PDA

View Full Version : Is Our Defense Better than Our Offense Right Now?



Joel
11-09-2013, 07:24 PM
Maybe that sounds like a stupid question, but really think about it:

DT: Vickerson and Knighton may be the best starting pair we've had since the SB wins, with solid backups. Yes, people complain about Vickerson getting all of TWO flags for things that wouldn't have been called at all even five years ago, and no, they don't put up tons of sacks, but rushing the passer isn't really their main job (really.) They're brutal against the run, especially up the gut, and are a big part of why we're 3rd against the run despite facing two top five rushing offenses. If not for that, it's debatable whether our 233 lb. former starting Will would have the size to be the excellent starting Mike he has this year.

DE: Ayers and Phillips go back and forth for the team lead in sacks, the more remarkable because they're splitting time at the SAME POSITION. They're not just sack machines though; they play the DE run-stopping role as well as our DTs play that one. All that, plus getting double-teamed on >40% of his snaps, makes it easy to miss Wolfe doing both jobs just as well on the other side.

LB: Our front fours run defense helps immensely, but Woodyard's a playmaker who's a fine impromptu 4-3 Mike despite being lighter than most traditional ones, playing the run, pass and QB with equal excellence. Miller's back and Trevathan's shown he can mostly fill Woodyards shoes at Will; we've got two very good starting OLBs, one among the leagues best in pass rushing, while the other made a game winning pick.

CB: Chris Harris just impossibly finds ways to get better every year; two and a half years of that has made him frighteningly good. With a coaching staff able to discipline him (and knowledge his contract's only good for one year,) DRC has begun regaining the elite playmaking ability he displayed his first few years. Tony Carters star has faded somewhat as he was caught out of position a few times, but Kayvon Webster has more than made up the difference halfway through his rookie year, and is an usually reliable nickel-, making Carter a sufficient dimeback. A healthy Champ Bailey would make this group impregnable.

S/FS: The one fly in the ointment, yet even it isn't THAT bad if one considers Moores blown Hail Mary coverage last year the exception rather than the rule. Ihenacho's come on strong enough in his second year to displace Adams as starting SS, but Adams is still good enough I'd frankly prefer starting him rather than Moore at FS next to Ihenacho; regardless (and wishing Nacho a speedy full recovery,) I'm fairly confident in either of our two SSs, and Moore isn't awful.

Further, we have good depth most places (the biggest current difference between our offense and defense.) Unrein's a decent (not stellar) backup DT, Jackson solidly backs Wolfe and the difference between Phillips and Ayers is almost unnoticeable. Even without Champ our base and nickel D is excellent and dime pretty good. Irving still isn't the starting MLB we drafted, but a good traditional run-stopping SLB when Miller's out (if never the same pass rushing force,) and at least prevented total nakedness when Woodyard was hurt at MLB. Adams is a fine third safety; only WLB is thin, and only because Woodyard plays MLB so well.

Contrast that to our offense, which put up gaudy numbers at the start of the year but faltered our last two games, in no small part due to injury. We lost our starting C in preseason, re-signed last years replacement, then promptly lost HIM for the year, pressing a backup guard into service. Ramirez has performed phenomally, but unless (perhaps even if) Walton's 100% another injury at C would be nightmarish.

It's not much better at G, where a still-hobbling Chris Kuper is listed as our SOLE backup. Like Beadles, Kuper's good in pass protection and runblocking downfield (but not at the line) when healthy, but he hasn't been healthy since the Chiefs ripped his foot off at the end of the 2011 season. I'm hopeful he can return at full strength this season, but even if he did we'd still only have ONE backup guard worthy of the name.

At T, Clady's gone for the year and Franklin's only just returned. That leaves a guy claimed off waivers protecting Mannings blindside; he's looked good most of the time, but Mathis took him to school against Indy. Based on their career resume, Justice looks like a better backup than Clark, but not good enough we didn't slide Vasquez over (and temporarily promote Kuper) when Franklin got hurt.

