PDA

View Full Version : Not so good news for our defense .....



omac
03-09-2009, 07:06 AM
This article is a bit dated, as it was written last month, but there are a few interesting notes about poor defenses and their trends the following season. I'll just cut-and-paste those parts ....

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/four-downs/2009/four-downs-afc-west

Denver Broncos
How do historically bad defenses rebound?

Denver may have hired a young offensive mastermind (Josh McDaniels) as its new head coach, but the problem in 2008 was clearly defense. Based on Football Outsiders' advanced DVOA ratings, Denver had the second-worst defense of any team since 1995. (The worst defense also played this year, in Detroit.)

The good news for Denver is that it would be almost impossible for the defense to be that bad for a second year. The natural tendency of all teams is for performance to trend towards the NFL average. For example, take the 25 worst defenses in DVOA prior to 2008. These 25 defenses improved the next year by an average of 11 percentage points worth of DVOA, or seven places in the NFL rankings. Only one team, Cincinnati in 1997-1998, actually got worse.

If we compare the teams that improved significantly to those that improved just slightly, can we find trends that might suggest optimism for the Broncos? It's difficult to find trends that tie the most improved defenses together, and those trends that exist don't suggest a huge turnaround for the Broncos:

* Teams that play better on first and second down than on third down tend to improve. Denver's defense was equally poor on every down, ranking 30th in DVOA on first, 31st on second, and 27th on third.
* Teams that were stronger against the run in the red zone tended to improve the next season. Ten of the 12 "worst defenses" with the biggest improvement in the following year had better run defense than pass defense in the red zone. Denver's red zone defense was 24th against the run and 25th against the pass, basically the same.
* Nearly every bad defense concentrated its top draft picks on defensive players, but a few of the really strong turnarounds came from teams that had highly-drafted linebackers entering their second seasons. For example, the Ravens went from 29th in DVOA in Ray Lewis' rookie year to 13th in his second season. The 49ers went from 28th in Julian Peterson's rookie year to 14th in his second season. The Broncos can't complain about last year's draft, not when Ryan Clady was such a force at left tackle, but they didn't select a linebacker until the sixth round.

***************

So the good news is, the defense will most likely get better; the bad news is, the traits that showed that bad defenses have promise were absent from Denver's defense, LOL! :D

Here's to hoping our defense can do like the article says, and improve to average. :rofl:

Shazam!
03-09-2009, 08:35 AM
If I remember correctly, after the horrendous D that was fielded in 1994 (which I never thought I'd see another Denver defense worse than that, how WRONG I was,) in 1995 Denver's defense jumped from 30th to 16th. That was quite an improvement, and could be the difference between wins and losses. Even a mediocre, middling NFL defense can make the stop 40% of the time, as opposed to a guaranteed 1st on 2nd and 20 that we were all too accustommed to seeing the last two seasons.

A new scheme and a new philosophy alone will help the defense dramatically IMO. There is hope and I am optimistic.

Dirk
03-09-2009, 08:39 AM
Plus I think bringing in Dawkins will help TREMENDOUSLY in the form of leadership. He may be on his downward slide of his career, but you cannot put a value on the leadership and guidence he will give to the others on the defensive side of the ball.

Fan in Exile
03-09-2009, 08:56 AM
There was a good comment in the thread that made a good point.


Of course, the worst 25 historical defenses will improve the next year. Its impossible not to. Otherwise they wouldnt be the bottom 25 defenses in historical records - the next year would be worse and these would be the BOTTOM 25!

So maybe we can be worse next year. :)

lex
03-09-2009, 09:13 AM
Does anyone remember the piece where Shanahan said a QB proves his worth by how he performs on 3rd down? Well thats also true to a large extent on the defensive side of the ball. Things like the 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 4 can not be discounted. A change in DC alone could help a lot with this.

Ziggy
03-09-2009, 09:18 AM
Does anyone remember the piece where Shanahan said a QB proves his worth by how he performs on 3rd down? Well thats also true to a large extent on the defensive side of the ball. Things like the 10 yard cushions on 3rd and 4 can not be discounted. A change in DC alone could help a lot with this.

