Anybody find the lack of Defense in the NFL boring?

[BillsVet]

10 hours ago, Logic said:

I think that blaming it all on inept QBing is selling both defenses short. How many points did the Jags hang on Pittsburgh the very next week?

 

The wild card game Bortles flat out stunk. As the game wore on Buffalo's defense could continue to focus on stopping the run and did so. IIRC, they stacked 8 in the box on many downs knowing Bortles couldn't beat them in the air. 

 

If you're speaking specifically about the Buffalo Jacksonville game (which you were) both QBs were very poor.  If anything, defense and poor offense were equally the reason for the low final score. 

 

[row_33]

You play to win the game, it’s not less of a win if 27 is enough one week and 10 the next

 

if you have total contempt for the Bills O you can play a safe game and run out the clock and not take any risk at all

 

 

[folz]

I agree with the OP. The day after the Super Bowl, everyone was saying what a great, exciting game it was...except for me. I actually thought it was a boring game. Each team just marched up and down the field, scoring on nearly every possession. There was no defense until the sack/strip of Brady, which was probably one of the two most exciting plays of the game (along with the Foles receiving TD---the Philly special). I joked with a lot of people that the Bills/Jags playoff game was actually a more entertaining game for my taste. The running game battle, the strategy, playing field position, the battles on the lines, three yards and a cloud of dust and all of that. (despite the bad QB play on both sides).

 

I actually stopped watching the NBA years ago because no one played defense anymore and because of the star treatment by the refs. Football seems to been heading down that same road. Yes, you can have a low scoring game that is boring because neither team is very good (like the 6-3 Bills/Browns game someone alluded to). But when you have two good defenses going at it, a low scoring game can be way more entertaining than a 41-33 point game. 

 

But, I believe this may be a generational thing. I think younger fans are just used to seeing more scoring in sports and partly because the leagues caters to the casual fans, trying to lure them in with more scoring.

[baskingridgebillsfan]

The Super bowl was far from boring , but generally a 24-20 games has enough of action and enough defense to satisfy me .   

[Mr. WEO]

15 hours ago, KzooMike said:

I will concede it's not so much points allowed as it is the way those points are allowed. All QB stats are grossly inflated compared to the 90's. More of the games production has come in the air. The defensive battles seem to occur more from sloppy offensive play then good defense. Then you have the teams with QB's who resemble NBA teams which is a great analogy by Bills Fan in Maryland. We didn't need the chuck rule. The balance of power between QB and defense was perfect. Now it has become imbalanced and that's not something I enjoy. A lot of people think the measurements in a baseball were either intentionally or unintentionally altered ever so slightly and that has been whats led to the ridiculous HR totals after the 2016 All Star break. I see that as very similar to the current state of the NFL. I don't like baseball with a pitcher hitting opposite field HR's. 

 

The NFL did nothing remotely similar to juicing the balls, if that's what you are charging MLB did.

 

The "chuck rule", as you call it It didn't outlaw chucking (which is bumping/contact within 5 yards).   The "balance" was not perfect.  In fact, it was widely felt that the NFL had become boring and unwatchable. That'seoactly why they changed the rule---it's the only reason.  It hasn't changed total scoring in any significant way.

 

More likely, it has shifted scoring from FGs to TDs.  Who on earth would complain that they would like see fewer TDs and more FGs?  That's exactly what you are saying.

[JerseyBills]

On 2/24/2018 at 3:03 PM, KzooMike said:

It's so natural to long for times gone by, but I just appreciated the NFL so much more before it was intentionally converted to a QB league. I like defense. I like seeing defenses that are so formidable they can combat even the best QB's. Consider in 1990 only 3 teams had a completion % above 60%, this season 24 teams did. Anybody else feel similar? 

I totally agree. I thoroughly enjoy great defensive battles. I miss the lack of defensive battles and can't stand the rules favoring offenses.

I was almost angry that people were complaining about the Bills/Jags Wildcard game, I thought it was exciting and thrilling and figured most the ppl complaining were casuals who probably only care about their fantasy team. 