At the skill positions, I assume we can all agree our season would be in the toilet if Osweiler or Dysert had to replace Manning for the rest of it; that's nothing against them, but I don't think either our second year second round or rookie seventh round pick good enough to win a SB yet. Moreno's had a great year so far as runner, receiver and blocker; the problem is what we do when he's out of gas or (heaven forbid) hurt again, and so far the best solution we've found is C.J. Anderson, which says as much about Hillman and Ball as it does him. We've got three great starting WRs, but after that only Holliday and Caldwell.

About the only place I like our offensive depth is TE, where Dreesen's an excellent receiver and blocker and Tamme's pretty good at both, while Orange Julius is a devastating receiver and Green a good blocker.

Our offense is VERY thin at this point, and the cracks are starting to show in Mannings poor protection (with resulting ankle sprains and errant throws) as well as our diminished run game (especially in short yardage.) There's a reason that, despite lots of blowouts encouraging us to run in the second half, we're 17th in rushing (and no, it's not "Moreno sucks;" without him we'd probably be a bottom ten rushing team.) I guarantee KC, NE and everyone else has noticed, and will be jamming our WRs and head-hunting Manning, who won't get much more help from the line than our backs do.

It looks like the D will have to carry us a bit, probably for the rest of the season, since we're past the trade deadline and the waiver wires the only likely source of new linemen. The next month (easily our toughest of the regular season) may tell the tale, but they just might be up to the job. I hope so, because despite our 7 wins against losing and .500 teams, injuries have us near the breaking point.

Timmy!
11-09-2013, 08:01 PM
Youre right, it does sound stupid.

/thread

Captain Speardog
11-09-2013, 08:21 PM
I did not read your post because it was too long but to answer your question.....ahh.... no

olathebroncofan
11-09-2013, 09:13 PM
Until our defense starts scoring 30+ per game, no they are not better.

SR
11-09-2013, 10:00 PM
Zamtastic

atwater27
11-09-2013, 10:28 PM
I can see where you are going, Joel. We will find out in the next few weeks if your theory is correct. I suspect it has more merit than most people would think. Denver's D has been pretty unlucky, and the pass D has had the unfortunate (for them) task of always being targeted because we have a lead. Our pressure of the QB's we have faced has been there, the QB's have had to make very impressive scrambles to get out of trouble. They can't remain that lucky for much longer. I suspect we will clamp down hard on Phillip rivers, then smack the ever loving piss out of the Chiefs twice to show the league that our D has to be taken as seriously as our offense.

Joel
11-09-2013, 10:41 PM
Until our defense starts scoring 30+ per game, no they are not better.
Just outscoring our offense and allowing less points isn't enough? Isn't that the bottom line on each game? In our last game our offense scored 21 pts and gave up 14; our defense scored 24 pts and gave up 7. Who did better? Our offense had a good opening drive, then went silent for the rest of the half. In the second they DID score 4 TDs in a row, but half were for the WRONG TEAM, so that's a wash. Our D won the game:

After the offense made it 21-14 the D only gave up a single first down before forcing a punt to our 19.
After the offense took that down to make it 21-21, the D forced a three-and-out followed by a shanked punt giving us the ball at the Washington 35.
After the offenses easy one play TD "drive" made it 28-21, the D gave up a single first down but forced two fumbles in three plays, recovered the second, giving us the ball on the Washington 24.
After the offense gained 5 yds before a FG to make it 31-21, the D forced another three-and-out, giving us the ball at our 43.
After the offense gained two first downs before throwing a pick, the D picked it RIGHT BACK two plays later, giving us the ball at the Washington 25.
After the offenses easy two play TD "drive" made it 38-21, the D gave up two first downs, then made an interception, giving us the ball at our 39.
After the offense gave that interception RIGHT BACK three plays later, the D gave up three first downs three first downs that moved the ball all the way to our 25—then got a pick-six: 45-21 (F.)