Not only that, but I'm wondering how many, if any of those defenses had all new coaches and new starters at up to 8 positions the next season.

EMB6903
03-09-2009, 09:19 AM
Were still going to the Superbowl though, right?

Fan in Exile
03-09-2009, 09:22 AM
Were still going to the Superbowl though, right?

assuming we can buy tickets, yeah.

EMB6903
03-09-2009, 09:24 AM
No, I mean the Broncos as a team.

MadMax
03-09-2009, 09:26 AM
If I remember what footballoutsiders has said in the past, how teams perform on 3rd and 4th down is an indicator of a team playing above or below its abilities. The gist of their theory is something about how since a drive can be saved or lost in one play on 3rd and 4th down that "good" or "bad" luck on these downs can mask the actual abilities of the team. They use this theory to predict which teams will have a significant reduction in wins in their next seasons.

It looks like their saying the same thing here. Teams whose defense underperformed on third and fourth down may have looked worse than they were. Add to that the trend that most had young high draf picks on the line and you can see that these were basically teams which were ideally suited to improve. From a statistical standpoint it makes sense, their is no magic strategy to improving defenses, so the only statistical trends for a defense improving should involve things a team has no (immediate)control over.

Anyways, lets just not overreact here. We knew this defense wasn't under performing, it really was that awful. We knew we lacked talent at almost every position for many years now. Finally, most everyone will agree that we have vastly improved the quality of coaching at every level on defense. We may not improve much next year, but I don't care what our defense does next year, I care what it does for the next five years. I think what we have accomplished this off season is to lay the foundation for an effective defensive system for years to come.

lex
03-09-2009, 09:53 AM
If I remember what footballoutsiders has said in the past, how teams perform on 3rd and 4th down is an indicator of a team playing above or below its abilities. The gist of their theory is something about how since a drive can be saved or lost in one play on 3rd and 4th down that "good" or "bad" luck on these downs can mask the actual abilities of the team. They use this theory to predict which teams will have a significant reduction in wins in their next seasons.
It looks like their saying the same thing here. Teams whose defense underperformed on third and fourth down may have looked worse than they were. Add to that the trend that most had young high draf picks on the line and you can see that these were basically teams which were ideally suited to improve. From a statistical standpoint it makes sense, their is no magic strategy to improving defenses, so the only statistical trends for a defense improving should involve things a team has no (immediate)control over.

Anyways, lets just not overreact here. We knew this defense wasn't under performing, it really was that awful. We knew we lacked talent at almost every position for many years now. Finally, most everyone will agree that we have vastly improved the quality of coaching at every level on defense. We may not improve much next year, but I don't care what our defense does next year, I care what it does for the next five years. I think what we have accomplished this off season is to lay the foundation for an effective defensive system for years to come.

Taking what youve said on the surface,...without drilling into their material. The flaw with that is that you can do the same for first and 2nd down also. If you isolate how a team performs on 1st down and its not very good, but they do great on 3rd downs, deciding "what is truly reflective of the team" is an arbitrary exercise. I think a lot of people would tell you that doing well on 3rd down is as important if not more important than 1st downs (depending on how bad they are on 1st downs).

The observation about having young Dlinemen is a valid one.

But our biggest problem was the defensive coordinator. He was so bad that it was hard to tell how bad the individual players were. Im not saying we had great personnel or anything like that but that its somewhat clouded by having Slowik as a DC.

omac
03-09-2009, 10:05 AM
Btw, our defense hasn't been terrible for several years; it's only been absolutely terrible after Coyer left. Our defense against the run before then was overall pretty good, although we did have difficulty putting pressure on the opposing QB.

Besides Coyer leaving, we lost Al Wilson too, and Warren; though Warren wasn't thought of very highly by most fans, he was supposedly one of our better run stuffers. He just didn't want to play the kind of defense Bates wanted. Of course, Bates and Slowik sure didn't help much.

Funny that we're now trying to at least get back to the Coyer level of defense that we all complained about. :D

lex
03-09-2009, 10:11 AM
Btw, our defense hasn't been terrible for several years; it's only been absolutely terrible after Coyer left. Our defense against the run before then was overall pretty good, although we did have difficulty putting pressure on the opposing QB.

