Plummer content in his own private Idaho

[Northman]

Originally Posted by Alec

Hello Captain Obvious.

What you cant say is that Denver won in SPITE of Plummer.

No **** sherlock.

[orange 4 life]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

it's wasn't bad but it seemed like he rarely won the big games.

really?

our defense caved in and played like a freaking sieve in the three playoff losses while plummer was here.
sure, he was far from perfect also (they were total team losses, especially against pitt), but lets remember that he didnt throw a pick in the afc championship game until we were already 3 scores down.

bottom line is i dont blame him for those 3 playoff losses any more than i blame elway for the 3 80's superbowl losses.
when your defense is downright AWFUL youre gonna lose.
plummer stepped up big game after game for us, and in the end, finished his bronco career with the best TD to turnover ratio in our teams history.

the guy was a gamer, a leader, and a winner.
wish him well and enjoy watching our young gunslinger develop.

[errand]

Originally Posted by TDmvp

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_10003772


Jay is a stud and all and will be for a decade but Jake being 39-15 was pretty damn good ...

You haven't been on here long enough to notice that Jake (according to the TJ's of the world) was actually 0-15...0-18 if you count the playoffs. The rest of the team was 40-0 including playoffs in spite of Jake.

I'm amazed that guys like Morton, Brister, Frerotte, and Plummer all QB's who won more games than they lost, hold a few records as well...and helped us make the playoffs are villified on here, and yet clowns and chumps like Jarious Jackson, and Brian Griese are reverred as heroes.

[errand]

Originally Posted by cah412

I love how folks like to quote the win stats to completely justify a QB...

And Big Ben was the reason the Steelers won the SB too.

Guys like you crack me up. you make statements like this, and then claim Elway took the Broncos to those 3 SB's in the 80's. And granted he was a big reason we did well in the 80's...and practically his entire career...but it wasn't John and 10 clowns from the human trash.

Some one had to have thrown a block or two for him, run for a few yards, catch a few of his passes, make a few tackles, cause a fumble or two, intercept a pass once or twice.....

Guys like Sammy Winder, Gerald Willhite, Steve Sewell, Vance johnson, Orson Mobley, Tom Jackson, Clarence Kay, Billy Bryan, Dennis Smith, Tyrone Braxton, Karl Mecklenburg, Steve Atwater, Rulon Jones, Steve Watson, Mark Jackson, etc.

The same guys when other fans on other boards claim they stunk, you guys defend to no end...and yet here on a Broncos board, they get little love at all. Go figure.

[errand]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

you can't hold a QB's record against him. Cutler is only 9-12 through his career so far and is putting up really good numbers that are entering the level of the top QB's in the game, and he will get the record straightened out soon. I mean look at Arizona and tell me, do you think any QB in the league could turn that craphole into a winner? I am not saying Jake is the greatest QB that ever played the game, but he certainly was not the worst by far, and he led a winner onto the field for 3 straight years.

Here's a stat for you ...Jake led the Cardinals to their only playoff win in like 40 years, and the Broncos to their only playoff win in 10...but hey Griese was more "efficient"

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by errand

Guys like you crack me up. you make statements like this, and then claim Elway took the Broncos to those 3 SB's in the 80's.

Uh, without Elway we didn't go to any of those so yep, Elway took us there.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by errand

Guys like you crack me up. you make statements like this, and then claim Elway took the Broncos to those 3 SB's in the 80's. And granted he was a big reason we did well in the 80's...and practically his entire career...but it wasn't John and 10 clowns from the human trash.

Some one had to have thrown a block or two for him, run for a few yards, catch a few of his passes, make a few tackles, cause a fumble or two, intercept a pass once or twice.....

Guys like Sammy Winder, Gerald Willhite, Steve Sewell, Vance johnson, Orson Mobley, Tom Jackson, Clarence Kay, Billy Bryan, Dennis Smith, Tyrone Braxton, Karl Mecklenburg, Steve Atwater, Rulon Jones, Steve Watson, Mark Jackson, etc.

