Chalk Talk Discussion Topic: What's the issue with our defense?

[Oldfan]

I definitely understand your point of view, OF, but a good number of turnovers are more a result of dumb luck than being over-aggressive. All three of the turnovers our defense got yesterday were like that. Lorenzo Alexander was just right place right time on the fumble recovery (unless you want to argue that the blitz he was on would be considered over-aggressive, but I think that's more semantics than anything), Madieu's pick was a bad throw from Ponder, and Hall's pick wasn't a result of aggressiveness. Turnovers are definitely a product of aggressiveness, but there are too many variables to say with certainty that the defense that creates the most turnovers is over-aggressive.

Now, if we're talking philosophy, I prefer an aggressive defense over bend-don't-break. I like attacking the offense and making them make mistakes. That kind of defense will get burned, but it will make plays that will make up for it. I like a defense that dictates how the offense will act, rather than reacting to what the offense does.

When a defense leads a 32-team league in takeaways over an entire season, it is not likely due to luck. It is PROBABLY a sign of an overly aggressive unit that took excessive risks. Of course, no one keeps track of the TDs they gave up in paying for that league leading stat.

KDawg's take on it above -- using a combination of stats -- makes sense to me.

[Boss_Hogg]

One thing we cannot overlook with this defense: Turnovers. The Redskins are tied for third in the NFC with 14 takeaways.

The Bears currently lead the NFL with 17 takeaways. - This is primarily a result of Tony Romo sits to pee's 5 INTs.

[Hitman21ST]

When a defense leads a 32-team league in takeaways over an entire season, it is not likely due to luck. It is PROBABLY a sign of an overly aggressive unit that took excessive risks. Of course, no one keeps track of the TDs they gave up in paying for that league leading stat.

True, I'll give you that.

You can tell though. If I'm understanding you, your premise is that the team that leads the league in turnovers is overly aggressive, and the result of that (aside from turnovers) is that the defense also allows the other team to score (kind of a boom-or-bust defense).

Last year, the Packers and the 49ers tied for the league lead with 38 turnovers. The Packers ranked 19th though in points allowed, with 359. The 49ers ranked 2nd, with 229. The team that allowed the most points (Tampa Bay, 494) was tied for 19th in turnovers with 24. The team with the fewest turnovers (Steelers, 15) also allowed the fewest points (227). I wouldn't exactly say there is a correlation, nor would I say that turnovers are a sure sign of aggressiveness.

[Oldfan]

True, I'll give you that.

You can tell though. If I'm understanding you, your premise is that the team that leads the league in turnovers is overly aggressive, and the result of that (aside from turnovers) is that the defense also allows the other team to score (kind of a boom-or-bust defense).

Last year, the Packers and the 49ers tied for the league lead with 38 turnovers. The Packers ranked 19th though in points allowed, with 359. The 49ers ranked 2nd, with 229. The team that allowed the most points (Tampa Bay, 494) was tied for 19th in turnovers with 24. The team with the fewest turnovers (Steelers, 15) also allowed the fewest points (227). I wouldn't exactly say there is a correlation, nor would I say that turnovers are a sure sign of aggressiveness.

Using the points allowed total doesn't work. What you need is a stat that no one keeps: how many points were given up when an overly aggressive defense was burned?

It's easier to understand what I mean by thinking of CBs. D.Hall led our team in takeaways, but how many times was he burned by offenses who took advantage of his over-aggressiveness? We don't have that stat, but we know instinctively that we can't simply say that he was better than other CBs because he had more takeaways. In the very same way, we can't say a defense was great because it led the league in takeaways. We need to know how often it was burned by being overly aggressive.

[Hitman21ST]

Using the point allowed total doesn't work. What you need is a stat that no one keeps: how many points were given up when an overly aggressive defense was burned?

It's easier to understand what I mean by thinking of CBs. D.Hall led our team in takeaways, but how many times was he burned by offenses who took advantage of his over-aggressiveness? We don't have that stat, but we know instinctively that we can't simply say that he was better than other QBs because he had more takeaways. In the very same way, we can't say a defense was great because it led the league in takeaway. We need to know how often it was burned by being overly aggressive.