Besides Coyer leaving, we lost Al Wilson too, and Warren; though Warren wasn't thought of very highly by most fans, he was supposedly one of our better run stuffers. He just didn't want to play the kind of defense Bates wanted. Of course, Bates and Slowik sure didn't help much.

Funny that we're now trying to at least get back to the Coyer level of defense that we all complained about. :D

Coyer could scheme pressure but after the Pittsburgh game, it was like he overcompensated by putting it all on the front 4. In both of our games against NE in 2005, we pounded Brady.

Fan in Exile
03-09-2009, 10:14 AM
Btw, our defense hasn't been terrible for several years; it's only been absolutely terrible after Coyer left. Our defense against the run before then was overall pretty good, although we did have difficulty putting pressure on the opposing QB.

Besides Coyer leaving, we lost Al Wilson too, and Warren; though Warren wasn't thought of very highly by most fans, he was supposedly one of our better run stuffers. He just didn't want to play the kind of defense Bates wanted. Of course, Bates and Slowik sure didn't help much.

Funny that we're now trying to at least get back to the Coyer level of defense that we all complained about. :D

That's not true our defense was terrible under Coyer against the run. We were giving up something like 4.5 yards per attempt. The only difference was that we ran up leads early which kept teams from running against us. That's why a lot of people have been calling for linemen for years.

The only reason that our D looked good at all was when we had players like Champ, D-Will, Lynch, Ferguson, and Sam Brandon really stepping up. Looking back on it when we lost Brandon is when our D is when our d stopped being a factor in games. Not saying that he's the only cause just establishing a timeline.

TXBRONC
03-09-2009, 10:16 AM
Btw, our defense hasn't been terrible for several years; it's only been absolutely terrible after Coyer left. Our defense against the run before then was overall pretty good, although we did have difficulty putting pressure on the opposing QB.

Besides Coyer leaving, we lost Al Wilson too, and Warren; though Warren wasn't thought of very highly by most fans, he was supposedly one of our better run stuffers. He just didn't want to play the kind of defense Bates wanted. Of course, Bates and Slowik sure didn't help much.

Funny that we're now trying to at least get back to the Coyer level of defense that we all complained about. :D

I hope that within the next two years Nolan will be able to build a defense capable of holding up its end. I also hope the same can be said of special teams by this next season.

silkamilkamonico
03-09-2009, 10:37 AM
With all due respect, I would hope nobody would be ignorant to expect some kind of miraculous turnaround from the defensive side of the ball.

omac
03-09-2009, 10:44 AM
That's not true our defense was terrible under Coyer against the run. We were giving up something like 4.5 yards per attempt. The only difference was that we ran up leads early which kept teams from running against us. That's why a lot of people have been calling for linemen for years.

The only reason that our D looked good at all was when we had players like Champ, D-Will, Lynch, Ferguson, and Sam Brandon really stepping up. Looking back on it when we lost Brandon is when our D is when our d stopped being a factor in games. Not saying that he's the only cause just establishing a timeline.

In 2006, when our offense under Jake wasn't scoring a lot, and when Cutler took over and it was scoring on average a little more which also wasn't a lot, we were ranked 12th in rushing defense, and with a 4.1 average, tied for 14th in the league.

In 2005, we were 2nd in rushing defense, and with a 4.0 average, tied for 15th in the league.

In 2004, we were 4th in rushing defense, and with a 3.8 average, tied for 8th in the league.

In 2003, we were 7th in rushing defense, and with a 4.2 average, tied for 17th in the league.

Contrast that to 2007, when we were 30th against the run, and with a 4.6 average, ranking 31st in the league, and

2008, when we were 27th against the run, and with a 5.0 average, tied for 30th in the league.

Larry Coyer's defenses were usually pretty consistent against the run, and at the very worst case, average. Since he's left, our rushing defense has been absolutely horrible.

omac
03-09-2009, 10:47 AM
I hope that within the next two years Nolan will be able to build a defense capable of holding up its end. I also hope the same can be said of special teams by this next season.

