So, the 2011 Broncos defense was better than any defense we've had? It was better than our 2009 defense? It was better than our 2010 defense? Interesting.
Why was their team in position to win with a goofball like Tebow at the end of all of those games if their defense was that great?
Our D's always melted in big spots but for the most part (besides 2010) our offenses are basically non existent which IMO is the biggest issue for this team under Rex.
First of all, I totally agree that neither our 2009 nor our 2010 defense was great. They were both overrated and over-hyped. But how, exactly, was the 2011 Denver defense "great?" They were significantly behind both our 2009 and 2010 teams in many of the "fantasy" rankings you love so much. And furthermore, when they went to foxboro for their divisional round playoff game vs. the Pats they gave up: 45 points, 509 yards, and 28 first downs . . . Whoa. Do you remember how our 2010 defense did in the same "big spot" against what was arguably a better Patriots team? So, I ask again, by what observable metric was the 2011 Denver defense "great?"
This passing vs. running argument is really cover for Mark Sanchez, period. Just go with 2010 (and the mercurial 17-13 td/int ratio) being the year of "Air Coryell Sanchez" and be done with it.
started off the year poorly which skewed #s, they played great during the Tebow run. Obviously they fell short in the div rd which we did not but we had a MUCH better QB, a real NFL QB. they did not. some people don't need #s, they can actually watch games and not need meaningless fantasy #s. Mark was much better than his #s in 2010 just as he was worse than his #s in 2011.
And apparently Detroit is preparing to part ways with Calvin Johnson, risky to pursue, but it screams New England to me......
junc, like yawn city already And what's with the never-ending "fantasy #'s" references? I mean who in their right mind is even into fantasy football to begin with?
So, them having played well in a string of games on an 8-8 team that got blown out in the divisional round made them "great" and observably better than both of our 2009 and 2010 team defenses (which had markedly better defensive statis . . . er, I mean, fantasy numbers, and also happened to make it to back to back AFC title games)???? Riiiiight.
The funny thing about junc's tactic of dismissing things like completion percentage, yards/attempt, etc. as "fantasy" numbers, is that those statistics have been used by NFL general managers for decades upon decades to evaluate and assess performance, and in point of fact, were used long before fantasy football even existed. They are football statistics. The fact that these also happen to function as a conduit into the (admittedly moronic) world of fantasy football is a Non Sequitur and does nothing to discredit their relevance or ultimate significance.
they brought TIM TEBOW to a divisional round playoff game! that is greatness except that just isn't true. they evaluate everything- smart ones do. they look at every throw and every situation. they don't just look at a statsheet and make decisions. there's a reason there was a line for Mark Sanchez's service as soon as we released him.
Oh, so Mark gets all the credit in the world for "leading" the defensive-first Jets to two AFC Championship games but Tebow gets no credit for leading the defensive-first Broncos to the divisional round of the playoffs? Interesting. Except, it is true. The NFL statistics that you mock as "fantasy numbers" have been around for decades and most were, in point of fact, instituted by the NFL itself. For example, QBR, a statistic that many love to mock and admittedly leaves a lot to be desired, was created by an NFL committee at the request of NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle in the 1970s. You can forget about statistical staples like completion percentage and yards/attempt . . . those have been utilized (and relied upon) in NFL circles for ages and ages. You can pretend that they are "meaningless fantasy numbers" until you are blue in the face, but the collective NFL braintrust begs to differ. I never wrote not to look at everything or that it was wise to base any NFL decision solely on a statsheet. What I have written repeatedly is that statistics are an extremely useful way to corroborate what our eyes tell us. My eyes told me Mark Sanchez was anywhere from a mediocre to poor NFL passer, and lo and behold, that's exactly what his individual statistics indicate. Yeah . . . as a backup. Experienced backup quarterbacks are an extremely valuable commodity in the modern NFL, particularly because of the alarmingly high frequency of serious injuries.
this is where reading comes into play, I NEVER stated Mark carried us or was the main reason we made those title games. we don't make them w/o him but we were a D first team. they look at statistics, they don't evaluate based solely on blind #s. Your eyes don't understand what they are watching. would have been a starter if he was a FA on day 1 of FA. will be the most coveted QB on the market next year unless something strange happens.
he led the offense to success, he made the plays late in games to help his team. we shut them down for 55 mins but allowed a 90 yd drive to a QB that can't throw- that's not great defense.
We also had our QB let them back in the game by throwing an awful pick 6. If Mark played mistake free football we win that game...