OK, we're on the same page now.

To piggyback off of that, it's not just the point total that needs to be kept. I would throw 1st downs in there also (think the 3rd and 20 Cover 0 blitz against Dallas).

But I much prefer an aggressive defense to a bend-don't-break. There's a spot for BDB, but not until late in the game with a lead. Personal experience (both as a fan watching games and as a coach) has shown me that over the course of a season, aggressive defenses pay off more than BDB.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

I'm not saying we have the best defense in the league or anything, but if they keep generating 2-3 turnovers a game, i think they are probably helping us win a lot of games.

They may be avg 2+ TO per game but they are also avg giving up 28.8 p/g. Even if the Defense scores a TD (or directly add to a TD) with one of the TOs the Offense still has to score 3 TDs just to get even with the points the Defense is giving up. And I doubt many teams (see: any) are scoring TDs on 50% of their TOs. That's not really helping to win games, imo.

[Oldfan]

OK, we're on the same page now.

To piggyback off of that, it's not just the point total that needs to be kept. I would throw 1st downs in there also (think the 3rd and 20 Cover 0 blitz against Dallas).

But I much prefer an aggressive defense to a bend-don't-break. There's a spot for BDB, but not until late in the game with a lead. Personal experience (both as a fan watching games and as a coach) has shown me that over the course of a season, aggressive defenses pay off more than BDB.

Bend but don't break allows the opponent's offense to play ball control. So, I ask: When do I not care if the opponent plays ball control to milk the clock? Answer: when I have a two-score lead and the clock is my friend.

[Hitman21ST]

Bend but don't break allows the opponent's offense to play ball control. So, I ask: When do I not care if the opponent plays ball control to milk the clock? Answer: when I have a two-score lead and the clock is my friend.

I was going to say that exact same thing (relating it to the offensive thread you started).

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

Bend but don't break allows the opponent's offense to play ball control. So, I ask: When do I not care if the opponent plays ball control to milk the clock? Answer: when I have a two-score lead and the clock is my friend.

What is your ideal defensive philosophy for a team:

1. To start the game "generally" (Does the opponent matter)?

2. Once you see how/what the other team is doing/can-can't do/etc?

3. Late in the game - behind by 1-8 points, behind by 8+ points, ahead by 1-8 points? (we know from above what the answer is with a 2 score lead)

[Hitman21ST]

What is your ideal defensive philosophy for a team:

1. To start the game "generally" (Does the opponent matter)?

2. Once you see how/what the other team is doing/can-can't do/etc?

3. Late in the game - behind by 1-8 points, behind by 8+ points, ahead by 1-8 points? (we know from above what the answer is with a 2 score lead)

1. Come out guns blazing. Take shots early, get the other team on their heels.

2. Make the adjustments necessary, but keep on shooting.

3. a) Run my normal offense, normal game (maybe go no-huddle)

No huddle, go big or go home.

c) Normal offense, only no shots downfield unless it's WIDE open. Grind the clock.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

1. Come out guns blazing. Take shots early, get the other team on their heels.

2. Make the adjustments necessary, but keep on shooting.

3. a) Run my normal offense, normal game (maybe go no-huddle)

No huddle, go big or go home.

c) Normal offense, only no shots downfield unless it's WIDE open. Grind the clock.

I know from reading your posts what YOU would say! Ha, Ha.

..fyi #3 is defense as well...not offense..

[WellsHTTR]

I definitely understand your point of view, OF, but a good number of turnovers are more a result of dumb luck than being over-aggressive. All three of the turnovers our defense got yesterday were like that. Lorenzo Alexander was just right place right time on the fumble recovery (unless you want to argue that the blitz he was on would be considered over-aggressive, but I think that's more semantics than anything), Madieu's pick was a bad throw from Ponder, and Hall's pick wasn't a result of aggressiveness. Turnovers are definitely a product of aggressiveness, but there are too many variables to say with certainty that the defense that creates the most turnovers is over-aggressive.