The same guys when other fans on other boards claim they stunk, you guys defend to no end...and yet here on a Broncos board, they get little love at all. Go figure.

Where you not around for that era It really was Elway and bunch of also rans....

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by Anubis

And there you have explained my point. Thank you. So many people want to gloat about how great he was in Denver yet ignore how much of a impact coming to Denver really was for him. Is Arizona a horrible franchise or one of the worst ones? Oh yea. But as you said, Jake's stats in Arizona was partly due to a bad organization whereas coming to Denver helped him immensely because of a better coach, players, and organization around him.

Let's carry your thought a bit further and complete it. Jake coming to Denver helped him immensely, no doubt about it. Working with Shanny and Kubiak resulted in Jake making better decisions, etc. Working in a more established offense (not great, but established) helped him.

However, you also can't ignore the nearly 150 point (.147) jump in winning percentage when Jake took over for Griese, even as great receivers (Sharpe, Smith) started disappearing or becoming shells of their former selves, linemen became old, the running game began to waiver in it's ability to dominate a game, even if it still did manage to rack up yards (which we all know Jake's mobility greatly helped).

Conversely, you can't ignore the plummet in winning percentage when Cutler took over, which has been a nearly 250 point drop (.249).

Just based on numbers, that .149 increase with Jake over Griese translates into over 2 games a season, and the .249 drop under Cutler equates to nearly four fewer wins per season.

If you simply look at the season Cutler took over, Jake was .636 ending on a two game losing streak (or something like that going by memory), and Cutler was .400, both ironically close to their career's with Denver.

Last year, Cutler did better in a full season, but only slightly at .438.

So, while it is convenient to say that the team all of a sudden became MUCH better, in spite of Jake, in the 3 1/2 years after Griese (the Plummer years) than with Griese, and then immediately became MUCH worse in the 21 games after Plummer the (the Cutler era), and therefore Plummer had zero impact on the Broncos being the 3rd winning-est team in the '03-'05 time frame (behind Indy and NE).

An alternative theory that splits the difference between the "Jake sucks" crowd and the "Jake was great" crowd is this. I think that Jake and the offense that Kubiak and the Broncos were running was a nearly perfect match. Shanahan's offense, before and during the Plummer era (certainly in the post Elway era), was about misdirection. Some liked to try and slam it by referring to it as smoke and mirrors, but more accurately it was about multiple formations being used to make it difficult for the other team to get the proper personnel package on the field, and then using misdirection (cutback runs, bootleg play action, stretch runs, etc.) to 'set up' the defense. To try and create situations where the defense over pursues the run game 'fake' and then gets burnt by the cutback run or the bootleg run/pass.

That isn't smoke and mirrors, that is an offense that was VERY successful. However, as the post Alex Gibbs years piled up, the O-line became less and less dominant in this area, and the rotation and turnover at RB increased dramatically, which resulted in defenses being less likely to over-pursue, and therefore less likely to be gouged on the back side of the play. More important, our line no long was able to get the 1 or 2 yards, when they had to have it, whether it was on the goal line, or converting a 3rd or 4th down.

Plummer didn't cause these changes, these problems, most likely they were a result of Gibbs being gone, and a decline in the quality of RB behind the line, along with our linemen aging and replaced with less quality linemen or failures, such as Foster.

Back to the middle ground. I think a common ground that everyone should be able to accept is that Plummer and the Kubiak/Shanahan misdirection offense were nearly a perfect match for each other, and as a result Plummer had career years in Denver and the Team had a three year run behind only Indy and NE in wins, culminating in a trip to the AFCCG, one game from the SB. Even jumping out to a 7-2 (going be memory) start in '06, before the wheels started to come off, but we all know that record was one part luck, one part the defense playing over its head.

So, in summary, you can't discount Plummer's role when the winning percentage (with lesser talent in many areas) with Plummer is SO much higher than the QB before or after him.

