As much as I dislike that joke of a franchise and their lame, fair-weather fans, I would be happy for them to get an outdoor home game again after their long nightmare in that absurd dome.
If it happens, here are a few tips for those who weren't around when Coach Grant was on the sidelines:
1. Leave the goldilocks wigs at home; they won't keep you warm in real football weather.
2. Pumping artificial noise and incessantly blowing a fake horn has little effect when you play outside. Best to forget those gimmicks.
3. Leave the cheer-babes at home. They are awesome I know - I love them all - but they have no place at a real football venue and won't hold up well. Plus, its hard to show off your camel-toe through snowpants.
4. Rather than tying your cotton sweater from the GAP around your neck, you'll want to actually put it on. Better yet, leave the cotton at home and get some wool.
5. I know this will ruin over half the Vikings fans' primary method of showing their team spirit, but be advised that layers of face paint don't work well in negative windchills.
6. When the temps dip into single digits and below, a general rule for gameday meals:
Sushi > bad
Brats > good
Very interesting.Can someone "unpack" the Vikes-Packers rivalry for a guy that has been to Wisconsin once and never been to Minnesota?
Are the Packers the "real football fans, real men, real tradition", and the Minnesota people the pretentious city slickers/girly-men/faux tradition/built a dome to appease the wuss fans? Fair assessment from a Packers fan perspective?
Any comebacks from the Vikings fans?
Before there were the Vikings there were the Packers. Pro Football fans in Minnesota related to the Packers and were strong supporters of the team, it being closest to many of them geographically and culturally. The grandparents of current Vikings fans were Packer Fans.
Then came the Vikes. They needed identity to obtain fans, and to cause Minnesotans who were Packer fans to become Vikings fans. The obvious way to do so was to emulate the toughness of the greatest franschise the NFL had known. They brought in Bud Grant. They played hardnosed ball out doors at the Met. They were bloody, marauding Norsemen and they won fans.
Throughout the 60's the Vikiigs successes paled in regard to the Packers. Nothing unusual there, no franchise of that time or since has dominated a decade as did the Packers. Still, by the end of the decade the Vikings had won respect of their fans and of Packer fans.
The Packers faded after Lombardi left and the Vikings were ascendant. They had some great teams and were gaining respect around the league and in Wisconsin. Having been sort of the little brother though, some of their fans thought they wre not getting the respect they deserved. They got aggressive about things and demanded that the past be recognized as dead and buried, and that the then present be the only reality. They claimed a rivalalry starting when they were temporarily on top. They claimed superiority to cement identity. The problem was Packer fans thought claims needed to be backed up by titles and not season records. Instantly we had a rivalry of words. Viking fans were always accusing Packer Fans of pointing to titles dead and past while they wanted to point to on the field dominence during the decade.
When families argue, and make no mistake at one time this was a family of fans, things get ugly. The shame of it was that many Packer fans greatly respected the product the Vikings had produced, and many were sure that eventually the Vikings would get their titles using the Packer formula of defense, running, and hardnosed cold weather football. God, how could you not respect Page, Eller, Marshall and Larsen? How could you not love Chuck Foreman? Even as rivals you had to respect that.
The Vikings never got their titles. They lost Grant, went indoors, and more or less turned their backs on their heritage and the region's heritage. They went to Jerry Burns and Les Steckle and quiche eating in indoor comfort. Their fans had no choice but to go along, but Packer Fans raised on the heritage of outdoor football had nothing but disdain for that direction. They expressed it. Viking fans were sensitive about that as many of them would have preferred sticking with their heritage but choices were thrust upon them. Trash talk was exchanged. At first more or less in gest, but the arguments always stayed the same, and the truth in the talk started to hurt as nuggets of truth were contained. (The Packers
had not done #### in decades. The Vikings had lost their swagger and had never accomplished the ultimate goal.) Eventually sensitivities forgot similarilties and the talk became tiresome. Nerves were gotton on and dislike formed were once there was commonality and respect.
Basically it is a family feud. Fewer of us are alive now who remember the commonality and respect and more who remember only the exchange of taunts. It's sad really because I love the Lombardi Packers and many of their teams since. My next love, however, is for how those 70's vikes played ball. Frankly had they not the misfortune of two other great francises and teams being at their zenith the decade would have been thiers. My memories of those teams are now fading, buried under an avalanche of petty, bitter words. The only legacy that can ever really be created from trash talking, though at the time people often think it fun.
Here in this forum we have marvelous examples of a legacy of bitterness from a generation of trash talk. Many here cannot see the others for what they are, and they only live to tear down the others, not to enjoy their own teams.
Its a sad ###-for-tat family feud. Childish, bitter, destructive. I suppose it will lessen when the Vikings get their first title, or when the franchise leaves and they have to determne whether to cheer for a team more or less from the region, or one which abandoned them without ever giving them that one sweet taste of glory.