I'll nitpick a little and say that all three turnovers were the product of good pressure by the defense. The fumble recovery was made possible by Riley blitzing off the edge and running into Ponder's arm. Similarly, the two picks were the product of Ponder feeling pressure from our D-line; Ponder sailed the first pass because he didn't set his feet as the pocket was collapsing, and he sailed the second because Jenkins was about to rock him.

This isn't to say that aggressiveness produces good pressure. Often that's not the case. Before the Atlanta game, we kept getting torched because we'd send five- and six-man rushes that failed to get pressure and thereby left our secondary exposed to big plays. When Atlanta came here, we backed off and relied primarily on less aggressive three- and four-man rushes. And that didn't work because we got almost no pressure out of those sets, and the extra coverage guys weren't enough to stop Ryan & Co.

We got turnovers against Minnesota because we relied on confusion over aggression. We frequently used bizzare zone-blitz looks to catch the OL off-guard and lure Ponder into bad decisions. That's why Alexander was lining up all over the place--hell, I remember one play in which we lined him up in a two-point stance at nose tackle. Especially on Williams' pick, it worked; all he had to do was sit back in a zone and watch for an errant pass. Same with Hall, who was in perfect position in a zone on the goal line to make a play on the ball. So we got turnovers not because we took big risks on D, but instead because we played it safe in the secondary and used creative rush schemes to confuse the QB.

[sempre_victrix]

Considering who we have playing in the secondary, they are doing OK. DHall is the only legitimate DB we have.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

I'm not saying that Haslett isn't part of the problem, because I think he is. But, the overwhelming lack of talent and depth in the secondary is the number one issue. Period.

Considering our woeful situation at safety, I would like to see how LeBeau would make us a top ten defense. In my opinion, we don't have the talent back there to get it done, no matter who's dialing up the poorly timed blitzes.

[Oldfan]

What is your ideal defensive philosophy for a team:

1. To start the game "generally" (Does the opponent matter)?

2. Once you see how/what the other team is doing/can-can't do/etc?

3. Late in the game - behind by 1-8 points, behind by 8+ points, ahead by 1-8 points? (we know from above what the answer is with a 2 score lead)

The traffic light analogy explains my risk management approach on both offense and defense:

red: conservative play, take minimal risk (lead to protect)

amber: take well-calculated risks

green: take more risks (opponent has the lead)

Ordinarily, I'd start the game in amber mode, then switch to green or red depending upon whether ahead or behind on the score board.

If I were up against a more talented opponent on their field, I might start the game in green mode and, for example, go for the first down on fourth and two in plus territory. If my gamble was successful and I ended up with a 7-point lead, then I would switch to amber mode.

[darrelgreenie]

What is your ideal defensive philosophy for a team:

1. To start the game "generally" (Does the opponent matter)?

2. Once you see how/what the other team is doing/can-can't do/etc?

3. Late in the game - behind by 1-8 points, behind by 8+ points, ahead by 1-8 points? (we know from above what the answer is with a 2 score lead)

Imho most things in football, especially at the NFL level are situationally dependent. Its a question of match-ups and situations. If I was building a defense I would aim to have my best players from the interior triangle of DL, MLB, FS. The primary traits I would draft for are: brains and tackling (yes, tackling not 'hitting' but tackling). My base defenses would be few and simple, the philosophy would be to play fast in addition to specifically tailoring the base defenses to match-up to our oppenents strengths.

[Geneva]

We play way to soft when our CB's cover their WR's. We need to hit them on the goal line to mess up their timing. Then our pass rush and blitz packages

should work. As it stands now we play a soft zone and their receivers always find the open area in the center of the field or the side line. This prevents the deep ball but that 8 to 10 yard pass to the TE or WR is almost a given. However, with the players we have now this may be the best we can do. Bend but not break. I would like to see Haslett mix things up a bit.more.

[MartinC]

Imho most things in football, especially at the NFL level are situationally dependent. Its a question of match-ups and situations. If I was building a defense I would aim to have my best players from the interior triangle of DL, MLB, FS. The primary traits I would draft for are: brains and tackling (yes, tackling not 'hitting' but tackling).