I'm sure our ST will be better next season, I mean, we now have the best long snapper in the game, right? :D

Fan in Exile
03-09-2009, 11:07 AM
In 2006, when our offense under Jake wasn't scoring a lot, and when Cutler took over and it was scoring on average a little more which also wasn't a lot, we were ranked 12th in rushing defense, and with a 4.1 average, tied for 14th in the league.

In 2005, we were 2nd in rushing defense, and with a 4.0 average, tied for 15th in the league.

In 2004, we were 4th in rushing defense, and with a 3.8 average, tied for 8th in the league.

In 2003, we were 7th in rushing defense, and with a 4.2 average, tied for 17th in the league.

Contrast that to 2007, when we were 30th against the run, and with a 4.6 average, ranking 31st in the league, and

2008, when we were 27th against the run, and with a 5.0 average, tied for 30th in the league.

Larry Coyer's defenses were usually pretty consistent against the run, and at the very worst case, average. Since he's left, our rushing defense has been absolutely horrible.

You are right about the yards per attempt, my memory was clearly wrong on that one. Where did you get the rankings from though?

omac
03-09-2009, 11:12 AM
You are right about the yards per attempt, my memory was clearly wrong on that one. Where did you get the rankings from though?

NFL.com, based on yards, I believe. Don't worry about the memory thing, it seems like ages since we've had a decent defense, hehehe. :D

Fan in Exile
03-09-2009, 11:31 AM
NFL.com, based on yards, I believe. Don't worry about the memory thing, it seems like ages since we've had a decent defense, hehehe. :D

I'm not too worried about the memory thing however I would point you to the fact that NFL.com yards per attempt for the defense is ranked backwards. That means the number one ranked defense Y/A has the highest and the lowest is ranked 32. That's the way you would do it for offense not defense.

So it doesn't look quite so good for us in that light we really aren't 14th in 2005 when everyone thought our D was so good we come out more like 18th, you'll also notice that there were only 344 attempts against us which is like 40 fewer attempts than Kansas City which is 2nd in fewest attempts. I would also point out that one of the upshots of them not running a lot on us is that the defense didn't get tired out as much. We also ranked first in time of possession in 2005.

I believe that had we not done as well on offense both in scoring and ToP you would have seen how truly bad we were against the run that year.

More than that our pass defense is what carried us 6.3 Y/A despite facing the most passing attempts of any team is great, but then Brandon got hurt and Lynch and Ferguson got old, and we saw what a house of cards our D really was.

MadMax
03-09-2009, 11:53 AM
Taking what youve said on the surface,...without drilling into their material. The flaw with that is that you can do the same for first and 2nd down also. If you isolate how a team performs on 1st down and its not very good, but they do great on 3rd downs, deciding "what is truly reflective of the team" is an arbitrary exercise. I think a lot of people would tell you that doing well on 3rd down is as important if not more important than 1st downs (depending on how bad they are on 1st downs).


This is from an article (http://www.slate.com/id/2173233/entry/2173269/) Aaron Schatz wrote for Slate explaining how DVOA is used to project teams' seasons:


Teams get fewer opportunities on third down than on either first or second, so third-down performance is more volatile. But success on third down is also a much bigger part of a team's overall success, since the result is usually either very good (four more downs) or very bad (losing the ball to the other team by punting). Over time, teams will tend to play as well in these situations as they do in other situations. If a team struggles horribly on third down, then, it's likely that its record the following season will improve.

All I'm saying is that the article doesn't make any world shattering predictions here(no offense to the poster intended). The article in so many words concludes that teams which were historically bad, but were playing below their abilities were most likely to improve. We definitely don't fall in to that category but it doesn't mean we won't improve, it just means we have real shortcomings to address first.

TXBRONC
03-09-2009, 12:30 PM
I'm sure our ST will be better next season, I mean, we now have the best long snapper in the game, right? :D

Prepare his bust for Canton. :laugh:

rcsodak
03-09-2009, 12:31 PM
Btw, our defense hasn't been terrible for several years; it's only been absolutely terrible after Coyer left. Our defense against the run before then was overall pretty good, although we did have difficulty putting pressure on the opposing QB.

Besides Coyer leaving, we lost Al Wilson too, and Warren; though Warren wasn't thought of very highly by most fans, he was supposedly one of our better run stuffers. He just didn't want to play the kind of defense Bates wanted. Of course, Bates and Slowik sure didn't help much.

