We can stop waiting for a 2008 type of D

[sick beats]

We (me included) have been whining about our porous D that we have been seeing the last few seasons, THIS one included. Harrison came out and said, "It is the players, not Lebeau" who are the reason for such a soft D. Cowher came out and said this D was soft. But you know what? They are all wrong.

This D may not be among the top in the league. But, that's not relevant. The fact is ANY D can be made to look soft, because with the rules and the refs' interpretation (obviously, in accordance with the NFL powers) we will no longer see ANY defenses that can hold today's offenses to 10 points or less on a steady basis.

What we say yesterday is a case where, even though the D gave up 30+ points, it was still a modern-day version of playing good D. The formula of a D consistently holding opponents to 14 or less points, and the offense scoring 20, no longer wins in today's NFL. So, since it's not realistic to consistently win in such a fashion, it's time to scrap that model. It's not sustainable. The Colts came in as the #3 D in the NFL. All Ben did was torch them for 522 yards and 6 TDs. Does that mean the Colts' D is terrible? Nope. It just means they faced an offense that kept the ball all day. The Colts will have other days where the D keeps their opponents score down; but today, no such D exists that can do that every week.

The truth is, an effort like we saw yesterday, against a franchise QB, will now be considered decent. I said early on that we have to score 35+ to win the game. We won't every week; we played the #1 O and won't every week. The point is, we need a new paradigm to judge what is and what is not a decent D. In hindsight, even though we gave up 34 points, the D was not all that bad, all things considered; they hit Luck all day long, mostly bottled up the run, and even got some turn overs. If we need our D told opponents under 20 points to win, then we can expect losing. That model simply doesn't exist any longer (unless playing the very worst teams). So don't expect it to. We are seeing record points, record come backs, etc. We will need offensive output to put up 30+ points, or we can expect to lose.

[Captain Lemming]

We (me included) have been whining about our porous D that we have been seeing the last few seasons, THIS one included. Harrison came out and said, "It is the players, not Lebeau" who are the reason for such a soft D. Cowher came out and said this D was soft. But you know what? They are all wrong.

This D may not be among the top in the league. But, that's not relevant. The fact is ANY D can be made to look soft, because with the rules and the refs' interpretation (obviously, in accordance with the NFL powers) we will no longer see ANY defenses that can hold today's offenses to 10 points or less on a steady basis.

What we say yesterday is a case where, even though the D gave up 30+ points, it was still a modern-day version of playing good D. The formula of a D consistently holding opponents to 14 or less points, and the offense scoring 20, no longer wins in today's NFL. So, since it's not realistic to consistently win in such a fashion, it's time to scrap that model. It's not sustainable. The Colts came in as the #3 D in the NFL. All Ben did was torch them for 522 yards and 6 TDs. Does that mean the Colts' D is terrible? Nope. It just means they faced an offense that kept the ball all day. The Colts will have other days where the D keeps their opponents score down; but today, no such D exists that can do that every week.

The truth is, an effort like we saw yesterday, against a franchise QB, will now be considered decent. I said early on that we have to score 35+ to win the game. We won't every week; we played the #1 O and won't every week. The point is, we need a new paradigm to judge what is and what is not a decent D. In hindsight, even though we gave up 34 points, the D was not all that bad, all things considered; they hit Luck all day long, mostly bottled up the run, and even got some turn overs. If we need our D told opponents under 20 points to win, then we can expect losing. That model simply doesn't exist any longer (unless playing the very worst teams). So don't expect it to. We are seeing record points, record come backs, etc. We will need offensive output to put up 30+ points, or we can expect to lose.

I agree, essentially defense alone will not win THIS TEAM games.
We don't have the horses on defense to be great on that side.
But this is not a LEAGUE thing it is a TEAM thing.
Example....Super Bowl

However, our offense is superior to our defense by a WIDE MARGIN.

WE go as far as our offense can take us.

[sick beats]

I agree, essentially defense alone will not win THIS TEAM games.
We don't have the horses on defense to be great on that side.
But this is not a LEAGUE thing it is a TEAM thing.
Example....Super Bowl

However, our offense is superior to our defense by a WIDE MARGIN.

WE go as far as our offense can take us.

I believe it is both: THIS team has to win on O, AND, the league in general has to. The rules just make it far too easy for teams to race down field, unless they are really lacking with offensive talent, such as the Jags. If this were NOT a league wide trend, tell me what D exists - THIS YEAR - that wins on D without an offense that can score 30?

The top Ds are Det., SF, KC, Denver. How many games that those teams play, can they expect to win only scoring 17? A few, but it's not the norm. Good teams have to score at least in the steady high 20's if they expect to have a winning record. Det. has the #1 D and they still have to score in the 20's to win most games.

[Slapstick]

Seattle's D in the SB is the reason for the emphasis on illegal contact and PI calls...when you are allowed to mug the WR, any D can look great...

[Captain Lemming]

I believe it is both: THIS team has to win on O, AND, the league in general has to. The rules just make it far too easy for teams to race down field, unless they are really lacking with offensive talent, such as the Jags. If this were NOT a league wide trend, tell me what D exists - THIS YEAR - that wins on D without an offense that can score 30?

The top Ds are Det., SF, KC, Denver. How many games that those teams play, can they expect to win only scoring 17? A few, but it's not the norm. Good teams have to score at least in the steady high 20's if they expect to have a winning record. Det. has the #1 D and they still have to score in the 20's to win most games.

Interestingly though among the winningest teams are the best defenses.
You said D rank is not relevant. It is. A bottom feeder defense cannot be carried by an offense consistently.

Ben had the best game of his life to get the win and yesterday's game giving up 34 WAS NOT a modern version of good defense.
Detroit has had offense FOR YEARS and is vastly improved not on offense but because of defense.

[WindyCitySteel]

Agree with Lemming. Because our offense hogged the ball, the defense only had to defend for 20:17. In that time, they gave up 454 yards, 7 20+ yard plays, and 34 points. They did score ten of their own, however, and hopefully that can start happening more often.

I don't see this team being a serious championship contender until they can plug some of the leaks on defense.

[WindyCitySteel]

The Cowboys and Steelers are similar teams this year - they need to keep their defenses off the field and score a lot. The league would probably kill for a Dallas/Pittsburgh Super Bowl. The punters wouldn't have to dress.

[Captain Lemming]

The Cowboys and Steelers are similar teams this year - they need to keep their defenses off the field and score a lot. The league would probably kill for a Dallas/Pittsburgh Super Bowl. The punters wouldn't have to dress.

Those are the best ones. That would be awesome

[sick beats]

Seattle's D in the SB is the reason for the emphasis on illegal contact and PI calls...when you are allowed to mug the WR, any D can look great...

I agree, which, in turn, is another way of saying the NFL isn't content until no D can shut down and win a ring. They do not want defense domination; they want the air filled with footballs. They were already on this path, but seeing that Seattle and SF were still winning with D and rushing, they tilted the table even more this season.

[sick beats]

Agree with Lemming. Because our offense hogged the ball, the defense only had to defend for 20:17. In that time, they gave up 454 yards, 7 20+ yard plays, and 34 points. They did score ten of their own, however, and hopefully that can start happening more often.

I don't see this team being a serious championship contender until they can plug some of the leaks on defense.

My point is: What teams are left that don't have leaks on D? I see no solid Ds compared to year's past. Not even last year. Every team gives up big plays consistently now.