PDA

View Full Version : So who was worse than our defense?


Kaylore
01-15-2009, 12:13 PM
As hilarious as it seems, our defense was not the worst one in the NFL. Who was worse and by how much.

Total Defense
29. Broncos
30. Seattle Seahawks
31. Kansas City
32. Detroit Lions

Rushing Defense
27. Denver Broncos
28. Cleveland Browns
29. St. Louis rams
30. Kansas City
31. Oakland Raiders
32. Detroit Lions

Scoring Defense
30. Denver Broncos
31. St Louis Rams
32. Detroit Lions

Pass Defense
26. Denver Broncos
27. Detroit Lions
28. Kansas City Chiefs
29. New York Jets
30. Chicago Bears
31. San Diego Chargers
32. Seattle Seahawks

Here's the Big problems:

Opponent's average passer rating
31. Denver Broncos 98.5
32. Detroit Lions 110.9

Interceptions
31. Denver Broncos (6)
32. Detroit Lions (4)

Forced Fumbles
31. Denver Broncos (9)
32. Chicago Bears (8)

Obviously some surprises. The Bears with the lowest amount of forced fumbles is odd considering they have so many physical players on defense. Same for the Seahawks.

It's funny that as crappy as we are, the Chiefs were worse.

The horribly low amount of turnovers just speak to Slowik and how no matter where he goes, they stop getting takeaways. In 2004 The Packers were second to last in takeaways. In 1999 Cleveland was last in interceptions. During his stint with the Bears Slowik's defenses rarely were above the twenties in takeaways. No matter what Nolan does, not having Slowik will be a huge improvement.

oubronco
01-15-2009, 12:14 PM
Detroits by far

Kaylore
01-15-2009, 12:17 PM
Detroits by far

They were the 32nd Defense and the 30th offense. It's much easier to understand how they became the first 0-16 team in history.

TheDave
01-15-2009, 12:19 PM
Sad thing is, all of those teams had significantly worse offenses than we did. Imagine if our team had Detroits or KC's offense. We would of broken every all-time record for futility.

montrose
01-15-2009, 12:22 PM
Scoring Defense
30. Denver Broncos
31. St Louis Rams
32. Detroit Lions

This is the most important to me, as is scoring offense. If we could hold teams to field goals a bit more often and generate the occasional turnover, we'd see such a drastic improvement.

Gcver2ver3
01-15-2009, 12:22 PM
Detroits by far

no one's was worse than ours...no one...

detroit's offense didn't stay on the field as long as ours so their defense was exposed longer than ours...

but the real key is turnovers...we forced the lowest turnovers in a season in NFL history (16 game schedule)...

we were the worst for that reason alone...

OBF1
01-15-2009, 12:22 PM
After reading the stats, I no longer feel so bad about our D going into next season. Stats lie alot of the time

Hotrod
01-15-2009, 12:25 PM
no one's was worse than ours...no one...

detroit's offense didn't stay on the field as long as ours so their defense was exposed longer than ours...

but the real key is turnovers...we forced the lowest turnovers in a season in NFL history (16 game schedule)...

we were the worst for that reason alone...

Add in we got to play the ****ty ass chefs and faid O's x2 there is no doubt we set the standard for suck ass defenses

Kid A
01-15-2009, 12:29 PM
no one's was worse than ours...no one...

detroit's offense didn't stay on the field as long as ours so their defense was exposed longer than ours...

but the real key is turnovers...we forced the lowest turnovers in a season in NFL history (16 game schedule)...

we were the worst for that reason alone...

Well, technically, yes Detroit has worse time of possession than us...but really our offense wasn't a whole lot better:

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=14

24th in the league isn't very good. Our offense did many things well, but eating up clock to help out our defense was not one of them.

If we can get into the top 10-15 in that stat (which, with out talent, should be very doable), our defense will benefit considerably as they try to rebuild.

Gcver2ver3
01-15-2009, 12:31 PM
Add in we got to play the ****ty ass chefs and faid O's x2 there is no doubt we set the standard for suck ass defenses

no doubt...

Gcver2ver3
01-15-2009, 12:38 PM
Well, technically, yes Detroit has worse time of possession than us...but really our offense wasn't a whole lot better:

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=14

24th in the league isn't very good. Our offense did many things well, but eating up clock to help out our defense was not one of them.

