Recent Great Defenses and Throwing the Ball

[Golgo-13]

In recent years, we have seen some outstanding defenses emerge from the league. The Ravens defense, the Bucs defense and, to a certain extent, the Pats defense. In recent years, we have ALSO seen teams throw the ball much more than they have in the past. Do you think that there is a correlation here? Could it be that the emergence of the throw-first offenses has weakened teams on the offensive side of the ball in general and, as a result of this, we have seen these "great" defenses emerge? What do you guys think? Is this the reason for the "defense wins championships" teams we have seen the past few years?

[Brave]

Nah ... there have just been a few good defenses, that's all. Recent pass-happy offenses didn't help the '85 'Bears or the '86 Giants or the 70s Steelers ... all great defenses.

Also, I wouldn't count the Pats defense as great. They played a fine Super Bowl last year but they have been quite inconsistent and couldn't win games when the offense sputtered.

[redskin56]

I don't know if there is a direct correlation between the great defenses we have seen and a pass first philosophy of late.

Teams could not run or pass versus the Baltimore defense. In fact IMHO they were better against the run then they were against the pass.

Tampa's defense is a totally different animal. This defense is not a smash mouth in your face type of unit. Its built around speed and quickness. The teams that have success against Tampa's D are the ones that keep them on the field for a long period of time. If clock management and time of possession stems from running the ball, then Tampa's defense would be considered soft against the run.

Their D gets tired and worn out quickly because they are not a "big" unit. Even the players have said that they way to beat them is to run it straight at them and tire them out. Oakland didn't do this. If their offensive line was so overpowering, like some had stated before the game, then they should have been pounding Wheatley all game long. They chose to stick with their "guns" and throw the ball.

I thought one of the most telling moments of the game is when Porter was talking to Rice on the sideline when he was "miked up". Porter was saying that they need to pound the ball and run it more. How often do you hear a WR saying that an offense needs to run the ball?

[Golgo-13]

Originally posted by redskin56

I don't know if there is a direct correlation between the great defenses we have seen and a pass first philosophy of late.

Teams could not run or pass versus the Baltimore defense. In fact IMHO they were better against the run then they were against the pass.

Tampa's defense is a totally different animal. This defense is not a smash mouth in your face type of unit. Its built around speed and quickness. The teams that have success against Tampa's D are the ones that keep them on the field for a long period of time. If clock management and time of possession stems from running the ball, then Tampa's defense would be considered soft against the run.

Their D gets tired and worn out quickly because they are not a "big" unit. Even the players have said that they way to beat them is to run it straight at them and tire them out. Oakland didn't do this. If their offensive line was so overpowering, like some had stated before the game, then they should have been pounding Wheatley all game long. They chose to stick with their "guns" and throw the ball.

I thought one of the most telling moments of the game is when Porter was talking to Rice on the sideline when he was "miked up". Porter was saying that they need to pound the ball and run it more. How often do you hear a WR saying that an offense needs to run the ball?

This is why I think that all these pass-happy offenses are leading to stronger defenses overall. I mean, doesn't it seem strange that 2 of the 3-4 most dominant defenses in the history of the league have been in the past 3 years? There seems to be something more than mere conicidence working here.

[theposse]

The Ravens D thrived on totally shutting down the run, and making you 1-dimensional- pass only. Against the Giants, who are generally a ball-control type of team (opened it up some this year), that was very effective. Had they played the Rams in the Super Bowl, it probably would have been a different story, since the Rams don't mind passing only.

The Bucs D seems to focus on stopping the pass. Given that the Raiders are so pass-happy, this was a good matchup for them. Had the Bucs faced the Dolphins, it might have been a different result since the Dolphins like to run first (actually the Norv Turner offense is probably ideal against the Bucs D) and also have a pretty darn good D focused on stopping the pass themselves.

I think it's mostly that there is something to the old cliche that a great D beats a great O, more than that the upswing in passing has increased this effect. Additionally, I think these 2 awesome defensive teams faced good matchups in their Super Bowls which helped them as well.

[SonnyJ]

As others said, I think it is a matchup issue. The Bucs D was tailor-made to defend the WCO. An excellent zone D that can get quick pressure from just four players and with defenders that fly to the ball and keep the RAC to a minimum. And the Raiders don't exactly pound the ball, either, which has proven to be an excellent weapon against the Bucs D.

I don't know that I would rank the Bucs D amongst the greatest of all time. Let me put it this way: I think the Steelers would have beaten them. Why? They play a style of ball that is effective against the Bucs, and their D just stuffs the Bucs O. So, if the Steelers and Bucs played and the Steelers won a 20-10 ballgame, would we be lauding the Bucs D as one of the greatest of all time. Probably not. People tend to overblow the results of a Super Bowl - the Redskins of '83 were a juggernaut but are largely forgotten because they laid an egg in the Super Bowl.

[bulldog]

Most excellent defenses of the past 15 years have been speed defenses. The Cowboys under Johnson had a very fast defense for the NFL of the early 1990's. Tolbert was 255 as a DE, inside Russell Maryland was just 267 at DT and Coakley was 215 at LB.

The Ravens did a great job of mixing in the speed and playmaking ability of the back seven with brute force up the middle at DT and MLB.

Tampa is also a speed defense and was indeed the perfect weapon to dismantle the older, slower and more deliberate Raiders.

Except for Jerry Porter the Raiders don't have any speed on offense.