Funny that we're now trying to at least get back to the Coyer level of defense that we all complained about. :D

Careful of the "we"...


....some of us just wanted more players, and didn't have a problem with Coyer. Sure didn't seem to hurt TB's D.

We'll be able to see how he does again, since he's now Indy's DC.

rcsodak
03-09-2009, 12:39 PM
I'm not too worried about the memory thing however I would point you to the fact that NFL.com yards per attempt for the defense is ranked backwards. That means the number one ranked defense Y/A has the highest and the lowest is ranked 32. That's the way you would do it for offense not defense.

So it doesn't look quite so good for us in that light we really aren't 14th in 2005 when everyone thought our D was so good we come out more like 18th, you'll also notice that there were only 344 attempts against us which is like 40 fewer attempts than Kansas City which is 2nd in fewest attempts. I would also point out that one of the upshots of them not running a lot on us is that the defense didn't get tired out as much. We also ranked first in time of possession in 2005.

I believe that had we not done as well on offense both in scoring and ToP you would have seen how truly bad we were against the run that year.

More than that our pass defense is what carried us 6.3 Y/A despite facing the most passing attempts of any team is great, but then Brandon got hurt and Lynch and Ferguson got old, and we saw what a house of cards our D really was.

Well, ANY D that's on the field too much is going to get tired. Note Baltimore's D, last year when it gave up 200+ rushing yards to the NY football Giants.


"While we're on that bench, the first thing that comes to my mind is, 'I'm glad we don't have to play them,'" Tuck said. "When you've got a guy like Brandon, he wears you down and D-Ward wears you down, too. And then, Bradshaw comes in. You can't win."

BigDaddyBronco
03-09-2009, 01:04 PM
Coyer played that bend, but don't break defense as well. But to his credit, they played it well. The only thing Coyer was terrible at was defensive adjustments at halftime or throughout the game. It was absolutely heart-wrenching to watch someone pick us apart with the same type of play over and over, with no adjustments.

I thought getting rid of him was the right thing to do, then we got Bates and Slowick....

Fan in Exile
03-09-2009, 01:41 PM
Well, ANY D that's on the field too much is going to get tired. Note Baltimore's D, last year when it gave up 200+ rushing yards to the NY football Giants.

I'm really not sure what your point is here. Our D in 2005 wasn't on the field as much because we led the league in ToP. So I think they over performed. Were you trying to second that?

Cugel
03-09-2009, 04:26 PM
This is from an article (http://www.slate.com/id/2173233/entry/2173269/) The article in so many words concludes that teams which were historically bad, but were playing below their abilities were most likely to improve. We definitely don't fall in to that category but it doesn't mean we won't improve, it just means we have real shortcomings to address first.

Let's take this point first.

How could this be true?

Answer: you have some good players but crappy coaching which leads to improper schemes especially on third down.

"Playing below their abilities" means that you keep the players, and then expect them to do better next season perhaps with new coaching.

Mike Shanahan didn't qualify. People ripped Jeremy Bates but he's had success in Miami and elsewhere. (My next post is to point out the career of Jim Bates, and how he's not a bad coach).

Why would there be new coaching the next season? Well, having an historically bad defense is HIGHLY statistically correlated with GETTING THE COACH FIRED! :laugh:

Note that both the Lions and Broncos coaches were fired, along with the Rams, KC Chiefs, and Cleveland Browns coaches. All of those defenses were at the bottom of the league.

In fact the ONLY one of the bottom five defensive teams in the NFL whose coach did NOT get fired was Norv Turner, whose Chargers squeaked into the playoffs with an 8-8 record and then managed to beat the Colts.

If the AFC West had been a normal division, some team would have won at least 10-11 games, in which case Norv probably WOULD have been fired too!

But, one other thing that really makes these stats difficult to correlate is that the VERY Bad teams were often VERY BAD for a number of years: (Ex: Lions). Thus, they had perhaps 3 or 4 years in a row with top 10 draft picks.

It's tough not to find some talent when you're drafting near the top of every round! So, they might have some good players who were badly utilized by the lousy coaching staff.

