Pass Defense

[theogt]

Speaking of the points allowed posts in this thread, does anyone have the updated defense points allowed? We all know the NFL.com stats include kicking game and INT/fumble returned scores, which shouldn't be on our defense.

Is there a site that has that stat without manually backing out the number?

Someone calculated it the other day. It was 15 points per game. It was only a couple tenths of a point higher than Green Bay's.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Someone calculated it the other day. It was 15 points per game. It was only a couple tenths of a point higher than Green Bay's.

Cool, thanks. You'd think that number would be more readily available.

Anyway, I looked at Football Outsiders -- updated today -- and they have us at 7th in pass defense, 5th in run defense, 6th overall. GB is at 13th in pass D, 7th in run D, and 12th overall.

By their weighted rank which places more emphasis on recent games, we're 4th and GB is 12th.

But they have a great young D, while our secondary is extremely suspect.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Speaking of the points allowed posts in this thread, does anyone have the updated defense points allowed? We all know the NFL.com stats include kicking game and INT/fumble returned scores, which shouldn't be on our defense.

Is there a site that has that stat without manually backing out the number?

A couple days ago, I created a thread in which I calculated the scoring defenses of Dallas and Green Bay without defensive and special teams scores. My totals were 16.9 ppg for Dallas and 16.8 ppg for Green Bay.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104217

 

[theogt]

A couple days ago, I created a thread in which I calculated the scoring defenses of Dallas and Green Bay without defensive and special teams scores. My totals were 16.9 ppg for Dallas and 16.8 ppg for Green Bay.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104217

That's the one. I was close.

 

[Bizwah]

Myabe its because of the 4-5 WR sets that GB has been running.

It can really spread a defense out.

Bang! You hit it right there!

Their offense is moving the ball with ease. Favre is leading the NFL in passing yards. People look at our secondary (which still isn't completely healthy) and they see a group that gives up the short stuff.

I agree that our defense is underrated right now......but it makes sense for people to doubt them. The Packer's offense features quick passes that neutralize the pass rush, and spreading the defense.

This plays right into our area of weakness. Now, I'm not saying we're really weak, but the secondary is probably the weakest area of our team right now.

 

[theogt]

Bang! You hit it right there!

Their offense is moving the ball with ease. Favre is leading the NFL in passing yards. People look at our secondary (which still isn't completely healthy) and they see a group that gives up the short stuff.

I agree that our defense is underrated right now......but it makes sense for people to doubt them. The Packer's offense features quick passes that neutralize the pass rush, and spreading the defense.

This plays right into our area of weakness. Now, I'm not saying we're really weak, but the secondary is probably the weakest area of our team right now.

But this doesn't explain why our defense is doubted, but theirs is not. If you consider our secondary weak, you have to also consider their secondary weak.

Besides, we've spent the entire season without a healthy secondary. Now, ours is healthy and theirs is not.

 

[smarta5150]

But this doesn't explain why our defense is doubted, but theirs is not. If you consider our secondary weak, you have to also consider their secondary weak.

Besides, we've spent the entire season without a healthy secondary. Now, ours is healthy and theirs is not.

But they have 4-5 capable receivers where "they" (whoever they are) are only giving us credit for TO and Witten.

Maybe they are underestimating our WR/TE weapons (IMO they are).

The "spread offense" is so affective because it creates mismatches across the board.

We don't run these type of formations and the Packers do.

It is as simple as that :


Any other Qs?

 

[theogt]

But they have 4-5 capable receivers where "they" (whoever they are) are only giving us credit for TO and Witten.

Maybe they are underestimating our WR/TE weapons (IMO they are).

The "spread offense" is so affective because it creates mismatches across the board.

We don't run these type of formations and the Packers do.

It is as simple as that :


Any other Qs?

Why does that matter? They've done less with their 4-5 capable receivers than we've done with just TO and Witten.

 

[smarta5150]

Why does that matter? They've done less with their 4-5 capable receivers than we've done with just TO and Witten.

You understand that, I understand that, we all understand that.

The media is looking at the Packers offense going 5-wide and us (actually any team) trying to defend it.

They are saying no team can really slow this sort of ball control down.

At least with our formations they can put 1 of their 2 "shutdown" (also what the media calls them) corners on TO and another on our next threat. Then they need to figure out Witten with a LBer and a safety. So its our 3 weapons vs 4-5 (again, the media believes all their targets are weapons).

The media is trying to say its easier to defend 2-3 guys, especially with great corners than it is to defend 4-5 guys with an injury-riddled CB and a liability like RW (not that I agree with their opinions on these 2 matters).

 

[Bizwah]

But this doesn't explain why our defense is doubted, but theirs is not. If you consider our secondary weak, you have to also consider their secondary weak.

Besides, we've spent the entire season without a healthy secondary. Now, ours is healthy and theirs is not.

I guess I worded that poorly.

I don't necessarily consider our secondary weak. But it's the weakest part of our team....relatively speaking....

Their secondary is considered a strength. Now, they are hurting, but I don't buy for one minute that Woodson won't be playing....at a high level. He'll get a painkilling shot in the toe, and play just fine.

