Regarding the posts in this thread (by disaacks) and the subsequent conversation about the "need more downfield passes" topic...
By throwing short passes, under 9 yards, the offense is working the clock. With as bad as our defense is, perhaps us NOT throwing bombs down the field was actually a lifesaver for us.
I'm not sure that this was done by design, since I have a hard time thinking Gurry Kubiak has thought about this aspect (since he doesn't seem to really put much effort in creating weekly strategies based on who we face each game). Rather, I think it might be more of a blessing in disguise type of thing.
We ate more clock by keeping stuff shallow. Whenever I think about this team's offense, I think of long sustained drives (that's what she said) that eat lots of clock and ends up putting 6 on the board. I think that's what this offense is designed to do: To methodically "matriculate" the ball down the field and end up with 6. It's a risk/reward, though, because we know that when we eat clock and put up a FG instead of a TD...we are potentially hurting ourselves if we can't get TDs later in the game.
It feels like, to me, the games where we won...we were putting together lots of sustained drives and getting TDs on most of those drives. In the games where we lost, it seemed as though we were not sustaining drives, or if we DID sustain a drive we weren't capping it off with TDs. This is what magnified the problems of the defense, though they still stand alone and I will not say that they were bad due to the offense.
What consistency we had on offense, IMO, masked the defense's failures. One can assume that an improved defense, under Wade Phillips, might actually produce a better record than 6-10. But then there's that whole "ASSuming" thing, right?