If we can get into the top 10-15 in that stat (which, with out talent, should be very doable), our defense will benefit considerably as they try to rebuild.

our D was the worse...

having the #2 ranked offense clearly helped take some pressure off the defense and the D still failed badly...

we were easily the worst...the TOs were the lowest in NFL history!...

add that in with the fact that we finished in the bottom 3-4 in every major category and it's clear who the undisputed winner (loser) is for being the worst...

BroncoMan4ever
01-15-2009, 12:40 PM
we may have been ranked 29th or whatever, but someone here put up a link that showed we weren't just the worst defense in the league this year, but we were one of the worst defenses of the last 25 years.

NUB
01-15-2009, 12:46 PM
I think we were the worst.

As others have said, we're that far at the bottom even though we had a solid offense.

Beantown Bronco
01-15-2009, 01:01 PM
no one's was worse than ours...no one...

detroit's offense didn't stay on the field as long as ours so their defense was exposed longer than ours.....

Gross exaggeration.

According to nfl.com, there was only a 6 play per game difference between the two units.

PRBronco
01-15-2009, 01:09 PM
I can't even fathom how a defense could be worse than last year's broncos. Are they sure they had 11 players on the field?

dbfan21
01-15-2009, 01:09 PM
Any way you slice it, Nolan and McDaniels have their work cut out. I sure hope the FO and coaching staff gets thing right this offseason. I don't want to watch some of Cutler's best years ruined by poor decisions on defense.

frerottenextelway
01-15-2009, 01:14 PM
Our offense did many things well, but eating up clock to help out our defense was not one of them.


That's a terribly misleading stat. We were 2nd in yards and 4th in 1st downs. That tells you all you need to know. Our O was near the top of the league in helping the D out.

Our offense was tremendous for giving the D a ''rest'', despite what T.O.P. officially says (which is against us because of our D giving up long drives, forcing no turnovers, and we were pass heavy (which skews the stats as a pass play takes as long as a run play)).

frerottenextelway
01-15-2009, 01:17 PM
Gross exaggeration.

According to nfl.com, there was only a 6 play per game difference between the two units.

If someone could find points per possession, I'd bet that tell the real story about our D - and it would be dead last.

Gcver2ver3
01-15-2009, 01:18 PM
Gross exaggeration.

According to nfl.com, there was only a 6 play per game difference between the two units.

i wouldnt call it an exaggeration at all....but

what is your point beantown?

do you think someone else had a worse defense?

cuz i also pointed out we had the lowest forced turnover in NFL history for a 16 game season...so what are u trying to say?...our defense wasn't the worst?

are u trying to make a point or are u just trying find something to correct me on?

TheReverend
01-15-2009, 01:25 PM
You gotta say it's our defense over Detroits.

We generated 13 turnovers, they at least managed a MODERATELY acceptable, yet still in the bottom quarter 20.

Imagine Jay with those 7 extra short fields, or with the league median an extra 12?

Hotrod
01-15-2009, 01:29 PM
Here is a number that is not really a stat but........you give up 52 ****ing points in a do or die game = you are retardedly bad.

PRBronco
01-15-2009, 01:31 PM
Here is a number that is not really a stat but........you give up 52 ****ing points in a do or die game = you are retardedly bad.

QFT

Kaylore
01-15-2009, 01:51 PM
Well, technically, yes Detroit has worse time of possession than us...but really our offense wasn't a whole lot better:

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stats/?cat=team&pan=14

24th in the league isn't very good. Our offense did many things well, but eating up clock to help out our defense was not one of them.

If we can get into the top 10-15 in that stat (which, with out talent, should be very doable), our defense will benefit considerably as they try to rebuild.

Yeah that's the problem: our offense wasn't good enough. Stupid offense bringing the defense down. ::)

Beantown Bronco
01-15-2009, 02:00 PM
i wouldnt call it an exaggeration at all....but

what is your point beantown?

do you think someone else had a worse defense?

cuz i also pointed out we had the lowest forced turnover in NFL history for a 16 game season...so what are u trying to say?...our defense wasn't the worst?

are u trying to make a point or are u just trying find something to correct me on?

