Quote
zn
To respond to what I claimed, you would have to show that different OLs across the years starting in 2006
1 had the same number and extent of OL injuries as the Rams did in the same period (ie. going a year at a time)
2. and did better under the same conditions.
I can pick a couple of examples of teams that had massive, extensive OL injuries and still managed to do well because they had a qb with special skills that allowed them to be effective under those conditions. For example New England in 2015. They had massive and extensive OL injuries but what kept them going was having a qb whose particular skill set allowed them to play well in spite of that handicap.
Just saying teams have OL injuries completely misses the point. It doesn't address what I am saying.
Now do your links demonstrate that teams had BOTH (1) the same number and extent of OL injuries as the Rams in their worst years for that, AND (2) that they did well regardless?
If your links DO demonstrate that then can you (or whoever is PMing) name me a couple of examples.
Excluding Seattle and New England, which I already named as exceptions myself.
...
...
.
I was just passing along info that I had stumbled across, zn.
I had no illusions that it would change your stance. This is a confirmation bias thing anymore. Not unlike a typical climate change debate where each side chooses to believe only their own "facts".
Like I said, I thought my provided info was self explanatory. Apparently, it wasn't. Carry on. Lol.