06-26-2024, 04:02 PM
(06-26-2024, 02:50 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Honestly we should of played the backups instead of Hubbard and Wilson IMO. They played a lot but were not even close to 100%.
A backup playing 100% could of been better than they were for all we know. Injury excuses are what they are and just because a lot of
starters played the majority of the season doesn't mean they were healthier than 90% of the Defenses in the NFL.
Are you just making this 90% up?
Wouldn't surprise me.
Reader was actually healthy and we were still terrible at stopping the run, I don't know what your argument is. You saying Reader made
us so much better is a laugh as we were one of the worst with him in there and him healthy.
Also I wasn't making injury excuses, I was listing all the reasons why we were bad against the run. I notice you just left that part out.
Ah, the classic "I'm not making excuses, I'm giving reasons" defense. However you want to spin it, the injury "reasons" are silly given the relative health we actually had and the good chance we are actually more injured this year. We had the 3rd fewest games lost in the NFL due to injury defensively. So yes, 90% of the NFL.
Yes, you can be bad and still have been much worse. It's not like there is a set floor on how bad you can be or how many rush yards you can give up. I'm not sure why that is difficult for you to understand.
