a team’s past championships is the measure of their superiority, than I would have to say that the Pittsburg Pirates are a better team than the Milwaukee Brewers, despite the fact that the Pirates stretch of irrelevancy nearly matches that of the post-Lombardi Packers.

K, phantomstranger, i misunderstood the chiefs comment, what does it mean?
_________

It was axespray who said the Vikings lost to the vaunted chiefs. He was responding to my comment in a very odd way.

I assume you’re a Packer fan because you’re stupid. Who have the Packers played? Saints (4-1), Panthers (1-4), Bears (2-2), Broncos (1-4), and Falcons (2-3). Combined record of 10-14.”

FYI- if the Packers were 1-4, they’re opponents would have a combined record of 14-10 also.
____________

Okay, throw out the wins and losses opponents had against our teams. Vikings opponents are 11-9. Packers opponents are 10-10. The point is, the Vikings haven’t had an easy schedule so the guy who said Allen has a lot of sacks because of the Vikings’ easy schedule is wrong. He had three sacks against the Lions.

So they were relevant as an expansion team for 3 seasons at 10-30, but through the next 423 wins and 45 playoff games, they have been irrelevant? Yeah, that makes sense.

Tell, me, what “relevant” team do you cheer for?

K, phantomstranger, i misunderstood the chiefs comment, what does it mean?

He plays for the Vikings…..are they still in the league? Really, who cares what is going on up there inside their tent? They are irrelevant.

————————————–

But not as irrelevant as the Packers were for over a quarter century. Another 26 years of this and Viking fans will need to talk to Packer fans to get advice on how to deal with it.

I assume you’re a Packer fan because you’re stupid. Who have the Packers played? Saints (4-1), Panthers (1-4), Bears (2-2), Broncos (1-4), and Falcons (2-3). Combined record of 10-14.”

FYI- if the Packers were 1-4, they’re opponents would have a combined record of 14-10 also.

Yeah, it’s possible MDS….have you considered a career promoting the lotto?

I would argue, that Allen, is the 1st player you choose to start any new franchise. Manning, may be the only exception, but I can not think of anyone who makes a bigger difference on their team, than Jared. I know we couldn’t believe he got traded, by Herm.. I mean, Germ EdTurds

Not to take away from what Allen’s done so far because he’s putting up some serious numbers, but it’s hard to see the Vikings continuing to get these huge leads and giving him all the more opportunities to rush the QB.
________________

He gets most of them in the first half. You know, when the Vikings are playing well? He had one in each half on Sunday.

Not to take away from what Allen’s done so far because he’s putting up some serious numbers, but it’s hard to see the Vikings continuing to get these huge leads and giving him all the more opportunities to rush the QB.

Who lost to the vaunted chiefs again?
——————————————————–
if you wanna go blowing your horn over beating us, ur an idiot, almost anyone can beat us, no great feat there!!….and a side note, its NOT jared allen losing games for us, its a god awful qb