And their linemen are big but out of shape (Collins, Kennedy) and easily fatigued in pass protection when facing quick rushers.

Anyone thinking of picking up Mo Collins and plugging him in on the Skins line where Spurrier wants to throw the ball consistently should consider what a hard time he had on Sunday dealing with quickness inside.

He would face the same Bucs in the NFC and the Eagles with Simon and Glover from Dallas as well.

[NavyDave]

My question is now that we witnessed a team that would make S double envious of their pass to run ratio fail, what will be his approach?

[SonnyJ]

Originally posted by NavyDave

My question is now that we witnessed a team that would make S double envious of their pass to run ratio fail, what will be his approach?

I don't think SS takes anything from this game. He does not run the same offense as Oakland does. What the Bucs did against the Raiders may not be as effective against another offensive-style. Most teams nowadays seem to run some flavor of the WCO, so naturally the Bucs D has flourished.

I don't take the whole pass-run ratio as a truism, although against the Bucs, slamming it straight at them is usually a very effective tactic. But, the Bucs D has been in a "zone" (so to speak). I don't know that SOS abandons his philosophy because of one team with excellent players playing at peak efficiency. Especially when that team isn't in the division.

I don't see the Bucs being a dynasty. I think they caught lightning in the bottle and will fall back some next year. Their D was very healthy this season. They may not be so fortunate next year. Injuries to Brooks and Barber would make them extremely vulnerable. They must have some cap issues.

In short, I don't think SOS can build the Redskins with the Bucs in mind. He needs to think about beating the division.

[GURU]

If anything, I think this game underscores the need for balance on offense.

Coaching was a big difference in this game, too. The Bucs basically sold out to stopping the pass, and the Raiders never adjusted. They didn't show any patience, either.

The Bucs' front seven is too fast to have a lot of success with screen passes, but where were the delays and draw plays? When the Raiders did try and run Garner, it was on straight up run plays. Garner is one of the best at draws. There are lots of things you can do to take advantage of the Bucs' aggressiveness. The Raiders didn't try and utilize any of that.

The Bucs played great and deserved to win, but the Raiders had a bad game plan.

Again, balance wins football games. You can't rely on any one facet of the game. Balance is the lesson, to me.

[Darth Tater]

I think that the 'pass-happy' offense is more the result of having more defenses that can stop the run along with the fact the run takes a great deal of work to be successful unless the defense has to pay good attention to their pass-responsibilities.

Succesful running is based on solid execution of your whole offense and is very physical. Passing can work when only two or three guys execute and is not based on being more physical. When you pass, it is easier for coaches to find mismatches and take advantage of them even though he may field the physically inferior team.

[fansince62]

don't forget...Gruden had a huge advantage going in...he knew the players, their tendancies...."insider knowledge" as it were...this was not your usual SB in that respect.....I wouldn't draw too many conclusions.......the bigger tell for me is that the Raiders simply didn't get enough pressure on BJ throughtout...we all know based on experience that he is susceptable to ints when pressured

[DeathByLinebacker]

As has been mentioned, the Bucs and Ravens were two very different animals. The Bucs defense is primarily a pass defense while the Ravens were a great run defense first. That's why Baltimore went so many games without allowing 100 yard rusher but Jimmy Smith was able to catch 15 passes for 291 yards and 3 TDs against them in a single game.

I have to disagree strongly with the idea that "2 of the 3-4 most dominant defenses in the history of the league have been in the past 3 years". Are the Bucs really better than the Dolphins "No-name Defense" or the Vikings "Purple People Eaters" or Lombardi's Packers, just to name a few? My point is that it isn't just the Ravens, Bucs, 85 Bears and 70's Steelers when you talk dominating defenses. There have been many in NFL history that compare favorably to the Bucs no matter what Warren Sapp says.

[GURU]

Well, I would have to say that Tampa's defense compares favorably to any of the "great" defenses in the history of the NFL--for one season, at least.

Has anyone ever scored as many defensive TDs in one season? The Super Bowl underscores their dominance in this facet.

As far as being a "pass first" defense, keep in mind that Tampa's defense was the #5 defense in the NFL against the run, both in yards per game and yards per carry.

If you saw Tampa play much this season, you would understand just how suffocating their defense was.

One of the most significant things is that they completely stymied the #1 offense in the NFL. One of the most prolific offenses in history, at that. Chicago didn't have to face Miami's record setting offense when they won their Super Bowl. Anyone think the outcome might have been a little different if New England hadn't possessed some kind of voo doo against the Dolphins that season? And the Ravens got the Giants, for Pete's sake. The Giants dominant defense in '90 faced off with a prolific Buffalo offense and barely survived by the skin of their teeth. Even the Steel Curtain had some close calls.

I think you have to give the Bucs their due for the way they handled the Raiders.

[Larry]

I thought one of the most telling moments of the game is when Porter was talking to Rice on the sideline when he was "miked up". Porter was saying that they need to pound the ball and run it more. How often do you hear a WR saying that an offense needs to run the ball?

I heard that same comment: I think it was "OK, they can rush the QB. But can they stop the run?".

I'm with Guru: The Bucs were pressuring the QB with only a 4-man rush, and all the LBs were dropping into coverage. You'd think, in that case, all a draw has to do is get through a 4-man rush, and he'll get 8 yards before a LB can reverse direction and stop him.

And I agree with the folks on another thread: When you can rush 4 and still hurry the QB, your whole defense looks great.