Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: To a degree?......

March 07, 2018 07:17AM
Quote
RockRam
Steelers have had LOT's of injuries but still in it to the end.
Packers had LOT's of injuries to WRs, D, Oline; but as long as Rogers was playing, they still won. Star QB goes down, so does the Packers.

The Seahawks weathered an insane amount of injuries, even a bad oline, until there was just one injury too many. Even then, they remained very competitive. But if Wilson were gone? Not sure they'd win a game.

It's only that the Pats did it best.

Calling 20 years of success despite turnover and injuries an anomaly is an oxymoron. One season; that's an anomaly. 2 decades: that's a plan.

So wait a minute, are we talking winning a few games or are we talking sustained winning??

IF we are talking sustained winning as your example of the Pats would infer...The Steelers, Packers and Seahags don't fit that description.

IF you now want to open up the discussion to "degrees" then OK we can talk about that.



Best,
Laram
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

  Beyond QB, good teams learn how to win without star players

RockRam299March 07, 2018 05:02AM

  Re: Beyond QB, good teams learn how to win without star players

Ramsdude116March 07, 2018 05:13AM

  Re: I'm not a fan of looking at anomalies......

laram110March 07, 2018 05:40AM

  And a team that...

jemach95March 07, 2018 06:03AM

  Steelers. Packers. Seahawks to a degree.

RockRam97March 07, 2018 06:06AM

  Re: To a degree?......

laram126March 07, 2018 07:17AM

  Seahawks had pretty sustained winning.

RockRam134March 07, 2018 10:26AM

  Re: I'm not a fan of looking at anomalies......

dzrams76March 07, 2018 08:58AM

  personally? I think that's entirely it.....

zn63March 07, 2018 10:58AM

  Re: Beyond QB, good teams learn how to win without star players

Rams43100March 07, 2018 06:37AM

  agree with your general point

LMU9384March 07, 2018 07:33AM