The 72 Dolphins did. Griese went down and Earl Morrall came in and didn't miss a lick. It's a thing we refer to as depth and we don't have enough of it. Injuries are a part of the game and the better teams have the necessary depth to compensate. Give me a reason why we didn't win, not excuses. Recent QBs that come to mind are Warner and Brady.
Are you seriously comparing the NFL of the 70's to the NFL of today? Also if you have to go back that far in time, it shows me you simply couldnt find a recent comparison.
You asked, I answered and now you putting stipulations on the answers???? Anyway, I think Warner and Brady qualify for being recent unless you'll only accept from this year or last.
Warner and Brady became superstar QB's who actually played BETTER than the guys ahead of them. That isn't the same as losing your starting QB and having to replace them with someone who isn't as good.
Doesnt count for 2 reasons. A)We still had a running back tandem of Kiick Csonka and Morris,so it isnt the same as losing Pennington and Brown B)We had an experienced former Super Bowl starter in Morrall,not a second year kid and a rookie And your still only adressing a third of the equation,we didnt just lose our starting QB,we also lost our starting RB,and our starting NT.Actually we also lost our starting CB
Yeah, and? that was the question, which team lost QBs, RBs etc and still did well. Warner replaced Trent Green via injury as the same way Brady replaced Bledsoe. Both went on the win SBs that same year. I don't know of any better examples. The bolded part doesn't make any sense. If they were "as good" or better, then they would've been starters to begin with.
While you're at it, why don't you just add Grove, Smiley and crowder to your list as well? Injuries are part of the game and what separates the better teams from the mediocre ones is how you plan for injuries by the depth you have. Instead of making excuses for not making the playoffs, why don't you look at some of the reasons why we didn't. Things like virtually no receiving corps, a decimated group of LBs along with no true FS for starters. Think that may have had something to do with it? The pats were decimated with injuries to their D one of the years they won the SB. They seemed prepared. Anyway, I'll continue on being unsatisfied with our results again and you can go about your merry way glowing with mediocrity then.
Of course, you said Apparently, these guys were better than the starters or they would've been pulled when the starters healed up. Yes?
I have no idea what you are even talking about. We are talking about starting QB's who went down, and their replacements did better. I'm talking about Warner taking over for an injured Trent Green, and Brady taking over for Bledsoe. Brady and Warner > Green and Bledsoe. Which is why I said they were bad examples, because they were BETTER than the guys ahead of them.
Of course they are better otherwise they wouldn't have remained as the starters. My point is that before the injuries, no one knew they were better than the starters, hence is why I said before that if they were [known to be] then they would have been starters to begin with. I believe the original context of the question was how many teams lost their starting QBs and still did well. or to that effect anyway. I would say that if those teams go on and win the SB anyway, then I would say that it is correct. Suppose the Colts have a backup QB that is better than Peyton? No one will ever know unless Peyton is injured and the opportunity presents itself.
That doesn't mean that every team has backups better than their starters, or should be expected to. Losing players 98% of the time is a negative.
I understand that but that is not what I was answering to. but it can be expected to lose a few players here and there and still go on pretty well. I'd rather dwell on what we need to fix and get better and not why we didn't. at this point, "why we didn't" is moot.
Well I for one am not using it as an excuse. However I do believe with said players healthy, we have a much better chance. Especially Ronnie. Obviously we have holes, but they become even more glaring when you create holes at other positions as well. That's my only point.
In all due respect, injuries are a part of the game, as is missing the playoff's because of them. There is NO ONE on this forum, or any other, who can convince me that IF we would have not had injuries to Ronnie, Ferg, Grove, W Allen, Smiley, Crowder, and Cobbs, that we would not have been in the playoffs. Anyone, trying to do so, is typing to deaf ears and blind eye's. Hell, Ronnie, in the Wild Cat, would have gotten us in.
I'll use it as a reason. At full strength, W le gave the two SB teams all they could handle. Think we could not have done the same at the end of the year to make the playoffs?
I completely understand. However, having no injuries does not guarantee us or anybody else, anything. this team has just had so many different problems recently from year to year. It's always one thing or another. If it's not injuries, then it is a couple blown draft picks, or bad FA signings to just not having any good quality depth or even piss poor coaching. It's always something and I am just tired of it. We can not deal with just one issue and let others go. it doesn't get us anywhere.
