A look inside the numbers: Defense

by Buc Wild on Nov 11, 2010 2:00 PM EST in Advanced Statistics

With UNFNole reminding us that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have hit the midway point in the year (already?), it seems like now would be a good time to assess the defensive side of the ball. Having built our reputation as a defensive team in the late 90's and early 00's, the defense will always receive a fair amount of attention here. The system is relatively the same, at least out of base sets, andwe will seem to work with the same mentality, bend but don't break.

As we look at the defense, we'll combine your favorite stats and my favorite stats and try to figure out just what we're looking at. And if Coach Morris is reading this, sorry coach, I'm a loser.

Letsstart out with overall defense first and look at some general metrics.

Overall Defense - Traditional

Yards Per Game: 360.5 (24th)

Points Per Game: 23.8 (T-25th)

Well, I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to see we still aren't very good on the defensive side. We are doing some things better than last year (more on this later), but still are in the bottom half of the league. My first inclination is that we're 5-3 despite a subpar showing on the defensive side. Pretty impressive, right? Wrong, which leads to my second thought. One of two things has to happen. Either we get better on the defensive side and live upto our 5-3 record, or we will trend down to our statistical levels and end up a bit worse. Take your pick. I prefer option 1

Overall Defense - Advanced (Where negative is good)

Defensive DVOA: 9.7% (25th)

If you want to feel better about this stat, realize that the New England Patriots, fresh off the butt kicking by the Cleveland Browns are ranked below us and have a better record. I don't consider our records and rankings to continue in the same fashion if nothing changes.

Pass Defense - Traditional

Yards Allowed Per Game: 213.5 (12th)

Completion % allowed: 58.7% (10th)

Opposing QB Rating: 76.3 (9th)

Total Sacks: 6 (32nd)

If you ignore that last stat, our pass defense is pretty good. We aren't allowing a ton of yards, a HUGE change from 2009 and opposing QB rating is in a range that will keep us in most games. The downside is, we aren't getting to the quarterback, at all. Should we start getting there, I imagine our rankings will improve, otherwise we may be in some trouble.

Pass Defense - Advanced

Passing DVOA: 4.8% (15th)

When adjusted for situation and opponent, you can see our ranking suffers a bit, and you should expect that given these names. Jimmy Clausen, Matt Moore, Jake Delhomme, Carson Palmer, Max Hall, Derek Anderson. Those are some of the quarterbacks we faced, so we had that in our favor.

Run Defense - Traditional

Yards Per Game: 147.0 (30th)

Yards Per Carry: 5.0 (31st)

Hmm..... Seems we haven't improved at all against the run. This is the most disappointing thing to me. We will not be a high caliber team if we can't stop the run. We saw it in the Atlanta game, we'll see it all year. We put ourselves in bad positions when we can't stop the run.

Run Defense - Advanced

Rushing DVOA: 14.5% (31st)

Falls right in line with every other metric we've looked at. This is disturbing.

I hadn't planned on doing this, but seeing those ugly numbers, I looked at our defensive line to see what we could figure out. If you don't want to see some ugly numbers, turn away now.

Adjusted Line Yards (ALY): 4.89 (31st)

Power Success: 71 (26th)

Stuffed:15% (27th)

2nd Level: 1.56 (31st)

Open Field: 1.09 (29th)

Well, to no surprise, it's our DL that is killing us in the run game. We know this, so do our opponents. Given that we're 5-3 while being terrible against the run is a testament to our team. I'd love to sit here and celebrate the 5-3 record and project future success, but as we start getting into crunch time, I see these numbers as a liability. We have to improve up front. As we found out last week, we can't ask Freeman and company to carry the team. The defense needs to step up, particularly the line.

This week against the Panthers with Clausen in and Moore, Williams, and Stewart (assumption) all being out, this should be a good time for our DLto find their way into the backfield.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good timing for the Panthers to come to town.

