Quote:"People on this board have no clue"... well, perhaps not. But consider this possibility;

 

You've mentioned that Poz led the LBs in ints and pass defenses, so he was 'obviously' more effective. However, what you fail to mention is the number of times he was responsible for coverage on a given play vs. the other LBs. A clearer picture would have been to present the percentage of successful pass defenses in relation to the pass attempts in his zone. Having the highest number of ints and pass defenses just means he was in a targeted area more than others. Some might think that this would suggest that the opponents (you remember, those guys who kept handing us our butts with successful pass plays down the middle much of the season) saw something in our mid field coverage to be exploited... Poz, perhaps?

 

The praise of the coaching staff means little... they've said good things about every player they've cut too. I have to also disagree with your presumption that "he wouldn't be getting an extension, he would be getting replaced". You don't replace an experienced player unless you know you have someone better in your pocket, and as of right now I don't know that we have someone better than Poz for that position. Experience and knowledge like Poz has accumulated isn't a commodity to be disposed of lightly ... even if he isn't the player he once was. 

What the coaching staff thinks means 1000 times more than what you think. What you think is what is actually means little.

 

He's a MLB.  He's not supposed to be the coverage guy. If he is doing more coverage than the other LBs it would be because he is being put in coverage make up for their deficiencies.

 

It's not like they couldn't adjust the coverage if they thought he was a liability, so if he were so bad, then please explain why the defense wasn't covering the TEs more with safeties and OLBs like other teams?

 

I promise you it's not because the coaching staff aren't as smart and astute as you. LOL!

---