Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dantés" data-source="post: 737525" data-attributes="member: 12283">I don't understand how people say these two things at the same time without seeing the contradiction:"We could only beat the Falcons if they were down a bunch of important players"and"Injuries should not be mentioned as a factor in the Packers' performance"Which is it? Do they matter or do they not? If the Falcons had been without Jake Matthews, Julio Jones, Ryan Schraeder, Ty Sambrailo, and Grady Jarrett by the 5 minute mark of that game, that wouldn't have made any difference?I think people feel like bringing up injuries excuses poor play on the field. It doesn't. It's just a reasonable acknowledgement of a real factor that contributed to the outcome of the game. For that reason, and because of other factors that I've mentioned (opening night in a new stadium on the road), I believe that the cards were stacked against the Packers in this game and expected the loss. With some of those factors alleviated potentially in a PO rematch, I would absolutely give GB a chance to win. That is not to be confused with a guarantee, but I wouldn't expect a loss as I did with last night's situation.</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 500 (members: 0, guests: 500)