...the Seminole guy from the other site.

by MNeilson on Nov 11, 2010 2:21 PM EST reply actions

The turnovers are definitely helping our pass defense

Bottom line is we have only faced 2 good quarterbacks this season (Ryan/Brees), and they both posted at least a 95 QB rating and only turned the ball over once (on a tipped ball at the end of a half). Thankfully these two along with Joe Flacco are the only good QB’s left on the schedule

by RyanL87 on Nov 11, 2010 2:36 PM EST reply actions

6 sacks is pittiful

There has got to be a way the Bucs can do better in that area.
Man I pray that they can find a way.

"1 - 2 - Freddy's coming for you, 3 - 4 - Better lock your door, 5 - 6 - Grab your crucifix, 7 - 8 - Better stay up late, 9 - 10 - Never sleep again..."

by Gatorbuc15 on Nov 11, 2010 2:52 PM EST reply actions

It is pitiful.

We won’t survive all year unless our pass rush and run D gets better.

As you can always expect come from behind victory is when you least expect it.

by Buc Wild on Nov 11, 2010 3:40 PM EST up reply actions

Clearly our pass defense statistics...

are skewed in a positive way because we are so hopeless in defending the run. Overall, I do not see any improvement over our last years poor defense, yet our schedule is far easier this year. Disappointing to be sure…

by Cracker Ball on Nov 11, 2010 4:19 PM EST up reply actions

Not really

DVOA is a per-play metric, not a cumulative metric. So it doesn’t get skewed by facing fewer pass plays.

by Sander on Nov 11, 2010 4:28 PM EST up reply actions

I was think more like...

why pass the ball when we can run it all day on them. Establish the run to set up play action, etc.

by Cracker Ball on Nov 11, 2010 4:56 PM EST up reply actions

How would that help our pass defense rankings? It'd only harm them

by Sander on Nov 11, 2010 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

On a per pass play basis, that is

by Sander on Nov 11, 2010 5:35 PM EST up reply actions

Because its easier to stay with the run...

so we aren’t tested in the same way. If teams were forced to throw against us, they would have to be more creative and complex in their strategy. Having a crappy run defense make scheming against us that much easier. Certainly in the terms of yardage allowed.

If you have a task, do you do it the easy way or the hard way?

by Cracker Ball on Nov 11, 2010 7:25 PM EST up reply actions

We are 12th in passing yardage allowed...

and 30th in rushing yards allowed. If you were an opposing HC, how would you play us?

by Cracker Ball on Nov 11, 2010 7:28 PM EST up reply actions

I'm confused by your argument

Our run defense is terrible, and that means our total yardage allowed via the pass will look good.

But that doesn’t matter for things that are measured on a per play basis. Volume doesn’t matter for DVOA, as it’s measured on a per play basis. Hence, run success should not inflate our pass defense statistics. If anything, it should negatively impact that as it’s easier for teams to scheme against our pass defense.

So an argument could be made that our pass defense is actually better than the per-play numbers would suggest.

by Sander on Nov 11, 2010 8:17 PM EST up reply actions

Now you keep saying on a "per play" basis...

and you simply added that “per play” addendum after the fact. I am making the argument that:

a) Teams will prefer to run on us because it is very effective.

b) The fewer pass attempts they make, not only will the yardage total be less, but the chance of a coverage breakdown, or big play happening via pass is lower, so we appear to be more efficient.

What are the number of plays run against us – both pass and run?

I imagine we have more rushing plays against us that most other teams. CLE and CIN both stopped running for some reason, and we ended up coming back on them. I don’t know why, because we had no answer against either of them. Seemed stupid of them to stop doing what was clearly working.

I am not sure if you are trying to make the argument that we are SO good against the pass, teams prefer to run against us. What I am proposing is that we look good via the pass because we are so easy to run on, teams simply prefer to run against us. When another team can control the line of scrimmage, and basically run at will against us, they can basically do whatever they want. Running is less risky and consumes the clock, which is our enemy.

by Cracker Ball on Nov 11, 2010 9:33 PM EST up reply actions

I did not add that after the fact at all

Here’s what I said the first time:

DVOA is a per-play metric, not a cumulative metric. So it doesn’t get skewed by facing fewer pass plays.

