If dominant DT is what's needed then why has DET defense been so avg/bad

[sbark]

Contrast them with the NYG last 2 superbowl teams. They kept their DLine in top shape, with a ave secondary---and scheme got them 2 rings. They had ave seasons much like the Lions, snuck into the playoffs, got hot.....and history. All with a cover 2 along the lines of Kiffens. But they were able to get pressure from all positions along the DLine, especially up the middle.

 

[jobberone]

Defense is a group effort. One or two dominant players cannot make a defense good against a modern NFL offense without help. The days of single defenders dominating an offense are over. Ware has been the best past rusher in football over the last decade, and even he hasn't been enough to make our defense dominant. Making a defense better has to be about shoring up weaknesses. On this defense I would argue that the whole defensive line is a major area of weakness, so you take whoever the best defensive lineman is you can get your grubby little mitts on.

This is so true yet so many don't grasp this. You have to get push in multiple areas preferably all over. You can't stop that for long without some max coverage and generally someone will get by their man and disrupt the play. That constant pressure is difficult mentally as well as physically.

To answer another you do have to have good DBs. You can pressure a team but they can respond by getting the ball out early. Then you have to play that. Then they will lull you then hit you over the top. This is where athletes/players mesh with schemes and coaching.

We aren't getting enough pressure although Marinelli got great pressure with the guys he had to work with last year. We just ended up with no LBers to cover and our secondary is just marginal at best too often.

 

[Idgit]

This is so true yet so many don't grasp this. You have to get push in multiple areas preferably all over. You can't stop that for long without some max coverage and generally someone will get by their man and disrupt the play. That constant pressure is difficult mentally as well as physically.

To answer another you do have to have good DBs. You can pressure a team but they can respond by getting the ball out early. Then you have to play that. Then they will lull you then hit you over the top. This is where athletes/players mesh with schemes and coaching.

We aren't getting enough pressure although Marinelli got great pressure with the guys he had to work with last year. We just ended up with no LBers to cover and our secondary is just marginal at best too often.

Yeah. We've talked about this in other threads, but offense and defense are different in this regard. A defense is as strong as its weakest link. Offenses will find, and eventually exploit any weakness. You can't have liabilities on the field, and you can't have matchup disadvantages, either. An offense can cover up for a weak running game, say, but throwing the ball. Or weak protections by keeping an extra blocker in. There's no covering a S who's flat footed or a ILB who can't shed blocks. It gets exposed.

 

[jobberone]

Yeah. We've talked about this in other threads, but offense and defense are different in this regard. A defense is as strong as its weakest link. Offenses will find, and eventually exploit any weakness. You can't have liabilities on the field, and you can't have matchup disadvantages, either. An offense can cover up for a weak running game, say, but throwing the ball. Or weak protections by keeping an extra blocker in. There's no covering a S who's flat footed or a ILB who can't shed blocks. It gets exposed.

On the nosey!

 

[Zimmy Lives]

My question concerning Detroit's defense is who is their DC? Talent means very little unless the DC and staff do not place them in the best possible position to succeed as a unit on every play.

 

[Alexander]

We just need more cornerbacks. That will solve everything.

 

[Future]

People are vastly overrating the talent on defense. Fairley is good, Suh is great, Ziggy has potential and everybody else absolutely sucks.

 

[Alexander]

People are vastly overrating the talent on defense. Fairley is good, Suh is great, Ziggy has potential and everybody else absolutely sucks.

Their linebackers and secondary are especially ordinary. If they had two more quality players in the back seven it would make a difference.

 

[IrishAnto]

Their linebackers and secondary are especially ordinary. If they had two more quality players in the back seven it would make a difference.

And we acquired one of their LBs in free agency did we not?

 

[sbark]

This is so true yet so many don't grasp this. You have to get push in multiple areas preferably all over. You can't stop that for long without some max coverage and generally someone will get by their man and disrupt the play. That constant pressure is difficult mentally as well as physically.

To answer another you do have to have good DBs. You can pressure a team but they can respond by getting the ball out early. Then you have to play that. Then they will lull you then hit you over the top. This is where athletes/players mesh with schemes and coaching.

We aren't getting enough pressure although Marinelli got great pressure with the guys he had to work with last year. We just ended up with no LBers to cover and our secondary is just marginal at best too often.

I wonder sometimes if the inconsistent pressure kept our DB's on their heels---other teams DB's seem to have the same clock in their heads of a QB, they know at some point pressure will get there and they start to take chances on jumping the routes or press coverage. Our DB's just didn't seem to ever want to take a chance after too many times of being burnt on inconsistent or non-existent pressure they knew would never come. At some point in a cover 2, knowing pressure is going to be there......Seattle's DB's seem to revert to man-to man, they are always there, but they have internal clocks telling them the DLine will be there.......