I think that what we saw from game one of '06, along with the drafts of '06, '07 and '08 is that Shanahan recognized that it was time to move in another direction, and started putting the pieces in place to be able to have more of a smash mouth, or traditional pass blocking game, rather than having a line that can only succeed in a misdirection offense, but that takes time. So, some of the struggles we have seen with Cutler are related to the transformation the team is undergoing, and of course to the defensive debacle that was the Bates' experiment. Few would argue that Cutler doesn't have FAR more physical talent and 'potential' than Plummer, but only time will tell if he becomes the great QB that many of us (myself included) feel he can become. Right now, he is simply one of many struggling young QBs.

I am very glad that Dinger and Bates are gone, because they didn't know how to get the most out of the personnel on the field, which is the FIRST responsibility of a coach, and that is why in Baseball, for instance, you see so many coaching changes in their longer season. The owners and general managers know that a manager has to figure out how to get the most out of the players on the team. In Baseball, that is preperation and motivation, in football, it is putting in place schemes and play calling suited to the talent on the field. Bates and Dinger failed in this regard, and they are gone as a result.

I'll leave you guys with this thought. Plummer has taken a lot of grief, and I think an awful lot of it has to do with his not taking crap from the Denver press and fans, which is something Denver QBs are expected to do. However, if you look at what he and the team did on the field, then which other QB, that was a legitimate option for Denver, would have done more from '03 to '05 than Plummer. Stewart? BVP? Kanell?

Which other realistic QB option would have been as good a fit as Plummer was in the Denver offense, and helped lead them to the third best winning percentage over a three year period, in spite of the fact that during part of that time Rod Smith was his ONLY legit receiving option?

I have no problem with people pointing out Plummer faults, which were many. No problem with people talking about the system helping Plummer elevate his game (sound familiar? Droughns, Bell, etc.). However, to at the same time discount any contribution that Plummer made to the wins is simply ridiculous.

[bronco militia]

Originally Posted by Alec

Hello Captain Obvious.

What you cant say is that Denver won in SPITE of Plummer.

they did in 2006...if that's not true, then Jay Cutler would have never started that year

[fido]

Originally Posted by tnedator

Let's carry your thought a bit further and complete it. Jake coming to Denver helped him immensely, no doubt about it. Working with Shanny and Kubiak resulted in Jake making better decisions, etc. Working in a more established offense (not great, but established) helped him.

However, you also can't ignore the nearly 150 point (.147) jump in winning percentage when Jake took over for Griese, even as great receivers (Sharpe, Smith) started disappearing or becoming shells of their former selves, linemen became old, the running game began to waiver in it's ability to dominate a game, even if it still did manage to rack up yards (which we all know Jake's mobility greatly helped).

Conversely, you can't ignore the plummet in winning percentage when Cutler took over, which has been a nearly 250 point drop (.249).

Just based on numbers, that .149 increase with Jake over Griese translates into over 2 games a season, and the .249 drop under Cutler equates to nearly four fewer wins per season.

If you simply look at the season Cutler took over, Jake was .636 ending on a two game losing streak (or something like that going by memory), and Cutler was .400, both ironically close to their career's with Denver.

Last year, Cutler did better in a full season, but only slightly at .438.

So, while it is convenient to say that the team all of a sudden became MUCH better, in spite of Jake, in the 3 1/2 years after Griese (the Plummer years) than with Griese, and then immediately became MUCH worse in the 21 games after Plummer the (the Cutler era), and therefore Plummer had zero impact on the Broncos being the 3rd winning-est team in the '03-'05 time frame (behind Indy and NE).

