How NFL Defenses Fell So Far Behind Modern Offenses

September 04, 2019, 2:24 pm ET

Steven Ruiz at For The Win has put together an excellent series of articles looking at how NFL defenses tried to copy the Seattle Seahawks' Super Bowl-winning scheme ... and why most of them failed miserably. Part 1 (linked below) covers just what offenses have done to give defenses so much trouble. Part 2 looks at pass coverage schemes that should become more common in the near future, while Part 3 examines defensive line techniques. Finally, Part 4 discusses the ideal way to build a defensive roster in the modern NFL.

View Full Article

Comments

11 comments, Last at 09 Sep 2019, 10:01am

#1 by Will Allen // Sep 04, 2019 - 3:25pm

Good stuff, but headline writing can be a little deceptive. Offensive scoring was higher in 2013, compared to last year, for example.

My brilliant insight is that defensive scheming is a lot like offensive playcalling. The schemers snd playcallers with really good players tend to be much smarter than the schemers and playcallers with poor players.

#6 by Pat // Sep 06, 2019 - 4:58pm

Need to be careful there, that's *points*, not offensive scoring. Conflating "points" with "offensive performance" drives me nuts. 2013 had 23.4 points per game, for instance, but only 2.4 touchdowns and 1.9 field goal attempts/game, implying offenses generated the potential for only 22.2 points/game. 2018 had 2.6 touchdowns and 1.8 field goal attempts/game, implying offenses generated the potential for 23.6 points/game.

2013 had more *points*/game because it had nearly 50% more non-offensive touchdowns, a higher field-goal percentage, twice as many safeties, and a guaranteed extra point. None of which are really purely "offense."

Fun fact, though: if you *really* want an offensive juggernaut year, look at the 1958 NFL season. It had 22.6 ppg, compared to 2013's 23.4 ppg, for instance, but that's partly because kickers sucked: in 1958, teams scored 2.7 touchdowns/game vs. 2013's 2.4, and attempted 1.8 field goals vs. 2013's 1.9 - so offenses provided the *potential* for 24.3 ppg.

In fact if we transplant 2013 kickers back to 1958, correcting for field goal percentage (+2.19 ppg) and extra point percentage (+0.2 ppg), teams would've scored, on average, a ridiculous 25 points per game!

(Yes, of course, if kickers make the field goals, the team kicks off, so field position changes, blah-de-blah.)

The 2018 Chiefs still would be the highest-scoring *team* of all time, though - handing the 1958 Colts a 2018 kicker only gives them 33.3 ppg, vs the 2018 Chiefs 35.3 (although excluding the Chiefs defensive scores tightens that a bit, but not enough).

#7 by Will Allen // Sep 08, 2019 - 11:16am

Where do you get that from? I thought I was looking at offensive points only, but I can't remember where from.

I'd really like to see the goal posts narrowed by 10-20 percent.

#8 by Pat // Sep 08, 2019 - 11:40am

I collected the data myself from PFR. I've been curious about the actual long-term evolution of strategy/balance in the NFL is for a while. Ideally you'd want something smarter rather than just scoring, but that's a much bigger problem since you lose play-by-play data pretty early on. Interestingly, 1958 isn't actually even the peak touchdown year: that belongs to 1948 (won by the Eagles!), where teams scored a ridiculous *2.9* touchdowns/game, on average, and nearly outscored 2013 in raw points, too, at 23.2 ppg. Difference is that they barely attempted field goals in that era, and the 0.9 fewer attempted field goals/game easily outvalues the 0.2 more touchdowns/game. It's funny that people complain about the NFL games being so high scoring now when the 1948 Eagles had 5 40+ wins (42% of their season! Even the 2018 Chiefs didn't do that!) and the Cardinals were winning games 63-35.

Totally agree regarding the goal posts. I don't really understand the downside. Less field goal kicking is a good thing.

#9 by Will Allen // Sep 08, 2019 - 12:29pm

Easy field goals just encourages a less aggressive offensive approach, which is the last thing this game needs, in terms of entertainment.

#10 by Aaron Brooks G… // Sep 08, 2019 - 1:49pm

tell that to Bears fans

#11 by Pat // Sep 09, 2019 - 10:01am

If the Bears hadn't considered a 43-yard field goal a "gimme" they might've actually gone for it on 4th and 2. And as "exciting" as the double-doink was, a 4th and 2 for the game would've been more exciting.

#2 by GwillyGecko // Sep 05, 2019 - 1:59pm

He seems to be overrating the importance of the 2013 Seahawks. As good of a team and as good as that defense was, they only won one Super Bowl and the defense blew it a year later despite still having the two safeties, Bobby Wagner, and Michael Bennett (the four players specifically mentioned in part four of the article)

#3 by Aaron Brooks G… // Sep 05, 2019 - 2:08pm

You should probably account for the Seahawks losing Avril and Lane during the game, and the rest of the Legion playing with significant injuries.

#4 by Will Allen // Sep 06, 2019 - 10:13am

Yeah, that was among the more injury influenced Super Bowl results in recent memory. Until those two in game injuries, the Patriots were pretty inefficient on offense.

#5 by Lost Ti-Cats Fan // Sep 06, 2019 - 11:55am

There's lots of good stuff in these articles. I just wish the TV announcers would give us a bit more heads up about what's being used during the game in real time. The camera angles almost never give you enough of a view of the field to be able to sort it out yourself, except on the occasional replay where you see enough angles to piece it together.