Denver doesn't fit in that category. They haven't had a top 10 pick in the last 15 years.

I would expect the Broncos defense to be slightly worse than mediocre this season: somewhere around 15-20, perhaps one or two places worse.

But, Denver's offense is unusually good. Looking at historically bad teams they are usually like the Lions, i.e. totally crappy on both sides of the ball and desperately needing talent upgrades in many areas.

Denver could go straight into the season with the personnel they have right now and not draft a single offensive player and still be about as good as last season. (I would expect them to take an offensive player, probably a WR in the draft, possibly a late round OG like usual as well).

Thus, while they might not improve much statistically on defense, if they were even close to average, their overall performance would improve a LOT.

Cugel
03-09-2009, 04:43 PM
Denver fans hate Jim Bates. His defensive scheme didn't work here and was scrapped by week 8. He finished the season, and then was asked to be demoted to LBs coach for the 2008 season. He refused and was fired.

But, looking at his history, you see a very talented coach who has succeeded in many different organizations:


1991-2004

Bates began his coaching career in the NFL with the Cleveland Browns as their defensive line coach in 1991. He then moved on to the Atlanta Falcons to serve as defensive coordinator in 1994, his first time at this position. It would only last one year, however, and Bates returned to the Browns to coach their secondary in 1995.

In 1996, Bates was hired by the Dallas Cowboys as their linebackers coach. He was promoted to assistant coach/defensive line in 1998.

In 2000, the Miami Dolphins hired him as their defensive coordinator.[2]

[edit] 2004-2005

His first head coaching job in the NFL came in 2004 when he was named interim head coach for the Miami Dolphins following the resignation of Dave Wannstedt. He went 3-4 (including a victory over the Super Bowl champion New England Patriots) with the underachieving Dolphins. When new head coach Nick Saban took over the team, it soon became clear that Bates was not part of his plans, and Bates took over the defensive coordinator job with the Green Bay Packers.

[edit] 2006

When Mike Sherman was fired by Packers General Manager Ted Thompson on January 2, 2006, Bates was offered the opportunity to interview for the head position. He interviewed on January 10 but was informed the next day the organization would be hiring San Francisco 49ers offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy instead.

Bates took the news very hard. McCarthy met with him on January 15 in hopes of convincing him to stay with the organization. However, after two meetings between McCarthy and Bates, the team announced on January 16 that they would be parting ways.

Bates did not take another coaching job in the NFL in 2006.

[edit] 2007

In early January 2007, Bates was signed on by the Denver Broncos to replace Larry Coyer as the defensive coordinator. However, Defensive Backs coach Bob Slowik was promoted to the defensive coordinator position (nominal), and Bates was named "Assistant Head Coach/Defense." In the 2007 season, the Broncos defense went from 9th ranked in the league in scoring in 2006 to 29th in 2007 as of week 13. On January 8th, 2008 Bates announced he was leaving the Denver Broncos. [3]

[edit] 2009

On January 22nd, 2009 he was announced as the Tampa Bay Buccaneers Defensive Coordinator, working with new head coach Raheem Morris.[4]

He was out of football for the 2008 season, and now he's right back again, as Defensive Coordinator of the Bucs!

If he sucked, why would so many teams hire him?

True Answer: Denver had TOTALLY SUCKY players! Part of that was Bates fault, for not recognizing that Denver's personnel + the turds like Sam Adams and Jimmy Kennedy he picked up in FA couldn't run his scheme.

But, going back to the "old" Coyer scheme sure didn't work at all in 2007 OR 2008. In short the defense totally sucked in 2008 even worse than in 2007, AFTER Bates was fired.

Was this Slowik's fault? Well, we'll see.

But, at some point when a lot of coaches in a row fail, you have to point the finger at the CRAPPY PLAYERS (and Mike Shanahan for not drafting better defensive players).

Why did the defense fall apart after the 2005 season?

2005 was the last year for DE Courtney Brown. The oft-injured Brown was an immensely strong run defender.

2005 was Trevor Pryce's last year with the Broncos.

2005 was Gerard Warren's "salary drive" year. The last year he really played well, in order to get a big pay-raise.