If the NFL mandated that defenders must use their arms in a tackle - so no hitting with just the shoulder let alone helmet, it would do a lot to make the game safer for both the player tackling and the player being tackled. This rule was brought over here in Rugby and after a lot of pissing and moaning from players, coaches and fans it has really worked and improved the level of play as well. The standard of tackling in the NFL is just shocking.

[darrelgreenie]

If the NFL mandated that defenders must use their arms in a tackle - so no hitting with just the shoulder let alone helmet, it would do a lot to make the game safer for both the player tackling and the player being tackled. This rule was brought over here in Rugby and after a lot of pissing and moaning from players, coaches and fans it has really worked and improved the level of play as well. The standard of tackling in the NFL is just shocking.

But, if were a coach I would publically praise the 'big hit' and I would be against NFL mandated tackling reform, I would vote against it if it came up in NFL competition committee meetings.

Is it wrong to try to maintain competitive advantage in the face of safety?

One metric I would insist on having for defenders would somehow account for the number of tackle opportunities vs the numbers of tackles made..maybe a missed tackle %

I would also want to know a % of false steps or bad angles and a % of times bit on play action or otherwise out of position against their total snaps, I would also want to % of blocks shed vs times blocked out of play. I bet colleges and I know some NFL teams already record stats like these.

[MartinC]

But, if were a coach I would publically praise the 'big hit' and I would be against NFL mandated tackling reform, I would vote against it if it came up in NFL competition committee meetings.

Is it wrong to try to maintain competitive advantage in the face of safety?

All these kinds of arguments were heard over when they brought the rule change in Rugby.

Firstly I would argue that players going for hits rather tackling and wrapping up leads to broken tackles and big plays - how many time did we see Landry trying to crush a receiver bouncing off and the receiver getting additional yards, or a DB drop his head and whiff rather using proper technique. I'm nt sure it is a competitive advantage. Then of course the rule applies to all teams and players - or not. So whether the rule is changed or not I don't see a competitive advantage argument.

It would significantly reduce concussions and also shoulder injuries and stingers.

[SWFLSkins]

Considering who we have playing in the secondary, they are doing OK. DHall is the only legitimate DB we have.

Didn't someone post recently that Josh Wilson had less completions and attempts against him? I think that would show the opposing offense fears him more than Hall.

[TSO]

I don't think Haslett is a good D coordinator. I don't think he's a bad one, though. Just middle of the pack. And when you marry "middle of the pack" in terms of scheming and play calls with poor talent at any given position you get the D we have right now.

If we had a great D Coordinator we'd be able to mask the issues better. The Pats, Colts, Saints, Steelers, Packers and Giants all have been to/won Superbowls with average to poor secondaries (Steelers' is arguable, I know) because their defensive coordinators game plan and adjust better.

[sempre_victrix]

Didn't someone post recently that Josh Wilson had less completions and attempts against him? I think that would show the opposing offense fears him more than Hall.

Someone would have to look that stat up, but Wilson has been lucky in that a lot of incompletions for his assignment have been bad throws or drops. He is a PI waiting to happen if he is close to his assignment and the ball is thrown his way.

I have no idea why the Vikings didn't try to exploit our weak secondary yesterday. Manning will be gunning for them in a big way.

[darrelgreenie]

All these kinds of arguments were heard over when they brought the rule change in Rugby.

Firstly I would argue that players going for hits rather tackling and wrapping up leads to broken tackles and big plays - how many time did we see Landry trying to crush a receiver bouncing off and the receiver getting additional yards, or a DB drop his head and whiff rather using proper technique. I'm nt sure it is a competitive advantage. Then of course the rule applies to all teams and players - or not. So whether the rule is changed or not I don't see a competitive advantage argument.

It would significantly reduce concussions and also shoulder injuries and stingers.

I think your missing my point. I would completely agree with the tackling reform for my team. The competitive advantage would happen because I would vote against the adoption league wide specifically because I know it would lead to better tackling league wide. But better tackling league wide helps my opponents not me because my team would already be filled with tacklers as opposed to 'hitters'.

Hence my question: Is it wrong to try to maintain competitive advantage in the face of safety?

[Oldfan]

... Hence my question: Is it wrong to try to maintain competitive advantage in the face of safety?

It feels immoral to me.