Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 434953" data-attributes="member: 4300">Wow. I understood the push to acquire Lynch in the 2010 season since it was obvious Grant was greatly missed and Jackson was not up to the job of carrying the load as the featured back. So for those upset Thompson 'sat on his hands' waiting for Starks who hadn't played a "real" game of football for almost two years, I understood. But Thompson was vindicated by WINNING A TITLE his way, not your way. Still being bitter baffles me. You were decisively proven wrong, in fact as decisively as possible in the NFL: Thompson didn't have to trade for Lynch or any RB to win it all. Look, we've all been wrong, including Thompson, so why not just admit it when you are/were? We can play "what if" all day long and accomplish nothing because no one can win that game because "what if" didn't happen. But I'll post again that if you build your team as a prolific passing offense - so much so that your franchise QB set an all-time QB rating record and the team led the league in scoring at 35 ppg - if that passing offense has its worst day in a season and a half, you aren't going to win even if you have a better than average RB. And isn't that all Lynch is? Does anyone mistake him for a great back? Where does he rank among his contemporaries? Obviously Starks' problem is staying on the field but when he was healthy, how much difference is there between the two? </blockquote>

Total: 701 (members: 1, guests: 700)