This game is about matchups....Who matches up better with whom?

Our passing game vs their pass defense
or
Their passing game vs our pass defense

It's a toss up if you ask me.

 

[Bizwah]

You understand that, I understand that, we all understand that.

The media is looking at the Packers offense going 5-wide and us (actually any team) trying to defend it.

They are saying no team can really slow this sort of ball control down.At least with our formations they can put 1 of their 2 "shutdown" (also what the media calls them) corners on TO and another on our next threat. Then they need to figure out Witten with a LBer and a safety. So its our 3 weapons vs 4-5 (again, the media believes all their targets are weapons).

The media is trying to say its easier to defend 2-3 guys, especially with great corners than it is to defend 4-5 guys with an injury-riddled CB and a liability like RW (not that I agree with their opinions on these 2 matters).

Exactly.

If you watched the MU/KU game Saturday they pretty much said that the spread offense is an equalizer.

Gary Pinkel said that when he first coached at MU he didn't intend to use the spread offense, but in order to compete he knew he'd have to use it.

It's tough to stop.

 

[theebs]

Exactly.

If you watched the MU/KU game Saturday they pretty much said that the spread offense is an equalizer.

Gary Pinkel said that when he first coached at MU he didn't intend to use the spread offense, but in order to compete he knew he'd have to use it.

It's tough to stop.

they use that offense because of chase daniels and the fact that he ran that offense in high school at southlake.

 

[Bizwah]

they use that offense because of chase daniels and the fact that he ran that offense in high school at southlake.

I know....but during the game the commentators mentioned Pinkel believing the spread offense was the only way he could compete.

At least until he is able to recruit more talent.

 

[theogt]

I guess I worded that poorly.

I don't necessarily consider our secondary weak. But it's the weakest part of our team....relatively speaking....

Their secondary is considered a strength. Now, they are hurting, but I don't buy for one minute that Woodson won't be playing....at a high level. He'll get a painkilling shot in the toe, and play just fine.

This game is about matchups....Who matches up better with whom?

Our passing game vs their pass defense
or
Their passing game vs our pass defense

It's a toss up if you ask me.

This is precisely the question. Why is theirs considered a relative strength, but ours considered a relative weakness?

 

[jobberone]

They're both 10-1 and all the stats are about equal. People think it will be a close game. I agree. STs and turnovers/mistakes will make the difference. Neither team needs to fall behind too far. It will be a great game.

 

[smarta5150]

This is precisely the question. Why is theirs considered a relative strength, but ours considered a relative weakness?

Only because of the credit Al Harris and Charles Woodsen have been getting.

Its like when Dre Bly went to Denver to pair up with Champ... so much talk but not too much walk from those 2 IMO.

Every time I turn a game on a see 1 of them getting beat deep.

 

[theogt]

You understand that, I understand that, we all understand that.

The media is looking at the Packers offense going 5-wide and us (actually any team) trying to defend it.

They are saying no team can really slow this sort of ball control down.

At least with our formations they can put 1 of their 2 "shutdown" (also what the media calls them) corners on TO and another on our next threat. Then they need to figure out Witten with a LBer and a safety. So its our 3 weapons vs 4-5 (again, the media believes all their targets are weapons).

The media is trying to say its easier to defend 2-3 guys, especially with great corners than it is to defend 4-5 guys with an injury-riddled CB and a liability like RW (not that I agree with their opinions on these 2 matters).

This is circular. You're reply is essentially: "They think they're better, because they think they're better."

 

[smarta5150]

This is circular. You're reply is essentially: "They think they're better, because they think they're better."

There is no RIGHT answer to your question...

I gave you 2 answers and if they aren't good enough then they aren't good enough, either:

1. The media likes how the 5-WR set creates mismatches and doesn't think ANYONEs defense in the league matches up well against it.

2. Their corners are very hyped up... they talk how Al Harris matches up against a teams #1 and contains them on a week to week basis. Then they say Charles Woodsen is a very in-your face aggressive type CB who can easily be a #1 CB on any other team.

 

[Bluefin]

As Mickey Spagnola wrote yesterday, looking at Green bay is like looking in the mirror.

We both like to showcase the passing game in the first half and run to close out games.

Whatever spread sets the Pack comes out with, Brett Favre likes going down the field as his league leading 13 passes covering 40+ yards indicates and 7.9 average per attempt (tie 4th) indicate.

Both require time.

We must not give it to him, even if we unveil a five corner packer with only a three man rush.

Pressure the passer.

 

[Bizwah]

This is precisely the question. Why is theirs considered a relative strength, but ours considered a relative weakness?

Because compared to our other positions our secondary isn't quite as strong.
Compare our other positions to CB/S. And by strong, I mean talented.

Is our secondary stronger than our LB corps? No
our DL? No
our OL? No
our WR/TEs No
QB? No
RB? No

It's not that our secondary is weak....but if you look at an area to attack as an opposing coach, you're going to say your best shot at success lies with your WRs going against our CBs.

I've never said their CBs are better than ours......I just think their 5 WR set gives us more match up problems than our 3WR/Witten set does for them.