Why we'll keep Mario...

[barrett]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

In the games after Mario went down, were there any where we were dominated by the other team's offense? Really, the Carolina game was all I could think of and that, I think, was just a flat performance all around.

Granted, we didn't really play many great offenses either but I thought the defense did very well with Mario on the sidelines. I don't want to see him leave and get nothing in return nor do I want him to leave if contracts can be arranged where he stays without costing us other key players but I think we can survive without him if it came to that. I think we already have.

If your argument is we never got dominated without him, I don't know what to say. I am pretty sure not getting dominated doesn't get anyone superbowl trophies.

The NY Giants just beat Tom Brady for the 2nd time in 5 years and they did it with pure pass rush both times. Nobody in NY was saying lets get rid of Osi or Tuck since we have Kiwanuka and JPP. They said lets rotate them when necessary and play all four when possible. And they rode that plan all the way to a superbowl despite a terrible secondary and no running game.

New England has an even easier schedule next year and there is probably little chance we get to a superbowl without beating Brady. The only way to do that is to hit him over and over, and letting Mario go or trading him is the opposite of that. And if we reach the superbowl we are likely to find Rodgers or Brees waiting for us.

The NFL is a QB league. And the only way around having one of the 3-4 elite guys is to have a QB killing team.