Good call JFjets. It's blasphemous to compare the 2011 Broncos defense to that SB year Baltimore Ravens defense.
Concerned Citizen....... "lucky enough to have a defensive performance that is VERY friendly to any shitty QB." Kinda like having a VERY friendly forum for a dumbass like you.
It was just an example that a good defensive performance CAN carry a shitty quarterback. But of course you missed the point... again. No surprise there...
Damaryus Thomas? Willis McGahee? Can you tell me why they were even in the position to HAVE a game winning drive after the Boy wonder stunk the place up for 55 minutes? Still came down to a brain fart on the part of the RB when the game was pretty much over. Maybe he dropped it because it is more di
Not great, I'll give you that. But... Good enough to hold 6 teams to less than 15 points. That condition is good enough to make even Kyle Orton 23-2. Good enough to give Tebow a decent record. So if that ain't good, what is? Why can't you just admit the defense did an outstanding job for most of Tebow's wins?
Just out of curiosity, as I stated in my other post to you, you seem to be knowledgable about football and the broncos what was the average starting point for the other team when Tebow was starting. That could have played a big part of why the defense help the offense as it seems they helped each other. I also enjoy a good middle of the week discussion.
If you are talking about field position and Tebow not putting the team in harm's way by turning the ball over, I will say he did alright by that. But that philosophy only works if you are the 2000 Baltimore Ravens... and the broncos last year were... well.. not. But I wouldn't say the Tebow offense was helpful. When the defense DID get off the field, it was like 3 minutes of REAL TIME, and you'd see them trotting back on the field because they were punting after 3 or 4, maybe 5 plays. Defense was getting worn down by that, and it showed later on in the season. So yeah, it's nice not turning the ball over as much (though he did fumble the ball almost once per game) but you gotta stay on the field more than what they were. More time on the field, defense gets a rest, drives are extended, some punts turn into field goals, maybe more shots at the end zone... It all comes back to the inability of the offense to move the chains. Sure, the defense could have used improvments, but trust me, punting the ball away all day does them NO favors when the team is going through three and out after three and out. That was frustrating as hell to watch for 3 quarters, and had the defense not been able to make all those stops, (like they couldn't do for the prior 3 or 4 years) damn near every one of those games end in a blowout. you'd be surprised how different the game is for a defense that plays in the lead once in a while too. Too few and far in between for my tastes, and far too much relying on some miracle at the end. Just isn't a sustainable way to win, and the Broncos managment knew it.
I can admit that they did play well at times, and the kicker did well also. But I have no problem admitting that. When will you admit that Tebow was a large part of their success? I'll answer that... you won't because you and I are different types of people. I'll admit when I'm wrong. I'm objective.
If you were objective, you wouldn't have been fighting me for weeks on how important the defensive performance was to Tebow's win/loss record. We'll compromise on Tebow's role in the whole thing. I'll admit he was a PART of that success... just not as large a part as YOU seem to think. I'll give him props for FINALLY showing up late in the 4th to steal a win, and I'll even give him credit for getting the ball in the right place for Thomas to make an 80 yard play in the post season. But at the end of the day, I'd still give him a D- OVERALL. Seriously flawed, perhaps too much so to invest in long term when you have the whole rest of the team to worry about too. I truly think he helped put us in those holes that he helped dig out of.