An alternative theory that splits the difference between the "Jake sucks" crowd and the "Jake was great" crowd is this. I think that Jake and the offense that Kubiak and the Broncos were running was a nearly perfect match. Shanahan's offense, before and during the Plummer era (certainly in the post Elway era), was about misdirection. Some liked to try and slam it by referring to it as smoke and mirrors, but more accurately it was about multiple formations being used to make it difficult for the other team to get the proper personnel package on the field, and then using misdirection (cutback runs, bootleg play action, stretch runs, etc.) to 'set up' the defense. To try and create situations where the defense over pursues the run game 'fake' and then gets burnt by the cutback run or the bootleg run/pass.

That isn't smoke and mirrors, that is an offense that was VERY successful. However, as the post Alex Gibbs years piled up, the O-line became less and less dominant in this area, and the rotation and turnover at RB increased dramatically, which resulted in defenses being less likely to over-pursue, and therefore less likely to be gouged on the back side of the play. More important, our line no long was able to get the 1 or 2 yards, when they had to have it, whether it was on the goal line, or converting a 3rd or 4th down.

Plummer didn't cause these changes, these problems, most likely they were a result of Gibbs being gone, and a decline in the quality of RB behind the line, along with our linemen aging and replaced with less quality linemen or failures, such as Foster.

Back to the middle ground. I think a common ground that everyone should be able to accept is that Plummer and the Kubiak/Shanahan misdirection offense were nearly a perfect match for each other, and as a result Plummer had career years in Denver and the Team had a three year run behind only Indy and NE in wins, culminating in a trip to the AFCCG, one game from the SB. Even jumping out to a 7-2 (going be memory) start in '06, before the wheels started to come off, but we all know that record was one part luck, one part the defense playing over its head.

So, in summary, you can't discount Plummer's role when the winning percentage (with lesser talent in many areas) with Plummer is SO much higher than the QB before or after him.

I think that what we saw from game one of '06, along with the drafts of '06, '07 and '08 is that Shanahan recognized that it was time to move in another direction, and started putting the pieces in place to be able to have more of a smash mouth, or traditional pass blocking game, rather than having a line that can only succeed in a misdirection offense, but that takes time. So, some of the struggles we have seen with Cutler are related to the transformation the team is undergoing, and of course to the defensive debacle that was the Bates' experiment. Few would argue that Cutler doesn't have FAR more physical talent and 'potential' than Plummer, but only time will tell if he becomes the great QB that many of us (myself included) feel he can become. Right now, he is simply one of many struggling young QBs.

I am very glad that Dinger and Bates are gone, because they didn't know how to get the most out of the personnel on the field, which is the FIRST responsibility of a coach, and that is why in Baseball, for instance, you see so many coaching changes in their longer season. The owners and general managers know that a manager has to figure out how to get the most out of the players on the team. In Baseball, that is preperation and motivation, in football, it is putting in place schemes and play calling suited to the talent on the field. Bates and Dinger failed in this regard, and they are gone as a result.

I'll leave you guys with this thought. Plummer has taken a lot of grief, and I think an awful lot of it has to do with his not taking crap from the Denver press and fans, which is something Denver QBs are expected to do. However, if you look at what he and the team did on the field, then which other QB, that was a legitimate option for Denver, would have done more from '03 to '05 than Plummer. Stewart? BVP? Kanell?

Which other realistic QB option would have been as good a fit as Plummer was in the Denver offense, and helped lead them to the third best winning percentage over a three year period, in spite of the fact that during part of that time Rod Smith was his ONLY legit receiving option?

I have no problem with people pointing out Plummer faults, which were many. No problem with people talking about the system helping Plummer elevate his game (sound familiar? Droughns, Bell, etc.). However, to at the same time discount any contribution that Plummer made to the wins is simply ridiculous.

Well thought out and is on the money, imo.

[Northman]

Originally Posted by tnedator

Conversely, you can't ignore the plummet in winning percentage when Cutler took over, which has been a nearly 250 point drop (.249).

