Quote Originally Posted by potts46 View Post

Exactly, our defence was the first in the league in 2010 but last year we had key injuries in our linebackers in 2011 and a couple of defensive linemen suffered foot and ankle injuries which hindered their play.
First in the league for what? Fewest points allowed in 2010, but that's a very shortsighted measurement of how great a defence is. Look at the underlying stats and get the full story...

2010 Toronto faced the most pass attempts but allowed the second highest completion rate against and had the fewest sacks. How do you interpret those numbers? To me it shows a soft and passive defence that doesn't make any plays and allows the opposing offence to dictate the flow. Fewest points allowed, but the rest of the defensive stats don't support that being sustainable. It was a complete anomolay.

2011 Toronto once again faced the most pass attempts, allowed the highest completion rate and had the second fewest sacks. Not surprisingly, Toronto went from fewest points allowed to most points allowed. Same problems as 2010. If "injuries" was the explanation for 2011, how do you explain the struggles in 2010?

I would never define a great defence by the number of points allowed. My idea of a "great defence" is one that is agressive and intimidating to the point that once they get a smell of blood it becomes a feeding frenzy. Winnipeg had that in 2011. You could sense the fear opposing QBs had going up against the Bomber defence.

Winnipeg faced the fewest pass attempts but had the most INTs and the most sacks and the lowest completion percentage allowed. That's an agressive defence that makes plays.

Last year's defence was embarassing. The offence was just as bad, but they brought in a new QB and a new OC. So what needs to change on defence....new scheme? New players? Or do you think standing pat will somehow produce a different result?