We can also add that the D got a FIFTH turnover just two plays later so Manning could kneel three times at the Washington 30 instead of Prater kicking an easy FG to make it 48-21, meaning our D effectively scored a minimum of 27 points, but we declined the last 3-7 pts since it would've just been running up the score on a beaten foe. http://espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=331027007&period=0

Bear in mind: This was against the NFLs #5 offense but only #27 defense. OUR offense made their D look much better than 27th, but OUR D their offense look much worse than 5th.

Joel
11-09-2013, 11:02 PM
I can see where you are going, Joel. We will find out in the next few weeks if your theory is correct. I suspect it has more merit than most people would think. Denver's D has been pretty unlucky, and the pass D has had the unfortunate (for them) task of always being targeted because we have a lead. Our pressure of the QB's we have faced has been there, the QB's have had to make very impressive scrambles to get out of trouble. They can't remain that lucky for much longer. I suspect we will clamp down hard on Phillip rivers, then smack the ever loving piss out of the Chiefs twice to show the league that our D has to be taken as seriously as our offense.
I hope you're right, because the Chiefs D looks pretty scary right now; against our thin offensive line and with only one proven all-around RB, it certainly scares ME. Justin Houston, Derrick Johnson, Tamba Hali and Dontari Poe are so fierce the rest of their front seven need only show up to be brutal; I don't know how we'll keep all those guys out of our backfield long enough to run OR pass, but Flowers and Berry give them a respectable secondary when we try the latter (which is our bread and butter, after all.) People keep saying, "9-0, big deal; they just force lots of turnovers." Yeah, but they KEEP DOING IT, like most playoff teams.

The sad truth is the only really good team we've faced beat us, however narrowly and with however much help from our offense. That's another thing: We gave up 4 turnovers in EACH of our last two games, largely because of poor blocking; that's a worrisome realization two weeks away from facing the team with the NFLs highest turnover differential (50% more than the next team.) Our line frankly terrifies me, because we can't pass OR run without it, but it's the only line we'll have till next year. So our D must simply man up and pull the slack; here's hoping they can: There's cause for optimism. :)

atwater27
11-09-2013, 11:12 PM
I think we are going to expose the Chiefs offense for what it is. way overrated and one dimensional

Joel
11-09-2013, 11:57 PM
I think we are going to expose the Chiefs offense for what it is. way overrated and one dimensional
Not sure there's anything to expose: It's Jamaal Charles, just enough Alex Smith scampering and Bowe receptions to keep opponents honest, and not screwing up with turnovers. Their D is good enough that's usually all it takes. Denver vs. KC is the irresistible force vs. the immovable object, but something must give; hopefully it's them, and hopefully it's twice, because I really don't like how any of the tiebreaks look.

Simple Jaded
11-10-2013, 01:09 AM
No.

CrazyHorse
11-10-2013, 04:34 AM
We're on pace to have the highest scoring offense of ALL TIME. Our defense is ranked in the bottom half of the NFL. I think it's safe to say no.

CrazyHorse
11-10-2013, 04:35 AM
We are a bit thin at offensive line though. That's definitely a concern there.

DenBronx
11-10-2013, 08:19 AM
The defense isnt better than our offense. Not by a long shot. We have some really good players on defense but that side of the ball isnt no where near what it could or should be. As for our offense, this is a very elite offense. They are breaking records right now left and right. So, is our defense better than any of the top 4 or 5 defenses?? No they arent. You can say that our offense is #1 in the NFL but not the same about our defense.


Until we stop having to get in shoot outs with some of these teams then we can talk about it. Until then the offense is what is carrying the team.


BUT, I think the defense is going to drastically look better down the stretch.

DenBronx
11-10-2013, 08:22 AM
We are a bit thin at offensive line though. That's definitely a concern there.



Has anyone called Richie Incognito yet???


:behindsofa:

Shazam!
11-10-2013, 08:26 AM
No, as a whole unit.

Are they better than the stats show? THAT I believe.

Von will make everyone look better on D, but this team is carried by an offense that is scoring at a record pace.

I think we're going to see a radical improvement.

...and KC is gonna's get sliced and diced.

