2 wins + 5 losses = good football team?

today i had the pleasure of watching the denver broncos beat up on the pittsburgh steelers final score 31-20. nothing much to complain about as champ bailey picked off big ben twice and javon walker's spectacular show on offense, BUT jim nantz and phil simms... come on. when does and 2-5 team still get to be labeled a "good team?" last week big ben and team turned the ball over FOUR times to the awful oakland raiders and had people praising the raiders for their great defense instead of saying how bad ben was. today the steelers turned over the ball SIX times, let me repeat, SIX, seis, sechs, the number greater than 4. nantz and simms continue to say that the defending super bowl champions were a good team they just keep shooting themselves in the foot by turning over the ball. pardon me guys, but a team that turns over the ball more times than they get in the end zone does not come close to a mediocre team. i understand giving them credit as the reigning super bowl champs, but there is giving credit and speaking lies. i mean you can claim the raiders are good, but they just can't get the touchdowns. jim and phil a little lesson in logic, not able to get points = bad team. turning over the ball and in essence giving your opponent points = bad team. throwing interceptions in the red zone and not able to get points = bad team. 2-5 and now 2-6 = bad team.