The Broncos weren't the worst. What nobody in this thread is pointing out is the quality of the opposition offenses they faced. The Broncos defense faced some pretty high powered offenses that the other bottom dwelling units didn't face.

I had a post earlier in the season that highlighted all the games they played where they held the opposition BELOW their season averages. How many times did Detroit do that?

broncosteven
01-15-2009, 02:16 PM
...

The horribly low amount of turnovers just speak to Slowik and how no matter where he goes, they stop getting takeaways. In 2004 The Packers were second to last in takeaways. In 1999 Cleveland was last in interceptions. During his stint with the Bears Slowik's defenses rarely were above the twenties in takeaways. No matter what Nolan does, not having Slowik will be a huge improvement.

Slowik needs to change Fields.

If he studies real hard he could become a Microsoft MCSE in 6 months and get into computer business.

Kaylore
01-15-2009, 02:18 PM
Slowik needs to change Fields.

If he studies real hard he could become a Microsoft MCSE in 6 months and get into computer business.

He looks like a programmer, but he's actually a decent position coach. He should stick with that.

Gcver2ver3
01-15-2009, 02:18 PM
The Broncos weren't the worst. What nobody in this thread is pointing out is the quality of the opposition offenses they faced. The Broncos defense faced some pretty high powered offenses that the other bottom dwelling units didn't face.

I had a post earlier in the season that highlighted all the games they played where they held the opposition BELOW their season averages. How many times did Detroit do that?

i don't feel like researching that but i know that we played the chiefs and raiders twice...

we played one good game (really just decent) of those 4 on D...

but what you can't overlook are the lack of turnovers we forced...the worst playmaking defense ever...just painful to watch...

we seemingly never forced 3 and outs and as one person pointed out on this thread earlier, TOP can be deceiving...actual time and TOP are different and the Broncos D had plenty chances for rest with the #2 offense on the field...

i know the lions were 0-16 and truly bad, but our defense is not only the worst in the league this year, but perhaps the worst defense i've evr seen...

52 points allowed in our game of the year?...really?...

Rohirrim
01-15-2009, 02:18 PM
The league should just be merciful; Change the Lion's name, take the team away from Ford, and move them to L.A. Michiganders are having a tough enough time without having to deal with that crappy team.

Kid A
01-15-2009, 02:32 PM
Yeah that's the problem: our offense wasn't good enough. Stupid offense bringing the defense down. ::)

That wasn't my point. He was saying our offense was way better than Detroit's, which was true in terms of giving point support--i.e. our defense had more room to work with because our offense scored a lot. In terms of helping our defense stay off the field, though, we weren't much better.

This is a simple fact. Too many turnovers and 3-and-outs often exposed our defensive weaknesses more than they needed to. Yes, even if we had been top 5 in TOP there would be no doubt our defense sucks. We would have gotten shredded early and often. But better TOP from the offense would be a good step toward helping a crappy D.

I'm not blaming the offense for our defense sucking. Far from it--they were the only reason we were competitive most weeks. I am saying this is an area where there is room for improvement and one that could help the defense out. It seems odd to me that you wouldn't focus on trying to eat up more clock when you know your defense is so bad.

Watching Nebraska this year (who has defensive issues of there own) I saw them turn the corner when they really committed to taking up a lot of time on slow methodical drives. They almost beat a Texas Tech team that should have hung 70 on them because they possessed the ball almost 2 to 1. I can't overstate how big a difference it made when they really truly committed to running the ball and methodically moving the ball, as opposed to looking for a big play ever couple of downs.

Our defense still got gauged and exposed when they were on the field, but they were out there much less often and when they were they were well rested. Result: not as gaudy of offensive numbers as under Callahan (except TOP, where we were 2nd in the nation), but we stayed competitive in almost every game (except Mizzou and OU where we turned it over early and often, killing any chance to run clock). Defensive talent still was poor, but much less exposed.

This is just one reason I have become such a big believer in the importance of TOP. Points and yards are great, and should be enough if your defense is solid. When you can only stop the opposition a couple times a game, shortening the game is a huge step to staying competitive.

I love our offense. I love the passing attack. Early deficits and injuries at RB certainly hurt out ability to run the ball. All I'm saying is that becoming a team that can control the ball for long periods of time will be a big step toward becoming a better team as a whole.