But, your also forgetting that Cutler was a rookie and that plays a huge part into the drop off. I dont know about you but i saw the drop coming a mile away but ive also seen and huge improvement at that particular POSITION than i did when Jake was here. So while Jake may have had a good winning percentage, the position itself was a little less to be desired and needed improvement. I believe when all is said and done and when the rest of the chips are in place that Cutler will have more than surpassed Jake's win/loss ratio in Denver.

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by Anubis

But, your also forgetting that Cutler was a rookie and that plays a huge part into the drop off. I dont know about you but i saw the drop coming a mile away but ive also seen and huge improvement at that particular POSITION than i did when Jake was here. So while Jake may have had a good winning percentage, the position itself was a little less to be desired and needed improvement. I believe when all is said and done and when the rest of the chips are in place that Cutler will have more than surpassed Jake's win/loss ratio in Denver.

As I said, Jake was a perfect fit for the offense that was being run in Denver. Put Jake in another offense, like say Dallas or even NE, and who knows. Even on a franchise with a good O-line and offense, he might not have succeeded. However, coming into an offense that was already heavily relying on misdirection and formation-confusion to gain yards, Jake's mobility and far better passing accuracy out of the pocket vs. in the pocket, made for a near perfect match.

When Dinger changed the offense (no, the teams didn't take the boot and other misdirection plays away in '06, Dinger did, review game 1 of '06 if there is any doubt), the perfect match went away. Plummer's weaknesses, along with the weaknesses of the O-line and RB's were exposed. We witnessed a line that couldn't drop back pass block play after play, running backs that couldn't pick up the blitz, a QB that couldn't pass from the pocket, especially when a quick release was required, and a running game that couldn't move the chains with a stalled, ineffective passing game.

Cutler made plenty of bonehead mistakes when he took over, but as you say he was a rookie, so it was expected. Some point to the points per game going up with Cutler, but how much of that was Cutler vs. Scheffler getting healthy and on the field, and Marshall developing There is no way to actually quantify that.

So, what it comes down to is this. Nobody that is objective can state:

1. That Plummer had no impact on the games being won, or claim that the Broncos won in spite of Plummer, since the Broncos clearly became a better team with Plummer at QB WITH the old Kubiak/Shanahan misdirection offense being run.
   
2. That Plummer is a more talented or all around better QB than Cutler or that the team isn't better in the long run with Cutler.

The reason I make the above two points is that far too many people feel they have to be at one end of the spectrum or the other with Jake. He was either all bad or all good, rather than facing the reality. Jake and Denver, at the time they came together were a perfect match. However, they weren't good enough to win against the elite teams, and therefore Denver has moved in a new direction, which in the short term has hurt the team (in terms of wins and potential playoff berths), but in the long run will hopefully result in a much stronger team with a foundation (Clady, Cutler, Marshall, Scheffler, the young guys on the DL, etc.) that will pay dividends in the future, possibly as early as this year.

[BMF Bronco]

The glowing stat that keeps resurfacing with me is Cutler will have to go 30-3 to match Jake's record.

[chaz]

[QUOTE=Bronco_Beerslug;2018775]Geeeezus, I'd hope so, it's not like you are in your 60s or anything.

QUOTE]

I'm only 19 and can't run a mile without pain anymore. I have a chronic fracture in my back, had it for two years now just found out the real diagnosis. I was a three sport athlete in high school...you always take your physical health for granted until you lose it. I'm happy for Jake, and can definitely appreciate pain-free running.

[bronco militia]

Originally Posted by BMF Bronco

The glowing stat that keeps resurfacing with me is Cutler will have to go 30-3 to match Jake's record.

maybe cutler will have 8 years in the NFL when he finally plays for a winning nfl team

[BMF Bronco]

I ****ing hope not, that would be a **** ton of painful years.

[errand]

Originally Posted by elsid13

Where you not around for that era It really was Elway and bunch of also rans....

So guys like Mecklenburg, Braxton, Jones, Smith, Winder, etc. were just more obstacles he had to overcome, huh? And I suppose Reeves held him back as well, right? I'm amazed he didn't take us to a SB between '93-'96, afterall, all the aforementioned obstacles were gone by then.

