Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shawnsta3" data-source="post: 541023" data-attributes="member: 5065">I disagree.On my phone's internet if I type in "injuries" the first suggestion from Google is "injuries Packers". What does that say about this team? I'm about to use a lot of "ifs" here so I apologize in advance if I'm making some unrealistic jumps. But if you follow line by line I think it will make sense.The Packers played the 49ers very close. Very close. I think the Packers out physicaled them throughout the game with Eddie Lacy, James Starks and defense. The Packers were riddled with injuries. The 49ers were relatively healthy. Frank Rizzo, a fellow member has said mysteriously so. So I think if the Packers were healthy they would have won. The 49ers would go on to play Seattle to the last play of the game. Who's to say we don't pull that game out with a better quarterback and running game? Par a bad call we went in there and won last year?If those scenarios were to play out we're in the Super Bowl. Contrary to popular belief there isn't a huge drop off from them to us. Especially considering injuries. Their quarterback still struggles passing, their running back is basically the same as ours plus 100,000 miles. Our old tackle cast off they picked up is poor.Not to take anything away from them, the 12th man and the legion of boom is legit. But I can't help but feeling injures aside their talent is negligibly better...</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 629 (members: 0, guests: 629)