It's very weird to submit an opinion "defense overperformed/bottom 6 in talent" and then use that to dispute an objective metric.
They are who their record says they are. It's okay early in the season to say this was an under-equipped defense from a talent perspective, because there's no evidence to back that up. At the end of the season you're just disputing facts because they're inconvenient to your point.
The defense over performed their talent level. I thought the board mostly recognised that? The pre season consensus was that it was one of the worst defensive rosters BEFORE we lost Jones and Nichols, and later Gardeck and it ended up mainly mediocre. It played above itself due to scheme and coaching.