[cutlerfan]

Originally Posted by BMF Bronco

The glowing stat that keeps resurfacing with me is Cutler will have to go 30-3 to match Jake's record.

What is Jake's overall record? Look that up.

The point is when Jake played on the Broncos the defense was great!

Jay has never been the problem.

I'll take it one step more.

How was the Titans able to win against Oakland when Vince threw for 40 yards the whole game? The DEFENSE! Yet the media wants to give Vince credit!

It is not ALL about the QB play but the QB gets too much credit and too much blame!!

If Jake was all that much better than Jay then how did he do when Jay got knocked out of the San Fran game in 2006??

[watermock]

mediator had a really good post on that subject. Shanahan determined after pittsburg that Jake wasnt going to get us to the promised land, period. It was Shannys call, and the correct one.

We drafted HORRIBLY FOR ABOUT 8 YEARS in a row.Expensive Free agents went any better. The team has had 3 good drafts since 06 but poor FA's. This team is about 60% of a championship team.

Not many coaches could of pulled Jake after 05, but I too had seen enough after 10 weeks of 06.

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by cutlerfan

What is Jake's overall record? Look that up.

The point is when Jake played on the Broncos the defense was great!

Jay has never been the problem.

I'll take it one step more.

How was the Titans able to win against Oakland when Vince threw for 40 yards the whole game? The DEFENSE! Yet the media wants to give Vince credit!

It is not ALL about the QB play but the QB gets too much credit and too much blame!!

If Jake was all that much better than Jay then how did he do when Jay got knocked out of the San Fran game in 2006??

But, why was the defense "great"? They couldn't rush the passer, but what was the ONE thing the defense had going for them more than anything else from '03 - '05? They played with the lead.

During those three years, the Broncos were first, or in the top few teams, in first quarter scoring. The teams they played were often abandoning the run in the first half of the game, because the offense was usually scoring on the first possession, and regularly in the first quarter. Someone might have the stats handy, but during that three year run, the Broncos were one of the top teams, if not the top team in first quarter scoring.

There is no question that a bad defense, as the Bates debacle was last year, is hard to overcome, BUT what did we have something like 7 games where the offense scored 15 or fewer points? At least two where the offense only scored 3?

While it is true that the defense gave up an insane 26 points a game or so, it is equally true that the offense was not getting the job done and not moving the chains with sustained drives and keeping the defense off the field. They weren't giving the Broncos' defense big leads to play with, as occurred frequently from '03-'05.

So, like I said before, when looked at objectively, this stuff isn't all or nothing. Yes, the defense was bad last year, but so was the offense (any wonder why Bates and Dinger are both gone?). The defense was better in '03-05, but coincidentally, they were almost always handed first quarter leads and the games were often put away by half time (with the exception of the fact Shanny sometimes tried to start running out the clock in the late 2nd, early 3rd quarter and let teams back in the game).

I think you would have a hard time finding too many football 'experts' that would call the Broncos defense from '03-05 'great', but what they were was good, and benefited from playing with the lead and having their opponents forced to give up the running game early and become one dimensional, because the Broncos jumped out to early leads, because the offense struck quickly.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by errand

You haven't been on here long enough to notice that Jake (according to the TJ's of the world) was actually 0-15...0-18 if you count the playoffs. The rest of the team was 40-0 including playoffs in spite of Jake.

I'm amazed that guys like Morton, Brister, Frerotte, and Plummer all QB's who won more games than they lost, hold a few records as well...and helped us make the playoffs are villified on here, and yet clowns and chumps like Jarious Jackson, and Brian Griese are reverred as heroes.

[cutlerfan]

Source = http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/den/2005.htm

Jake and Jay in 2006




Plummer in his best year of 2005



Jay his first full year last year

[cutlerfan]

Originally Posted by tnedator

But, why was the defense "great"? They couldn't rush the passer, but what was the ONE thing the defense had going for them more than anything else from '03 - '05? They played with the lead.