2005 was the last year Darrent Williams was alive. His replacements, Foxworth, Paymah, and then Dre Bly haven't played well.

2005 was the final good year for Al Wilson. In 2006 Shanahan criticized his play as deteriorating and that was his final NFL season after his neck injury was discovered.

2005 was pertty much the last good year for John Lynch too. 2006 was decent, but he was slowing down visibly in the secondary, and 2007 was his final year -- where his skills really started to decline.

NONE of these players were replaced with anyone remotely as good!
Pryce, Warren & Brown that year were vastly superior to anybody who played on Denver's line since.
(Antwon Burton, Amon Gordon, Jimmy Kennedy, Sam Adams, Kenny Peterson, Josh Mallard, Jarvis Moss, Tim Crowder, John Engleberger, Ebeneezer Ekuban & the beat goes on). :coffee:

The Broncos still haven't replaced Al Wilson at MLB either.

EMB6903
03-09-2009, 04:50 PM
January of 2007 was the last year Darrent Williams was alive, 2005 Darrent,Paymah and Foxworth were rookies, Darrent was a 2 year starter.

Cugel
03-09-2009, 05:01 PM
* Nearly every bad defense concentrated its top draft picks on defensive players, but a few of the really strong turnarounds came from teams that had highly-drafted linebackers entering their second seasons. For example, the Ravens went from 29th in DVOA in Ray Lewis' rookie year to 13th in his second season. The 49ers went from 28th in Julian Peterson's rookie year to 14th in his second season. The Broncos can't complain about last year's draft, not when Ryan Clady was such a force at left tackle, but they didn't select a linebacker until the sixth round.


This is ambiguous. Denver is switching to a 3-4 defense, so Elvis Dumervil and Jarvis Moss will be moving to OLB and Spencer Larson & DJ Williams will be moving inside.

Denver might draft an OLB, but a lot of whatever improvement comes in 2009 will be if the Broncos can get some use out of Moss, Crowder, Thomas, and Dumervil. If none of those players become starters in 2009, then the defense probably will NOT improve noticeably this season. :coffee:

[Thomas started in 2008, but sucked. He's probably moving to DE and might NOT start in 2009. If he can become a decent average NFL DL in 2009, that's a BIG step up for the Broncos defense!]

Cugel
03-09-2009, 05:06 PM
January of 2007 was the last year Darrent Williams was alive, 2005 Darrent,Paymah and Foxworth were rookies, Darrent was a 2 year starter.

That's right. Dre Bly replaced him in 2007. The defense went from decent in 2005, to medium-poor in 2006 to HORRIBLE in 2007 to "give me your poor, your tired, your WRETCHED REFUSE OF THE EARTH" in 2008. Not all Dre's fault, but he didn't help.

EMB6903
03-09-2009, 05:11 PM
I didnt realize how good DArrent Williams was as a CB until I saw how much Dre Bly sucked when Opposite of Champ Bailey..... you will be picked on more than any CB in the league when opposite of champ, and Darrent (although he got beat some times) was very solid

as for Dre Bly, he was garbage both years in Denver.

Lonestar
03-09-2009, 05:18 PM
Frankly as long as I see some improvement.. I could care less about the rankings..

Considering we will be seeing All new coaching, as many as 9 new players on that side of the ball and 11 players in a new scheme.. With a lot of rookies or very young players thrown in..

Improvement game to game is all I want to see.. If we have a bad game or two mid season I'm not going to throw them under the bus.. I just want better consistent play week in week out..It is going to take time for everyone to come together


Anyone thinking about Superbowl, playoffs anything more than a few spots on the bell curve at this point is whistling up the wrong skirt as we speak..

Cugel
03-09-2009, 05:19 PM
I didnt realize how good DArrent Williams was as a CB until I saw how much Dre Bly sucked when Opposite of Champ Bailey..... you will be picked on more than any CB in the league when opposite of champ, and Darrent (although he got beat some times) was very solid

as for Dre Bly, he was garbage both years in Denver.

Partly, that's not his fault. It's tough to play well when you have ZERO pass-rush from the worst defensive line in football.

And, according to the other thread quoting Football Outsiders, possibly one of the worst DLs since they started keeping statistics in 1995.

