Originally posted by Russ Smith
Portis missed 3 games, Detroit they won 20-16, Jake had big numbers for him, but they only scored 20 without Portis.
Colts they won big, Jake had big numbers. Both games Jake had a rating over 110. They both missed Green bay so I won't count that game. Jake lit up a bad Detroit team, but lit up the Colts and their defense was "pretty good".
4 games Jake missed, Portis had 361 yards, 4.1 YPC, but they lost to Minnesota(just missed the playoffs) New England(Superbowl winner) and Baltimore(made playoffs) and beat Pitt(didn't make playoffs). Only Pitt shut down Portis without Jake, but they lost 3 of those games because SB and Kanell played so poorly. As you can see Portis averaged 5.5 YPC for the season so he was less effective when Jake was out.
As you said it basically showed how much better Jake was than their backup QB's. But to be fair, before the season I for one thought SB was better than Jake so it's not fair now to act like I knew he wasn't. The big problem they had was the system is designed to take advantage of Jake's mobility, when he wasn't there, neither SB or Kanell could run it, that's why they're looking at Ricky Ray, they want a backup who can run that system.
So jake played well without Portis for 2 games, Portis played well without Jake for 3 of 4 games(and against 2 really good defenses) but net resut Lex is right about W/L and that's all that really matters.
I see your point, but what did the broncos run game look like without portis....I believe at least one of those games they had a guy with at least 100 yds rushing (?griffin 125yd?) What did the pass game look like for portis? Obviously bad.
My point is, without gibbs to coach that line, griffin won't be able to put up 125yds a game, and he hasn't proven (or had the chance) to do just that over the course of a season.
If w/o portis they still had a run game, and a good pass game, and won both...that's great from a team standpoint. But I just don't see that being repeatable over the course of the season, especially w/o gibbs, and w/o anderson. Basically last season they offense was 2 of 2 without portis and I still think it was favorable circumstances (sort of like luck) that it happened for them those two games...during which they still had a good run game, and a good pass game
But with Jake out, portis didn't run as well, true, but still did a good job, w/o a passing game. (Focus on portis to shut him down, and he still was good) 1 of 2 good run game, not great, but horrible passing game...
They went 1-3 against mediocre to great teams, with half of their offense producing because there was such a drop off at qb, and that may cause people to think plummer is a bigger factor, whereas if they had a decent backup those games would have been much more competitive against better teams. That alone would be more of a reason for 1-3, the drop off, not jake.
Had jake been in there and portis wasn't I'd say they'd be hard pressed to better 1-3. Of course that's subjective, but I doubt Balt and NE would give up many yards to griffin/anderson.
The NFL is a game of ebb and flows....broncs start out 5-0 and they're due for a loss, also later they play an improved but still early season overachieving indy defense who also were due for a bad defensive game. And detroit isn't a very good team which you implied. Plummer benefited from playing those teams at those times when portis was out imo.
Then when portis was gone, anderson AND griffin made up for it. It's NOT going to be that way this year....even IF griffin runs for 1200 yds this season. I can see griffin getting 900-1100 yds this year. I think this is a realistic scenario.
Even if portis was gone, plummer produced because of who was around him, when plummer was out portis produced too when everyone was focusing in on him. Sure they were focusing on plummer w/o portis, but griffin and anderson burned them and that allowed jake to play better. When portis was when plummer was out, the qb's couldn't do anything.
With those numbers you can say LAST year that was the case, (plummer was the bigger factor) and the numbers back them up, but from the future standpoint, its a different evolved situation and w/o gibbs, anderson, and portis...they'll be worse off then when portis alone was out, and when you multiply this over the course of the season, I just think it would make for a tougher situation for jake to overcome.
I don't think just because a team has Vlade Divac at center, and then Loren Meyer backing him up its right to say that he's more important to the team then say Magic Johnson. (maybe this isn't the best analogy) I agree beurlein should have played better, but when his pinky was broken (wasn't it in the first game/ 2nd half, I was watching it and went ouch), their third and fourth stringers were playing. Any team should expect to lose when this happens.
Meanwhile anderson was a proven commodity, griffin has some talent, proven system, and those blocking for them were proven. Saying plummer is so important because the towel boy eventually came in I don't think is a good measure of his value against better teams wins and losses. Last year once again backs up the statements, but not for this year.
Now this year, those proven parts to backup portis are/will be gone and so is he, and with plummer not on his own, but with a few less compadres (maybe even shannon sharpe), once again its a tougher situation to be in.
