Which team has the brighter future? The Vikings or the Packers

[handicappers]

Honestly, the Vikings have the better coaching staff, better defense, better RB's, and a better o-line. I'm being a homer here but honestly it's very rational. What say all you guys?

False

 

[Ojb81]

Whoa whoa whoa the Broncos were the defending Super Bowl Champs and had gone 14-2 that season. Not like they were some slouch team that just got hot at the right time. I mean they did beat the the Falcons on neutral grounds when the Falcons beat you guys at home and we won by 2 touchdowns.

I've always been of the opinion that, had Minnesota not choked away that NFCCG, they'd have beaten Denver in the SB. Oh well, of course we'll never know for sure, but I think they'd have taken Denver out

 

[Ojb81]

Green Bay has had the brighter future since the 90's...this shall continue

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

I highly doubt that Bridgewater will ever equate to Rodgers' level... So the easy answer is GB.

 

[cdumler7]

I've always been of the opinion that, had Minnesota not choked away that NFCCG, they'd have beaten Denver in the SB. Oh well, of course we'll never know for sure, but I think they'd have taken Denver out

Well all we know for sure right now is that Denver beat the team that beat the Vikings by 15 points. The NFL is an any given week so maybe if Minnesota survives the NFC Championship game they pull it together in the Super Bowl and beat the Broncos but like you said we will never know. At the end of the year the Broncos were the last team standing and to me that makes them the best team of the 1998 season.

 

[jarntt]

Green Bay. Not close. Maybe revisit this topic when Rodgers retires...

 

[Fountain City Blues]

It's still Green Bay- don't kid yourself.

 

[Ojb81]

Well all we know for sure right now is that Denver beat the team that beat the Vikings by 15 points. The NFL is an any given week so maybe if Minnesota survives the NFC Championship game they pull it together in the Super Bowl and beat the Broncos but like you said we will never know. At the end of the year the Broncos were the last team standing and to me that makes them the best team of the 1998 season.

This is true, and I agree, the Broncos were the best team that season, they earned that moniker

 

[tducey]

Vikings.

 

[old1r1sh]

IMO the Vikings have a brighter future than the Packers, but there's nothing but "ifs" when talking about that. Their defense is better than the Packers'. They have a young nucleus of guys with good potential. I like Teddy at QB. If they keep drafting well and building their defense, they could be serious contenders in a few years.

 

[night]

Honestly, the Vikings have the better coaching staff, better defense, better RB's, and a better o-line. I'm being a homer here but honestly it's very rational. What say all you guys?

Barring any injury to Rodgers it isn't a given Minnesota will continue to have those advantages on paper throughout his career.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Barring any injury to Rodgers it isn't a given Minnesota will continue to have those advantages on paper throughout his career.

Well if the Packers keep to only drafting, no trades, no FA then I could see the Vikings having a edge in adding talent.

 

[packerzrule]

Honestly, the Vikings have the better coaching staff, better defense, better RB's, and a better o-line. I'm being a homer here but honestly it's very rational. What say all you guys?

 

[SeizeTheCarp]

Honestly, the Vikings have the better coaching staff, better defense, better RB's, and a better o-line. I'm being a homer here but honestly it's very rational. What say all you guys?

1. The Vikings coaching staff hasn't won shit yet. Not even a wild card playoff game. It's hard to use any kind of logic to justify them being better.

2. AP has shown classic signs of "hitting the wall" at the end of the season last. His YPC were atrocious by his standards in six of his last eight games.

3. The Vikings O-line was considerably worse than the Packers last year. Maybe the two free agents they signed will help them catch up, and with the Packers having three starting O-linemen that will be free agent at the end of 2016, the Vikings may pass them in 2017, but not this year.

4. Statistically, the Packers and Vikings defenses were pretty comparable last year in almost every significant statistic, and the Packers have jsut as many young, up-and-coming players as the Vikings do.

Without any actual debate, the Packers will be the favored team until Rodgers retires. And by that time, both teams' rosters will be so different than what they are today, no one can make a claim either way at this time.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Honestly, the Vikings have the better coaching staff, better defense, better RB's, and a better o-line. I'm being a homer here but honestly it's very rational. What say all you guys?

Future as in the next 5 yrs...GB...as others have mentioned...Rodgers being the best QB in the league by most accounts, and at worst top 5 league wide at any position keeps the edge in GB's favor.

Vikings can be a dangerous team...they need to shore up more on DEF and need that playmaker outside...TB is a good young QB...playing the Alex Smith brand of football right now which is not bad football...but, to win in the playoffs, gotta be more aggressive driving the ball down field.

 

[jeffro151]

As long as #12 continues to suit up for GB, they will have the edge. Rodgers makes the entire offense better. Bridgewater has an adverse effect.

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

It's a QB league. You guys can figure out the rest. But I will note that I am enjoying watching GB hold Rodgers back from winning multiple SBs. GB's coaches suck and TT sucks bad. Rodgers is so good he keeps their jobs for them.

 

[SeizeTheCarp]

It's a QB league. You guys can figure out the rest. But I will note that I am enjoying watching GB hold Rodgers back from winning multiple SBs. GB's coaches suck and TT sucks bad. Rodgers is so good he keeps their jobs for them.

Since Rodgers started playing back in 2008; or even going back to 2005 when Aaron was drafted, Tom Brady has won the exact same number of Super Bowls as Aaron Rodgers. Sure the Patriots have lost two other Super Bowls in the time, but in those years, the Packers lost to the same team in the NFC Championship that beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl.

So is it safe to say that Belichick has regressed to the same coaching level as McCarthy and the Packers? Or does Belichick just not care as much since he won so many Super Bowls rings before that? Or could it be that, even being the best team in the NFL doesn't guarantee a ring, and that coaching, executing, and a certain amount of luck ALL factor into a Super Bowl win?

 

[fknhippie]

They got Rodgers, we don't....GB.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

IMO the Vikings have a brighter future than the Packers, but there's nothing but "ifs" when talking about that. Their defense is better than the Packers'. They have a young nucleus of guys with good potential. I like Teddy at QB. If they keep drafting well and building their defense, they could be serious contenders in a few years.

The more dangerous team is GB as long as Rodgers is still in his prime...future? I say at least 3-4 more yrs...MIN is the more complete team, and they do have young players on DEF that have star potential. It should be a battle every yr for the DIV...but, MIN is still missing pcs on both sides of the ball to make up the difference that Rodgers brings imo...slight edge to GB.

Think about the AFCN...BAL was able to compete with PIT b/c they built an elite level DEF to offset Ben..then when Flacco became decent...they became SB caliber...MIN doesn't have an elite DEF yet.