And the idea that a higher volume equals more big pass plays doesn’t matter, not on a per-play basis. Which is what I’m looking at here and what I basically always look at, as cumulative rankings are influenced heavily by game situations unrelated to quality of play. Yes, you’ll see more big plays if you run more plays, but you won’t see the percentage of big plays increase. The only argument you could make is that with fewer pass plays run against us, pass defense is more susceptible to variance, but since you can’t really quantify that it’s not a useful conclusion.

There’s also a simple reason those other teams ‘stopped running’: we’ve been stopping the run much better in the second half of games, forcing teams away from the run. That happened against the Browns and the Bengals.

I am not trying to make the argument that we’re a dominant pass defense so they stop passing. Obviously, we have an extremely weak run defense, and our pass defense certainly isn’t dominant enough to make people fear it.

by Sander on Nov 11, 2010 9:56 PM EST up reply actions

Because Morris is supposed to be a DEF "whiz kid"...

we should be MUCH better – and we aren’t. I see a 5-3 team that can’t really stop anybody. On DEF, we haven’t improved much at all. Blame Morris for it poor tutelage , blame Dom for not getting him the players – it really doesn’t matter.

Coaching fail on substance – coaching win on fluff.

by Cracker Ball on Nov 11, 2010 10:08 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed

We went from brutal in the first half of 09 to solid in the second half, back to brutal in 2010. I tend to blame management more than Morris. Although the defense isn’t very good, they play 110% hard and never quit. They appear to love playing for him. What did management expect to happen when they chose to field these players this year? When you look at the defensive line (the main culprit) the lack of talent is the reason why. You get what you pay for.

by RyanL87 on Nov 11, 2010 10:41 PM EST up reply actions

Whiz kid? He pees himself?

Think you mean Wiz Kid. (maybe you really mean whiz kid)

As you can always expect come from behind victory is when you least expect it.

by Buc Wild on Nov 12, 2010 8:07 AM EST up reply actions

Hey... you caught that.

Nicely done… you get a gold star for today.

by Cracker Ball on Nov 12, 2010 11:03 AM EST up reply actions

Brings me up to a total of one. Awesome

As you can always expect come from behind victory is when you least expect it.

by Buc Wild on Nov 12, 2010 11:27 AM EST up reply actions

If Cowher were the coach, instead of Raheem

we would have at least 11 wins right now. The chin = win.

by Joe Grizzly on Nov 12, 2010 7:12 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

once you give him 10 years to build the team he will get a superbowl.

I think the Cowher argument is that continuity and good drafts build championship level teams. Not changing the coaching and front office every other year. The idea that he is a quick fix coach is laughable.

by Pirate25 on Nov 13, 2010 10:23 AM EST up reply actions

If you want to run with the big dogs...

you need to have a big dog. Jon Gruden thinks differently about a quick fix theory. He did it after 1 year. There are a chosen few people that can make an impact of that caliber. Cowher is one.

by Cracker Ball on Nov 13, 2010 10:47 AM EST up reply actions

Is he?

Where exactly did he prove that?

by Sander on Nov 13, 2010 11:17 AM EST up reply actions

I think his record with PIT speaks for itself...

In Cowher’s 15 seasons, the Steelers captured eight division titles, earned ten post season playoff berths, played in 21 playoff games, advanced to six AFC Championship games and made two Super Bowl appearances. He is one of only six coaches in NFL history to claim at least seven division titles.

In 1992, Cowher first season, the Steelers showed an immediate improvement from the 7-9 season the year before, going 11-5 and earning home field advantage in the AFC. PIT had missed the playoffs six times out of the previous seven years before Cowher took over.

by Cracker Ball on Nov 13, 2010 12:28 PM EST up reply actions

I was talking about 'quick fixes'

Take a look at the 1992 Steelers starters: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/pit/1992_roster.htm
Exactly three players started (one of them the kicker) who weren’t drafted by the Steelers, and only three of the other starters were drafted before 1987.

