Darb33

I do remember watching Pitt. play MN in a preseason game last year and Mendenhall fumbled 2 times in that game. Maybe that is what people are referring to when they fumbles are an issue? Don't know.

I think you have to look at Marshall as a WR3 at best. Probably more like your 4th option. Just too many questions about not only him personally but his surroundings. New coach, quarterback etc.

So if the Bears aren't going to take the reigns off and let him do his thing then why acquire him? They just gave up 2 1st's and a 3rd as well as their current starting quarterback to bring in a guy like Cutler and tell him to play like Orton!?!? Catch a clue. Cutler is a great talent but until some pieces are put around him in Chicago this move doesn't do much for me. His best receiver is his tight end. Their wr core is mediocre at best. Offensive line isn't exactly top tier. And the defense is aging. Now add in the factor of the lost draft picks?? Sorry I don't see this as a playoff team in 2009.

But here is the problem with your argument. Your pinning the Chiefs hopes on Albert "hopefully becoming" a franchise LT. Allen is already a franchise DE. With the potential to be even greater. He has 57.5 sacks in 5 seasons thus far. He is 26 years old. Allen is on his way to HOF type numbers if he stays healthy. He is already great at a position that is hard to find greatness. Albert may or may not be great. But Allen is already there with at least 4-5 elite years of production left. How can you possibly say Allen has hit his ceiling? His first year in MN he has 14.5 sacks at that is his ceiling? Ummm ok.

I completely disagree with this comment. The Vikings had a huge hole at DE last year. They filled it with the previous season's sack leader who is still young and has plenty of good years left. What rookie could come in and have even half the impact Allen did this year? None. Not to mention what Allen has brought to the locker room. I feel he is already a team leader even after just one season. The Vikings win this trade big time. Like someone else said, certain positions are more valuable than others. A pass rushing DE is hard to find. The Vikes got one and gave up relatively very little imo. I agree they have no quarterback, but does that mean you ignore all other aspects of your team because you lack a qb? No.

I am not trying to acquire him, but in the league I do have him it would take alot. At least: 1 really high rookie pick OR 2 1st round rookie picks 1 top 10 player at either qb, rb or wr Nothing less.

I am sure the Vikings would trade Carolina TJoke for Delhomme.

So it's his fault they had 3 redzone turnovers? Give me a freakin break. The guy is one of the best coaches in the league. PERIOD.

The Vikings needs are: 1)QB. I say bring in a veteran. Maybe draft one on day 2. But bring a veteran right away to start. Have Jackson watch. And if you want to draft one on day 2 I am fine with it. I am dead set against a qb on day 1 unless a premier talent falls to that spot, which is unlikely at the qb position. 2)RT. Cook is an NFL backup. Replacing him is probably a must. 3)WR. I am still not sold on anything after Berrian. Wade and Rice have had their moments. But Allison is basically non-existent. 4)O-Line Depth. This is in general. Could be losing Birk. Hutch isn't getting any younger and I can't stand McKinnie. Honestly I wouldn't do anything major to the defense. This offense has plenty of holes to fill imo. The coach can stay as long as he is ready to admit that TJack is a mistake and it's time to move on. I know that a coach and quarterback are usually tied at the hip. But I think Childress is smart enough to know that if he plans on going into 2009 with him as the starter it will be his last in MN. Childress gets ripped for many things. But the one thing I see when watching the games is how much better things are since Tice left. I am in the minority but I say keep him for now(assuming we bring in a starting qb)

I have been to 4 games in the Metrodome and 1 Vikings game in Lambeau. I know plenty about football. I also would like to think I know a few things about the real world as well. I have a family of 4. I live about 2 1/2 from Minneapolis. For me to bring my family would cost over $500 easily. And that doesn't even include a hotel room if we were to actually stay there and make a weekend of it. Christmas was just a week ago. I do have a job and make decent money, but honestly can't afford this right now. I do have an HDTV, and watching football in HD is like nothing else. Add all these factors in and that is why I am not going to the Metrodome. I love the team and support them, but simply can't afford to. I have a feeling I am not alone. Not only in this fan base, buy many others as well. Have you seen the economic status of our country? Or are you in the 1% that isn't feeling the money crunch?

Exactly. Imo there are a number factors why people shouldn't go to games: 1)The Economy, most everyone is either broke or very careful how they spend their money. 2)It's 1 week after Christmas and I (like most I assume) am broke Most Important IMO: 3)HDTV. This one is most important imo. Why would I pay gas money to drive to the stadium, pay to park my truck, pay for the ticket, pay for concessions when I can sit in my living room watch it in HD and only have to pay my monthly cable bill? I think as we go into the future more and more people are going to stay home and watch the games on TV. You get all the replays and all the camera angles. Sure it's great to say you were "at the game" but honestly the experience in my living room is and always will be better dollar for dollar. Plus I can get drunk for under $20, at the stadium $20 doesn't even get me 3 beers. If you want to call me a dumb fan go ahead.

I'm a Vikes fan and think they can win. Why not? Both of these teams are about as inconsistent as it gets from week to week. Philly has a tie to Cincy on their resume and a loss to Wash. just 2 weeks ago. The Vikes fumbled away a game against Atl. and then had to have a 2nd half comeback to beat the NY Giants in a game that meant nothing to them. A few takes from me: 1)Pat Williams is vital to stopping the run. Without him I don't think they win. 2)TJack had better forget about how he played Sunday and move on. He was great the 2 1/2 games prior but last week looked like the guy who got benched after the 0-2 start. 3)Get in McNabb's face with a relentless pass rush and get the crowd into the game. I see a game in the low 20's, probably 23-20 or something like that. I will take the Vikings at home. I just can't pick Philly after a month ago everyone was writing obituaries for Reid and McNabb in Philly. Now after a big win against Dallas all is well? I don't see it.

Screw Pierre Thomas and all those who were "lucky" enough to ride him this far. PS-I was eliminated last week in a league because of him. Rant over

I am down to Houston, New Orleans or New England. Houston @ Oakland New Orleans @ Detroit New England vs. Arizona I have them in the order I am most confident. What do you guys think?

You have done a nice job, but honestly so have a ton of people. I think there are still nearly 3,000 perfect entries on the ESPN eliminator. Really it's been a relatively easy year to pick winners. Given how bad Detroit, St. Louis, Seattle, Oakland and Cleveland have been. Find who those 5 teams play each week and more than likely you have yourself a winner.