Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ArizonaPackerFan" data-source="post: 6810" data-attributes="member: 53">I thought the Vikings, Lions, Colts, Falcons, and Rams all played in Domes, while the Texans played on turf in a stadium with a retractable roof that was closed when we played there last year. Dallas has an incomplete dome  <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/biggrin.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big Grin    :D" data-shortname=":D" /> I guess maybe I should rephrase the question.Are the Packers better built for turf than Tundra?After the loss to Vick and the Falcons in the playoffs, many people thought we needed more speed on defense to keep up with the mobil QBs like Vick and Culpepper. So we got smaller and faster at LB with guys like Barnett.Last year and this year we added some speed in the secondary.The loss to Jacksonville last year at home in December, and the loss to the Titans at home kind of bothered me though because it seemed like we were getting pushed around physically.Does speed kill like they say, or would you rather have a more physical team like the 90's when we lined up 300 pounders across the D-line and had bigger, more physical corners?Does speed kill on the frozen and sometimes muddy tundra? Just curious if others preferred speed or size when building a team for the frozen tundra. Maybe the day of the "mudders" is past.</blockquote>

Total: 834 (members: 3, guests: 831)