"One-one-thousand. Two-one-thousand. Three-one-thousand. Four-one-thousand. Five-one-thousand, throw." Now the WR is open. :coffee:

Also, Dre is 5'9" tall and WRs are getting bigger every year. 6'4" WRs are now quite common, and the average is more like 6'1" or 6'2". I don't think we will see too many 5'9" guys getting drafted in the future. It didn't used to matter when the average WR was 5'11 or 6'0" and 185 lbs.

It DOES matter when many teams have a WR like Brandon Marshall or Vincent Jackson, 6'4" and 225 or something like that.

EMB6903
03-09-2009, 05:36 PM
thats not all it takes to be a CB though, of course we had no pass rush (even though it didnt faze champ for his entire career in Denver)

but Dre Bly didnt even make an attempt to make a play in the run, he got pushed back several times and was a HUGE reason our Run defense was as bad as it was, Counters, and stretch plays to his side were an automatic 5-10 yards

He was completely useless in Denver IMO

I dont care to see the height excuses, the average CB is around 5'9

Lonestar
03-09-2009, 06:01 PM
In 2006, when our offense under Jake wasn't scoring a lot, and when Cutler took over and it was scoring on average a little more which also wasn't a lot, we were ranked 12th in rushing defense, and with a 4.1 average, tied for 14th in the league.

In 2005, we were 2nd in rushing defense, and with a 4.0 average, tied for 15th in the league.
They were 11th in pass defense this year..

Whoops that was out of 12 teams in the postseason let see what they were in regular season Hmmmmmmmm 29th


In 2004, we were 4th in rushing defense, and with a 3.8 average, tied for 8th in the league.

12th out of 12 in postseason 6th regular season

In 2003, we were 7th in rushing defense, and with a 4.2 average, tied for 17th in the league.
12th out of 12 in postseason 6th regular season

Contrast that to 2007, when we were 30th against the run, and with a 4.6 average, ranking 31st in the league, and

13th out of 12 in postseason (Of course I jest) 7th regular season

2008, when we were 27th against the run, and with a 5.0 average, tied for 30th in the league.

13th out of 12 in postseason 26th regular season

Larry Coyer's defenses were usually pretty consistent against the run, and at the very worst case, average. Since he's left, our rushing defense has been absolutely horrible.


Yep indeed when you did not have to run the ball because for the most part you can pass it your Run defense is going to be good..

Lets see give up say 4.5 yards per rush or 7.7 you got it I'll pass for my yards almost everytime..


Please if you really want to look at coyers numbers compare first quarter stats to last quarter ones..

We all know that he was a genius on designing schemes that work in the first 22 minute of the game but by then the OC on the other side figure it out and after the half at the latest they schemed around them..

BTW what ever the numbers where in the regular season were totally destroyed by those pathetic ones in the playoffs.

omac
03-10-2009, 04:56 AM
Yep indeed when you did not have to run the ball because for the most part you can pass it your Run defense is going to be good..

Lets see give up say 4.5 yards per rush or 7.7 you got it I'll pass for my yards almost everytime..


Please if you really want to look at coyers numbers compare first quarter stats to last quarter ones..

We all know that he was a genius on designing schemes that work in the first 22 minute of the game but by then the OC on the other side figure it out and after the half at the latest they schemed around them..

BTW what ever the numbers where in the regular season were totally destroyed by those pathetic ones in the playoffs.

A solid rushing defense is the starting point for good defenses. If you can't stop the run, no one will bother passing. When you can't stop the run, it will affect your passing defense too. That's been critically obvious these last 2 seasons.

Check out the FO articles, and a lot of their hypothesis on improving defenses start with how defenses fare against the run.

Some top defensive teams were actually much weaker against the pass(edited), like the Vikings were 2 seasons ago. Yet because of their consistency against the run, their defense could, at most times, tow the line.

With a solid run defense in place, you only need to focus on the next step, which is putting pressure on the QB. Without a solid rushing defense, forget everything. There is nothing to build on, and that's exactly how our defenses have been post-Larry Coyer. There is no disputing that our defenses were tons better with Coyer, than with either Bates or Slowik.

I'm pretty sure you won't argue against that. :cheers: