Next man up? Really?

[seabowl]

I’ve seen a bunch of threads where people mentioned “next man up“ with regards to the defense last night. It is virtually impossible for that many defensive starters on one part of the defense to be out and be able to compete at a high level. They are called backups because they aren’t good enough to start and compete at the same level as the starters. Last night around halftime in the game day thread, I posted something about “moving onto the Giants“ after witnessing the defense line get manhandled. Some folks couldn’t handle the truth with my comment, but it was the truth. A few players out is a winnable game but with that many out in one part of the field it’s a tremendous mountain to climb and almost impossible.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

IMO, a big part of it is people get annoyed when fans of opposing teams blame injuries for losses and they don't want to act the same way. So, you say "Next man up" instead of something that can come off like an excuse or diminishing what the winning team did.

 

[seabowl]

IMO, a big part of it is people get annoyed when fans of opposing teams blame injuries for losses and they don't want to act the same way. So, you say "Next man up" instead of something that can come off like an excuse or diminishing what the winning team did.

That’s a valid point, but if the other team had this many injuries, it would be hard not to acknowledge. Similar to the fact that many were saying the Seahawks didn’t play any real competition the first three weeks and I somewhat agreed to that theory and wanted to take more of a wait and see approach as they got to the better opponents. With this said, I think they held their own given the circumstances