Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunshinepacker" data-source="post: 680766" data-attributes="member: 9033">I was speaking of the defense...and the Vikings offense isn't exactly a model to aspire to. The Vikings have proven that by having one of the best defenses in the NFL, you only need an average offense to win games. You also have no way to prove the Vikings offense isn't actually being hurt by injuries because we've not seen the Vikings offense with Bridgewater. For another (what I would have thought was obvious) issue with your comparison, Bradford and Bridgewater are about equal QBs so I'm not sure how that relates to the guys replacing injured players for the Packers since those replacements are NOT of equal skill. Not sure why you keep bringing up points that are obviously not the same as what I'm talking about but if you think comparing the Vikings offense to the Packer's defense is an apples-to-apples comparison, then so be it.As for injuries, no, nobody likes to use them because it sounds like an excuse. It's a silly tendency that makes zero sense. Obviously injuries matter. JJ Watt being hurt is going to affect the Texan's defense. Burfect missing games for the Bengals hurt the team. Injuries are a part of football but expecting a team to not miss good players is just asking to be disappointed. Did you think the players/coaches were doing a bad job because Seneca Wallace wasn't playing up to Rodgers' skill level?</blockquote>

Total: 101 (members: 2, guests: 99)