Kaylore
01-15-2009, 02:41 PM
That wasn't my point. He was saying our offense was way better than Detroit's, which was true in terms of giving point support--i.e. our defense had more room to work with because our offense scored a lot. In terms of helping our defense stay off the field, though, we weren't much better.

This is a simple fact. Too many turnovers and 3-and-outs often exposed our defensive weaknesses more than they needed to. Yes, even if we had been top 5 in TOP there would be no doubt our defense sucks. We would have gotten shredded early and often. But better TOP from the offense would be a good step toward helping a crappy D.

I'm not blaming the offense for our defense sucking. Far from it--they were the only reason we were competitive most weeks. I am saying this is an area where there is room for improvement and one that could help the defense out. It seems odd to me that you wouldn't focus on trying to eat up more clock when you know your defense is so bad.

Watching Nebraska this year (who has defensive issues of there own) I saw them turn the corner when they really committed to taking up a lot of time on slow methodical drives. They almost beat a Texas Tech team that should have hung 70 on them because they possessed the ball almost 2 to 1. I can't overstate how big a difference it made when they really truly committed to running the ball and methodically moving the ball, as opposed to looking for a big play ever couple of downs.

Our defense still got gauged and exposed when they were on the field, but they were out there much less often and when they were they were well rested. Result: not as gaudy of offensive numbers as under Callahan (except TOP, where we were 2nd in the nation), but we stayed competitive in almost every game (except Mizzou and OU where we turned it over early and often, killing any chance to run clock). Defensive talent still was poor, but much less exposed.

This is just one reason I have become such a big believer in the importance of TOP. Points and yards are great, and should be enough if your defense is solid. When you can only stop the opposition a couple times a game, shortening the game is a huge step to staying competitive.

I love our offense. I love the passing attack. Early deficits and injuries at RB certainly hurt out ability to run the ball. All I'm saying is that becoming a team that can control the ball for long periods of time will be a big step toward becoming a better team as a whole.

Ok, I generally agree with that. I suppose the offense could have done more to hide the weaknesses of our defense, but we lost 7 running backs to injury and throwing a lot kills clock management drives. Really it was amazing we did what we did on offense at all.

Really though, playing keep away is a band-aid. The last thing we should work on this offseason is more clock management. We need to work on red-zone scoring and defense. Then, if after that we have nothing else to work on, we can work on playing marty ball for when we're ahead by fourteen at the end of the third quarter. Ultimately any criticisms for our teams state leveled at the offense pale in comparison to the horrible defense.

Kid A
01-15-2009, 02:42 PM
That's a terribly misleading stat. We were 2nd in yards and 4th in 1st downs. That tells you all you need to know. Our O was near the top of the league in helping the D out.

Our offense was tremendous for giving the D a ''rest'', despite what T.O.P. officially says (which is against us because of our D giving up long drives, forcing no turnovers, and we were pass heavy (which skews the stats as a pass play takes as long as a run play)).

These are legitimate points about the defense giving up long drives and forcing no turnovers. That was a huge factor. The defense was their own worst enemy.

Once again, I loved what the offense did. The yards are great. But finishing 14th in points and 24th in TOP when we were 2nd in yards shows significant room for redzone improvement and improvement in ball control. I think everyone would agree that we need to cut down on turnovers and 3-and-outs. I believe those things will come naturally once we get a steady (healthy) run game. The defense is the culprit here, but the offense may need to make some adjustment until we can field a solid unit on that side of the ball.

The Big E
01-15-2009, 02:45 PM
Yeah that's the problem: our offense wasn't good enough. Stupid offense bringing the defense down. ::)
Didn't Taco argue in great detail that it was the offense's fault that the defense gave up 35 first-half points against Indy in the playoffs a few years back? I guess the offense failed the team again this year.

Jens1893
01-15-2009, 02:50 PM
I can't even fathom how a defense could be worse than last year's broncos. Are they sure they had 11 players on the field?

Yes, but several players lined up approximately 50 yards off the LOS on most plays.

Kid A
01-15-2009, 02:51 PM
Then, if after that we have nothing else to work on, we can work on playing marty ball for when we're ahead by fourteen at the end of the third quarter. Ultimately any criticisms for our teams state leveled at the offense pale in comparison to the horrible defense.