Cowher certainly made an immediate impact, but he didn’t do it with quick fixes – he did it by building on the players that were already there.

by Sander on Nov 13, 2010 1:02 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks to the general Grinchy-ness...

of the Glazers spending over the last 2 years, and our very bottom of the league salary cap number, we are probably in the BEST financial position of any team to make a massive F/A splash, and W/L gains, in 2011. We have gathered a pretty good nucleus of young players here (Freeman, Blount, Williams, Winslow, Benn, Penn, Talib, Spurlock, etc.) that just needs an injection of a few impact F/As, and another good draft.

Then ATL, NO and CAR will become our bitches. A disciplinarian like Cowher is JUST the man to hold the whip around here.

by Cracker Ball on Nov 13, 2010 1:19 PM EST up reply actions

My objections to Cowher have less to do with his coaching style

And more with the type of changes I think he’d bring. For one, I would think he’d want total personnel control – and I’m not a fan of a coach having that kind of control (except for exceptional coaches like Parcells and Walsh). Second, I think he’d want to move us to a 2-gap 3-4 like he ran at Pittsburgh, and I don’t think we have the personnel to do that.

But if he can come in and not do either of those two things, I would fully support bringing him in.

And yes, we are in a great position to make an impact in Free Agency. I would like to see us be more active this year than last year for a number of reasons. The potential return of a salary cap shouldn’t be a problem with our current salary situation (lowest in the league, I think). But more than that, the free agency pool will be a lot more talented than last year because all those players that are tendered this year will be hitting the open market. Last year was a really deep draft because of all the juniors coming out, and free agency was talent-poor because of the tenders. That’s why I supported the lack of activity in free agency and the focus on the draft. This year it’s likely the opposite will be true – which should key a focus on free agency.

Of course, that all assumes there’s a new CBA in place that is friendlier to free agency than the previous CBA and that introduces a draft pay scale. If such a CBA isn’t in place, all those arguments might not hold water.

by Sander on Nov 13, 2010 1:43 PM EST up reply actions

Those players that are already under contract for 2011...

will remain that way, and IF a rookie wage scale goes into place we will be in the proverbial “Catbirds” seat for 2011.

I suppose it would depend on who he garners as his DC. As for control or personnel decisions, if the Glazers like Dom and Cowher (or whomever) acknowledges they need help to run a team, then that is an easy sell.

As for changes in our personnel for a 4-3 to 3-4 switch – we need so much help along the DL and LB corps, it almost doesn’t matter. I’m sure McCoy and Price would be fine as DEs with an “Ayres Rock” kind of NT in the middle.

by Cracker Ball on Nov 13, 2010 2:08 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think either McCoy or Price is suited to being a 3-4 DE actually

Both are much better as penetrators more than they are at occupying 2 gaps and allowing the linebackers to rush. And it’s not like Quincy Black can beat an offensive tackle when pass-rushing – he can barely beat a running back. If we move to a 3-4 we’re looking at another 2 to 3 years building a defense, again.

I could kind of see us moving to a 3-4 the way the Cowboys run it, with the down linemen penetrating and a dedicated rush OLB who drops into coverage occasionally. But the only real difference between that and a 1-gap 4-3 is that the pass-rusher has his hand off the ground. In fact, we already sort of do that: we frequently zone blitz with the LDE dropping off into coverage. I don’t see Cowher moving to that kind of thing, though.

Then again, if Tomlin can stick to a 3-4, Cowher probably could too.

by Sander on Nov 13, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions

Price and McCoy would have to penetrate to be penetrators.

I'm not negative, I'm just telling you how it is.

by bucnut1 on Nov 13, 2010 10:32 PM EST up reply actions

I am surprised that someone with your extensive football knowledge...

would even ask that silly of a question.

Bill Cowher is only the second coach in NFL history to lead his team to the playoffs in each of his first six seasons as head coach. HOF Paul Brown is the other. Cowher’s record as a head coach is 149-90-1. It’s 161-99-1 choosing to include playoff games.

Hence – “The Man”

by Cracker Ball on Nov 13, 2010 12:38 PM EST up reply actions