Tweet
...here's a good example;
"Spikes, a standout with Cincinnati, is expected to vastly improve a defense that last year finished 27th in points allowed -- offsetting a Drew Bledsoe-led offense that ranked among the league's best."
Again, this isn't a bash Drew thread y'all, so let's not turn it into one.
But I have several problems w/ the above statement.
First of all, it simply isn't true. Our defense was ranked 24th, but it was a completely different D up front as it was at the end. Just in case y'all don't remember, we were easily dead last after like 3 or 4 games. 32nd that is. But over the last ten games, we played to ~ 10th or so. Yes, it averaged out to 27th I suppose, but for most games, it played significantly better than 27th as I've pointed out in the past. Even the first Jets game it played very, very well.
Our points allowed over the first 5 games or so was around 34.x PPG, but dropped to less than 20 PPG over the last 11 games or so for an enormous dropoff. When you factor in that some of those "points allowed", many in fact, were allowed by the STs, not the D, and set up by offensive TOs, it was misleading.
Secondly, our D's play didn't "offset" anything in the vast majority of contests. STs did in some. But it was the O's lack of scoring and offensive mistakes that cost us several games. The play of the D actually helped us win at least as many as the O lost.
Thirdly, I also wouldn't say that our offense "ranked among the league's best" either. It was fantastic for 3 or 4 games but then slid into mediocrity before fizzling altogether to be among the "league's worst" to be honest.
Yet, the perception league-wide by columnists such as this AP sports guy is just what it says, regardless of how incorrect it is.
"Spikes, a standout with Cincinnati, is expected to vastly improve a defense that last year finished 27th in points allowed -- offsetting a Drew Bledsoe-led offense that ranked among the league's best."
Again, this isn't a bash Drew thread y'all, so let's not turn it into one.
But I have several problems w/ the above statement.
First of all, it simply isn't true. Our defense was ranked 24th, but it was a completely different D up front as it was at the end. Just in case y'all don't remember, we were easily dead last after like 3 or 4 games. 32nd that is. But over the last ten games, we played to ~ 10th or so. Yes, it averaged out to 27th I suppose, but for most games, it played significantly better than 27th as I've pointed out in the past. Even the first Jets game it played very, very well.
Our points allowed over the first 5 games or so was around 34.x PPG, but dropped to less than 20 PPG over the last 11 games or so for an enormous dropoff. When you factor in that some of those "points allowed", many in fact, were allowed by the STs, not the D, and set up by offensive TOs, it was misleading.
Secondly, our D's play didn't "offset" anything in the vast majority of contests. STs did in some. But it was the O's lack of scoring and offensive mistakes that cost us several games. The play of the D actually helped us win at least as many as the O lost.
Thirdly, I also wouldn't say that our offense "ranked among the league's best" either. It was fantastic for 3 or 4 games but then slid into mediocrity before fizzling altogether to be among the "league's worst" to be honest.
Yet, the perception league-wide by columnists such as this AP sports guy is just what it says, regardless of how incorrect it is.
Comment