BroncoWave
11-10-2013, 08:52 AM
http://img.pandawhale.com/30819-Sweet-Brown-funny-gif-j2gJ.gif

blamkin86
11-10-2013, 10:59 AM
OK I'm just a casual fan... And I realize that if we score quickly the other team has the ball more often-

But, if our defense is so good, how did Dallas ring up 48 on us? Even Jacksonville scored more points than normal.

Indy scored 39 against us, and held Jacksonville to 3.

Not adding up to me, sorry.

SR
11-10-2013, 11:20 AM
Not sure there's anything to expose: It's Jamaal Charles, just enough Alex Smith scampering and Bowe receptions to keep opponents honest, and not screwing up with turnovers. Their D is good enough that's usually all it takes. Denver vs. KC is the irresistible force vs. the immovable object, but something must give; hopefully it's them, and hopefully it's twice, because I really don't like how any of the tiebreaks look.

Bowe has been nonexistent this year...

Nomad
11-10-2013, 11:33 AM
In the playoffs, this team will need balance in 3 phases of the game. I know I get the Capt Obvious award for the morning:lol:

bcbronc
11-10-2013, 03:44 PM
I'm assuming Joel meant "is Seattle's defence better than our offence" because that's the only defence in the league that is anywhere near our offence.

That said, one more injury to a starting OL and we could be in trouble. And I do agree that our defence is better than the stats indicate, and we'll have a better second half than we did first.

TXBRONC
11-10-2013, 07:54 PM
No it's not better than the offense. I think we are see signs of it getting better but it's not better than the offense.

BroncoWave
11-10-2013, 07:56 PM
I was pretty happy with the D today. We did give up some big plays, but we held them out of the endzone for the most part. SD got REALLY lucky on those 2 penalties that took away 3rd down stops.

Simple Jaded
11-10-2013, 08:16 PM
I was pretty happy with the D today. We did give up some big plays, but we held them out of the endzone for the most part. SD got REALLY lucky on those 2 penalties that took away 3rd down stops.

Not only those penalties but how bout the penalty for illegal snap on SD that cost Denver a 3rd down stop? It gave SD another 3rd down try, which they picked up with the long pass to Royal.

I guess I'm not familiar with illegal snap.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
11-10-2013, 08:18 PM
Not only those penalties but how bout the penalty for illegal snap on SD that cost Denver a 3rd down stop? It gave SD another 3rd down try, which they picked up with the long pass to Royal.

I guess I'm not familiar with illegal snap.

I've seen that same play happen to Romo a lot and have never seen it called

BroncoWave
11-10-2013, 08:21 PM
Not only those penalties but how bout the penalty for illegal snap on SD that cost Denver a 3rd down stop? It gave SD another 3rd down try, which they picked up with the long pass to Royal.

I guess I'm not familiar with illegal snap.

That was one of the two penalties I was referring to. That, and the false start later on. Horrible luck for us on both of those plays.

Joel
11-10-2013, 08:58 PM
I was pretty happy with the D today. We did give up some big plays, but we held them out of the endzone for the most part. SD got REALLY lucky on those 2 penalties that took away 3rd down stops.
FOUR penalties that took away third down stops: There were also two sketchy PIs on incomplete third down passes in the first half; the first drive ended in a TD and the other (IIRC) the missed FG. Meanwhile, OUR receivers get mugged and the Bolts dive at PFMs knees, while the refs just watch. Gonna be a fun year, and it's only half done.

Joel
11-10-2013, 09:19 PM
The defense isnt better than our offense. Not by a long shot. We have some really good players on defense but that side of the ball isnt no where near what it could or should be. As for our offense, this is a very elite offense. They are breaking records right now left and right. So, is our defense better than any of the top 4 or 5 defenses?? No they arent. You can say that our offense is #1 in the NFL but not the same about our defense.

Until we stop having to get in shoot outs with some of these teams then we can talk about it. Until then the offense is what is carrying the team.