2005 Denver Defense was ranked 3rd!!

2007 Denver Defense was ranked 28th!!

Source = http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/

What else can you say?

[tnedator]

Originally Posted by cutlerfan

2005 Denver Defense was ranked 3rd!!

2007 Denver Defense was ranked 28th!!

Source = http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/

What else can you say?

As I have tried to explain, you can't simply look at a stat here or a stat there, and use that as 'proof'.

First, you are using points given up, which is the stat in which the 2005 defense was ranked 3rd, but they were 15th (middle of the pack in yards given up). So, why was a middle of the pack defense 3rd best in points given up? That's the question you should be looking to answer, as well as honestly answering whether or not anyone would call a defense 15th in yards given up 'great'.

Ok, so let's look at why the team was mediocre in yards given up, but 3rd best in points allowed. I've already explained it, but we will dig in a little further.

As stated earlier, the offense was jumping out to early, first half (typically first quarter) leads, and forcing other teams into more one dimensional gameplans, as they gave up on the run to try and play catch up.

The Broncos offense in '05 was 7th in 1st downs per game, 7th in points scored per game and 5th in total yards. Unlike the defense, the offense was pretty consistent, right? But wait, the yards, points and first downs are only part of the story. The Broncos led the league in time of possession, meaning the '05 Broncs offense held on to the ball more minutes per game than any other team in the league (32:40).

Let's look a little closer. The 'great' '05 defense was 17th in the league in giving up 1st downs per game. So, the defense that had the benefit of the best TOP (time of possession), meaning they spent the least time on the field, was in the bottom half of the league in terms of first downs given up.

Break it down a little further. The 'great' '05 offense was 29th in passing defense, and 18th in yards given up per play (pass and rush).

Now, if we look at the one stat they were 'great' at, it was points. If you factor all the points per game to a common number of minutes on the field, meaning factor all defenses up or down to 30 minutes (a constant number of minutes on the field), then the Broncos fall to 10th in points allowed (since they benefited from spending the fewest minutes on the field per game at only 27:25).

How about 1st downs given up? When the 'great' '05 defense has their stats levelized with the rest of the NFL, then they fall to 29th in the league in first downs given up per 30 minutes on the field.

So, you cannot ignore the benefit that the defense received by the offense leading the league in time of possession, as well as the offense jumping out to early leads and forcing the opposing offenses into abandoning the running game.

The Broncos defense in '05 only faced 21.5 rushes per game, which was WAY below the league average. The next closest team faced 23.9 rushes per game, and 28 of the 31 other teams saw at least 25 rushes a game. The league average was 28 rushes a game.

I think it probably goes without saying the benefit a defense gains from knowing that early in the first half the opposing offense will be abandoning the running game. Clearly, the team can both blitz with more freedom, as well as drop more guys in coverage.

So, sorry for the long-winded post and for those unfamiliar with the maximum verbosity that is Tned, but this was the long way of backing up what I stated earlier. The '05 defense was by no means great, and hugely benefited by the offense jumping out to early leads.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by chaz

I'm only 19 and can't run a mile without pain anymore. I have a chronic fracture in my back, had it for two years now just found out the real diagnosis. I was a three sport athlete in high school...you always take your physical health for granted until you lose it. I'm happy for Jake, and can definitely appreciate pain-free running.

I feel for you and some idea of what you may be feeling! I have DDD (Degenerative Disc Disease) and along with an auto accident, back surgery and basically missing my discs on the lower 4 consecutive levels, feel pain a lot these days. I can still run on a treadmill (my knees are getting shot too with 3 surgeries and needing a 4th) for 3 or 4 miles before I start hurting. That was the basis for my comment on Plummer's running. I think there are a lot of people in their 30s like Plummer is that can still run 3 miles pain free.