By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MTZehvor on 09 January 2016
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
MTZehvor said:

I'd argue it does. If your claim is to be the most complete team (i.e. the team that does well at every aspect of the game), then you should be able to survive losing any player, even one as significant as your quarterback. The fact that the Broncos and Patriots survived worse injuries than that and still succeeded suggests that the Bengals were not the most complete team.

Also, AJ McCarron should apologize to Giovanni Bernard for throwing that pass. That was just asking for him to get destroyed.

The Broncos and Patriots didn't have worse injuries than the Bengals. The QB position is the most important position in football by far and the amount of players who can reliably play the starter role is lower than 30 in a league with 32 teams.

Well, the Broncos did lose their starting QB for a good portion of the season, along with DeMarcus Ware, Chris Harris Jr, and Brandon Marshall, among others. I'm not super up to date on the Bengals' injury report, but outside of Andy Dalton, Terrence Newman is the only significant player I'm aware of that missed extended time. At the very least, Denver suffered worse.

The Patriots is a more difficult argument to make, but I think it's one that can be made, considering that they lost their top three wide receivers for multiple games, lost top two RBs to IR, lost three fourths of their secondary for at least one game (and half for two or more), as well as Donta Hightower, Rob Ninkovich, and basically every single starting offensive lineman was missing for at least three games. Brady and Gronk were consistent throughout, but the sheer decimiation of depth at every other position makes it a close call.