BUT, I think the defense is going to drastically look better down the stretch.
That's my point though: RIGHT NOW our offense ISN'T breaking records; it's on pace to break season records because it shattered so many season-start records (which, to be honest, are dubious anyway; "most points over the first 5 games of a season? Who cares about cherry-picked stats like those?) Our offense started lights out when we had Clady; Moreno was averaging >5 yards per attempt and Manning was untouched. Meanwhile, our D was missing Miller and Champ for the first month and a half, then lost Woodyard for a couple weeks about the same time they returned. Our offense almost couldn't help being better.

The shoe's completely on the other foot now (though much may depend on when Ihenacho returns.) Woodyard and Miller are back, which has made a huge difference, while losing Clady for the season combined with our paper-thin depth at G/C has made both our pass protection and run blocking very inconsistent: Peyton Mannings had 6 Ints and 7 fumbles this year, but NINE of them were in the last THREE games. Meanwhile, our rushing average has gone through the floor, forcing us to have Manning move the chains to kill the clock with a lead and 2:00 to play—at which point we let him get hit and he comes up limping.


OK I'm just a casual fan... And I realize that if we score quickly the other team has the ball more often-

But, if our defense is so good, how did Dallas ring up 48 on us? Even Jacksonville scored more points than normal.

Indy scored 39 against us, and held Jacksonville to 3.

Not adding up to me, sorry.
1) Dallas scored most of its points in the second half, all of which we played without THREE defensive starters lost in the first half. That's in addition to Miller still being on suspension and Champ missing the game with his foot. So, yeah, the Cowboys lit up a Denver defense missing literally HALF of its starters; since all but one is back now that's not very relevant to how the play now.

2) Roughly half of Indys points came off short fields

a) The 11 yd one-play TD "drive" after Holliday fumbled a punt at our 11 (which, IIRC, was right after our D forced a three-and-out,)
b) The strip-sack-safety on Manning that gave Indy 2 pts and the ball, which they promptly took in for a TD, and
c) A second half Int that set them up inside our 25, where our D forced yet another three-and-out (Indy actually LOST ~5 yds) before the Colts kicked a FG.

Depending on whether one blames our D for the TD after the safety, that's either 12 pts or 19 pts, so our D gave up either 20 or 27 pts to the Colts on the road: That's exactly what Seattles D did, so I don't know if "Seattle's defence [is] better than our offence," but evidently our defenses are indistinguishable. Except we're CONSTANTLY called for PIs that are NEVER called on "the Legion of Boom."

We can't just look at the final score and say, "This team got lots of points; their offense is great (or, conversely, their opponents D is awful.)" If scoring required great offense KC wouldn't be a game up on us.

MOtorboat
11-10-2013, 09:30 PM
You worry too much.

Joel
11-10-2013, 09:33 PM
You worry too much.
Maybe YOU worry too LITTLE; aren't you worried how much your not worrying is hurting our title chances? I'm just doing my part by worrying enough each week to make the critical difference in games. :tongue:

SR
11-10-2013, 09:41 PM
Maybe YOU worry too LITTLE; aren't you worried how much your not worrying is hurting our title chances? I'm just doing my part by worrying enough each week to make the critical difference in games. :tongue:

That's the problem with people like you. Nothing you (or anyone else) say or worry about impacts how this team does.

Simple Jaded
11-10-2013, 09:42 PM
Somebody needs to worry about Trindon Holliday.

SR
11-10-2013, 09:45 PM
Somebody needs to worry about Trindon Holliday.

I don think it'll matter. If he's still playing after all those fumbles, he's not going anywhere. Might as well come to terms with it.

Joel
11-10-2013, 09:49 PM
Somebody needs to worry about Trindon Holliday.
My bad: I quit worrying about him and he quit worrying about fumbles again. Don't worry; now I'm definitely worrying once more. ;)

Simple Jaded
11-10-2013, 09:50 PM
My bad: I quit worrying about him and he quit worrying about fumbles again. Don't worry; now I'm definitely worrying once more. ;)

Makes two of us.

Joel
11-10-2013, 10:22 PM
Makes two of us.
That's the spirit: With BOTH of us worrying we should beat KC by 20; now I'm not worried anym—hey, wait a minute: Are you trying to trick me?! :tsk: