You call giving up a 4th rounder or a 4th and 5th selling out? Are you the same guy that told me the Vikings don't have a future because we gave up a 3rd for Moss?
No, I'm not the same guy. And no, just giving up a 4th rounder isn't what I call selling out, nor is it what I meant.
Fans here and everywhere think Ted should have given Buffalo whatever they wanted for Lynch. I absolutely disagree with this approach. Just because Seattle got him for a 4th doesn't mean that's what we would have gotten him for. Go back and read the posts on the matter. You'd find that because our 4th isn't expected to be as valuable as Seattle's, Buffalo likely wanted a 3rd from us. I know Seattle gave a 6th that will become a 5th as a compensatory pick, but I don't know if Buffalo would have taken that from us. Likely they would have wanted a better compensatory from us since we're supposed to be better.
The last 5 super bowl winners have been the Saints, Patriots, Steelers, Giants, and the Colts. All of those teams have had good running games. Whether the running game was the reason for the victories is up to debate, but it certainly helped.
Look, I know the Packers are a good team and Aaron Rodgers is a good QB, but without a running game I don't see them being anything other than a "contender", and never someone that actually makes the SB. Obviously that only applies to this year as Ryan Grant is a solid back who will help a lot when he comes back next year, but right now, especially against elite d's, the Packers will struggle. Thats what happens when you are one dimensional.
*****! Are you kidding me with this?
In 2009 the Colts were DEAD LAST in rushing. Saints were 6.
2008- Cardinals were dead last in rushing. Super Bowl Champion Steelers- 23! Last I checked, that's not even in the top half! So much for your "All of those teams have had good running games."
2007- Giants were 4th. The undefeated Patriots finished the year ranked 13 in rushing- Just above half.
2006- Super Bowl Champion Colts- 18. The Bears? 15th.
2005- Steelers #5, Seahawks #3.
2004- Pats- #7, Eagles #24
2003- Panthers were ranked #7 in rushing. Champion Patriots? #27
2002- Raiders #18, Tampa Bay- #27
I think I just proved there's NO CORRELATION between having a top running game and making it to or winning the Super Bowl. 8 of the 18 listed had running games ranked in the bottom half of the league. 6 of the 18 listed had running games ranked in the top 10.
So please, can we stop with the nonsense that you won't win unless you have some top ranked, elite running game? Sure, it's great to have, but as I've just proven, it's just not mandatory to being successful. "Most" teams in the past 8 years who make it to the Super Bowl don't have a top 10 running game.
And as for the injury thing, i believe your quote was So maybe you didn't mean that we had an injury bug, but I don't think injuries are as devastating as they look to us. Cook will be missed, but we played without him AND Griffin for the first two weeks so I think we will be ok considering Cedric is back.
Yeah, I did point out Cook's injury, and you're right you already did it without him. Albeit you lost both of those games, but it's not like you gave up a ton of points, so I'll concede this point.