Why we'll keep Mario...

[dalemurphy]

Originally Posted by barrett

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.

In the 4 games with Mario: 325 yards per game.
In the 14 games without: 255 yards per game.

Yes, Mario played against New Orleans. However, also included in those four games are games against an awful Indy offense and a really bad Miami offense. The defense was better without him. Now, there are other factors than just his absence that affected those numbers. Still, 14 games without him and the defense was great in almost everyone (except the first game after his injury and the two games without Wade Phillips).