Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
Moss now a Viking OFFICIAL THREAD
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SpartaChris" data-source="post: 300802" data-attributes="member: 1007"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>*****! Are you kidding me with this? </p><p></p><p>In 2009 the Colts were DEAD LAST in rushing. Saints were 6. </p><p>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." </p><p>2007- Giants were 4th. The undefeated Patriots finished the year ranked 13 in rushing- Just above half. </p><p>2006- Super Bowl Champion Colts- 18. The Bears? 15th. </p><p>2005- Steelers #5, Seahawks #3.</p><p>2004- Pats- #7, Eagles #24</p><p>2003- Panthers were ranked #7 in rushing. Champion Patriots? #27</p><p>2002- Raiders #18, Tampa Bay- #27</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SpartaChris, post: 300802, member: 1007"] 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. *****! 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
mradtke66
Firethorn1001
tynimiller
Curly Calhoun
Latest posts
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Curly Calhoun
10 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: CarryTheG14
38 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: Curly Calhoun
Today at 8:28 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 7:58 AM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 11:14 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
Moss now a Viking OFFICIAL THREAD
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