I would add that special teams were an enormous issue, as I think crappy field position was a huge factor in us finishing 2nd in yards but "only" 14th in scoring. Lots of offensive production put to waste because we were always pinned back. We were driving 70 yards just to get in FG range.

mr007
01-15-2009, 02:51 PM
I think everyone would agree that we need to cut down on turnovers and 3-and-outs. I believe those things will come naturally once we get a steady (healthy) run game.

You do know we had the 3rd best 3rd down % in the league at 47.5 right? Pretty sure we were middle of the pack in TOs too.

Kid A
01-15-2009, 02:59 PM
You do know we had the 3rd best 3rd down % in the league at 47.5 right? Pretty sure we were middle of the pack in TOs too.

You might be right there. It just seemed that way in my mind, given the TO differential we had (since our defense forced so few). With the 3-and-outs I'm not sure how to statistically categorize them: we may have converted a lot of 3rd downs, but it seems like the times we didn't convert were on our first opportunity to. This was more of an observation of how our offense seemed to start the 2nd halves of games. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I remember thinking we almost never had a long drive to start the 3rd quarter.

That's a small gripe, but when you get a headache just seeing the defense walk onto the field you want to put off punting as long as possible.

Rock Chalk
01-15-2009, 03:04 PM
Yeah that's the problem: our offense wasn't good enough. Stupid offense bringing the defense down. ::)

Pass happy offenses dont stay on the field long enough.

frerottenextelway
01-15-2009, 03:06 PM
I think everyone would agree that we need to cut down on turnovers and 3-and-outs. I believe those things will come naturally once we get a steady (healthy) run game.

We were 2nd in offensive 1st downs (I said 4th earlier, it was 2nd) and 3rd in the league in converting 3rd downs. I would not agree at all that 3 and outs is an area we need to improve in. It's an area we excel at.

To put in perspective, our offense generated 354 first downs. The Lions offense generated 234.

Turnovers were a problem, especially fumbles. We had too many inexcusable fumbles. Interceptions weren't as bad. It's the nature of the beast that when the D is giving up TDs that more balls are going to have to be forced on the offensive side. Improve the D and there will be less reason to gamble on offense.

But the bottom line is, our offense was near league best in the ''helping the defense'' out stat, despite what T.O.P. says.

AbileneBroncoFan
01-15-2009, 03:37 PM
Our defense could not do one thing well. We got no pressure on the QB, got gutted by every RB we faced practically, couldn't cover any TEs, got lit up by no name WRs (that guy from Miami I nor any other fan in America has ever heard of...and never will again), and could not force a turnover to save its life. We recovered 7 fumbles...but only forced 8. That means we are very fortunate that we did not have even fewer take aways than we did. And against the Chargers with the title on the line 10 possessions, 7 TDs, 1 FG, 1 drive ended by half, and 1 punt after the game was no longer competitive. Utterly pathetic. I can't make a defense look that bad on Madden.

Garcia Bronco
01-15-2009, 03:44 PM
except you guys neglect to mention in all of your offensive praise that the offense was giving up the ball 3 times a game during a good portion of the season.

Hotrod
01-15-2009, 03:50 PM
except you guys neglect to mention in all of your offensive praise that the offense was giving up the ball 3 times a game during a good portion of the season.

It is because the Offense (Jay) was pushing because they/he needed to score 35+ every week.

frerottenextelway
01-15-2009, 04:56 PM
except you guys neglect to mention in all of your offensive praise that the offense was giving up the ball 3 times a game during a good portion of the season.

I addressed it spot on. :thumbsup:

"Turnovers were a problem, especially fumbles. We had too many inexcusable fumbles. Interceptions weren't as bad. It's the nature of the beast that when the D is giving up TDs that more balls are going to have to be forced on the offensive side. Improve the D and there will be less reason to gamble on offense."

broncosteven
01-15-2009, 06:05 PM
The league should just be merciful; Change the Lion's name, take the team away from Ford, and move them to L.A. Michiganders are having a tough enough time without having to deal with that crappy team.

THere is precedence for this, in 1961 the Dallas Texans became the KFC Cheefs.