 

[Nova]

Contrast them with the NYG last 2 superbowl teams. They kept their DLine in top shape, with a ave secondary---and scheme got them 2 rings. They had ave seasons much like the Lions, snuck into the playoffs, got hot.....and history. All with a cover 2 along the lines of Kiffens. But they were able to get pressure from all positions along the DLine, especially up the middle.

I was going to use the Giants as an example, but their DTs were never the deciding component. It's always been the rotation of 3 really good to great DEs.

07: Strahan, Osi, Tuck

11: Tuck, Osi, JPP

There was seemingly someone fresh on all big downs to rush the passer. In 07 it was tuck, and in 2011 it was Osi working against LTs worn down by JPP. And often, the NASCAR package had DEs playing against slower guards on passing downs.

The DTs took kind of a back seat, although I recall Canty knocking down some passes and making QBs think twice about their delivery.

But yeah, they're secondaries were really, really bad some of those years. Aaron Ross, in particular, was incredibly bad.

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

You need 6 good DL period .

 

[Kaiser]

Its not just the overall talent level, its about not having one glaring weakness that opposing teams can attack. If you have a street free agent in the game, opposing OCs will attack that spot successfully. If you remember the pre-Carr and Claiborne days at CB opposing teams would target guys like Alan Ball and exploit it all day long.

 

[sbark]

I was going to use the Giants as an example, but their DTs were never the deciding component. It's always been the rotation of 3 really good to great DEs..

Wont argue the Giants DE got the glory, but the lunchpail guys in the middle always got a push that prevented QB's from stepping up, setting things up for the DE.
against the Cowboys it seemed the Giants set the strategy for Romo, that the rest of league jumped on---keep him in the pocket with the DE's, it seemed to me the DT's gave us a lot of problems, but they due stunt and play a lot of games to get the middle push and yet contain Romo, see the same thing with the Eagles DLine stunting etc.

 

[Nova]

Wont argue the Giants DE got the glory, but the lunchpail guys in the middle always got a push that prevented QB's from stepping up, setting things up for the DE.
against the Cowboys it seemed the Giants set the strategy for Romo, that the rest of league jumped on---keep him in the pocket with the DE's, it seemed to me the DT's gave us a lot of problems, but they due stunt and play a lot of games to get the middle push and yet contain Romo, see the same thing with the Eagles DLine stunting etc.

Which year are you talking about?

I always felt like it was Jim Johnson and the Eagles who exposed Garrett's offense/Romo that began the demise in 07. I also credit their defense for putting together a decent blue print for the Pats too.

But that approach was more about DBs bumping and running more than containing Romo. So might have been a culmination of things.

 

[khiladi]

I agree.

Most people seem to think that sacks/QB pressure is a panacea for all defensive woes but in many cases it isn’t.

Look at the 2008 Boys defense as an example.

59 sacks but hardly a dominant defense and despite having four 1st round picks in the secondary they only had 8 interceptions all year.

All defenses will have weaknesses, but a good defneses will have sufficient playmakers and scheme to mask those weaknesses.

Quite obviously the Cowboys have had neither for quite a while now.

Time will tell if this is changing.

When you just have to target Bradie James and Roy Williams, as well as Anthony Henry in pass coverage, 59 sacks is pretty damn good...

 

[TwoCentPlain]

Detroit has three high top draft picks on the DL (Suh, Fairley and Ansah) and their pass rush is so-so.

I think Detroit's biggest problem is that they have 3 players eating up roughly half the cap (Stafford, Suh, and Megatron). There just isn't enough money to field 19 other players and some decent depth. Even though Stafford was decent, Suh was good, and Megatron was excellent, it still isn't enough to field a really good team.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

DE's make the world go round

To me good DTs are better to have, but they are very hit and miss and can often be found later in the draft

 

[SWG9]

Detroit has three high top draft picks on the DL (Suh, Fairley and Ansah) and their pass rush is so-so.

I think Detroit's biggest problem is that they have 3 players eating up roughly half the cap (Stafford, Suh, and Megatron). There just isn't enough money to field 19 other players and some decent depth. Even though Stafford was decent, Suh was good, and Megatron was excellent, it still isn't enough to field a really good team.

That's kind of Dallas's problem too, right??

My belief is the truly dominant defences are able to consistently generate pressure by rushing four and dropping seven. That's basically what the Seahawks are doing now with the cover 3, and you can trace that all the way back to the early 90s Cowboys (who almost never blitzed).

Now, as others have pointed out, you're only as strong as your weakest link, but if you're going to have a weakest link, it shouldn't be on the DL.