Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Week 6 @ KC: 28 points allowed
Week 8 @ NY: 36 points allowed
Week 10 @ Tampa Bay: 36 points allowed
There were clearly signs of an impending defensive collapse even in the 2005 season. No one could have predicted the sheer magnitude of the turnovers we didn't force this year, but the yardage and point totals were nothing that couldn't have been predicted.
If you believe the offense was so bad, you have a lot of explaining to do to justify how we won 4 more games in 2005 than 2004 with a considerably worse defense.
I think you are assuming the 04 and 05 defenses to be equals in the same manner you assumed all Denver backs to be equals and all of our opponents to be equals. The 2004 defense was as dominant as they come. The 2005 defense was not a dominating defensive team. They were good, but flawed. They did a very nice job against TB in the playoff game, but carried the team is a bit much. They were one Edell Sheppard catch away from being the goats.
The offense improved immensely in 2005 because Brunell, Portis, and the offensive line all improved immensely AND we traded for Moss. That's an very potent team who led us to a lot of victories all year. They were far more consistent than the defense was. It's unfortunate that come playoff time when we had to play the best defenses, our offense was banged up, but injuries determine the team best fit to play for the championship, and we clearly got the shaft in that respect.
|
The "impending defensive collapse" is dead on. Even when we weren't giving up a whole lot of points to opponents in '05, at times, you could start to see cracks in the run defense. I think we even had a poll about the most surprising things in the first part of that season -- giving up an unusual amount of rushing yards was one of the choices.
It was only a matter of time before that time-bomb on the front four went off. Detonation followed a year later.