[ndirish1978]

On 2/24/2018 at 3:03 PM, KzooMike said:

It's so natural to long for times gone by, but I just appreciated the NFL so much more before it was intentionally converted to a QB league. I like defense. I like seeing defenses that are so formidable they can combat even the best QB's. Consider in 1990 only 3 teams had a completion % above 60%, this season 24 teams did. Anybody else feel similar? 

 

They changed the rules to be completely one-sided for offenses. I miss D, but now every time someone gets hit or knocked out of a game these millennials start crying about CTE. People have always known this game was dangerous and getting hit hard is not good for you. These guys trade their health for millions, that's their choice. People in other combat sports do the same thing. They should just let these guys play, but that's never gonna happen because the league wants 56-53 scorelines, not 9-3.

Edited February 26, 2018 by ndirish1978

[Iron Maiden]

Just in the last 5 years, Seattle and Denver won the SB mainly because of their D....I don't see the lack of D everyone is talking about.....It just seems the O has been dominating because of Brady and NE.........I've been watching football for many, many years....and every year, you have good offenses and good defenses....

[Mikie2times]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The NFL did nothing remotely similar to juicing the balls, if that's what you are charging MLB did.

 

The "chuck rule", as you call it It didn't outlaw chucking (which is bumping/contact within 5 yards).   The "balance" was not perfect.  In fact, it was widely felt that the NFL had become boring and unwatchable. That'seoactly why they changed the rule---it's the only reason.  It hasn't changed total scoring in any significant way.

 

More likely, it has shifted scoring from FGs to TDs.  Who on earth would complain that they would like see fewer TDs and more FGs?  That's exactly what you are saying.

It’s boring debating with somebody that assums what they say is right without anything to support it. I already conceded it’s not so much about points as the way the game is played.

 

The enforcement of the chuck rule was well documented, not my opinion, in giving WR’s a decided advantage. Of which all the statistics verify conclusively. This is exactly like the MLB. The pass to the NFL is the HR to baseball. MLB has now ordered teams to keep balls in climate controlled humadors to see if teams can combat the HR impacts. Some fans apprently don’t like half the league averaging 30 HR’s. Do your research on that topic as well. Not really a claim at this point. The two things are the same. Shift the rules to push a part of the game casual fans find exciting. 

 

More likely it it has turned FG into TD’s? You can’t have it both ways. If that was the case points would be up at a rate that you have all ready went to great lengths to refute. 

[GrizzReaper]

Yeah I think its total bs the way the game favors offenses now. The QB has a slew of penalty calls there to protect him... WRs can run darn near "pick" routes all day. Defenses have to be really careful on where and how they hit players... I miss watching bone crunching tackles. Cannon balling kamikaze style tackling lol I get player safety is a concern but come on... Stop making all the changes favor the offensive side. WRs used to have some nerves of steel to go across the middle... Not anymore. Run that pick route across the middle and a easy 1st down. Its kind of sad.

[JPP]

Phili this past season was a defence to watch it there ever was one......minnisota as well....I think lack of exciting offence is what is missing now adays.......

[NoSaint]

On 2/24/2018 at 3:10 PM, Happy Gilmore said:

I agree with you.  Defenses, especially DBs have been hamstrung by the rules that, IMO, overprotect WRs and promote higher scoring games.  The NFL seems to disagree with this, though; it appears they feel that higher scoring games are more interesting and attract more fans.

 

That, but are also safer. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, KzooMike said:

It’s boring debating with somebody that assums what they say is right without anything to support it. I already conceded it’s not so much about points as the way the game is played.

 

The enforcement of the chuck rule was well documented, not my opinion, in giving WR’s a decided advantage. Of which all the statistics verify conclusively. This is exactly like the MLB. The pass to the NFL is the HR to baseball. MLB has now ordered teams to keep balls in climate controlled humadors to see if teams can combat the HR impacts. Some fans apprently don’t like half the league averaging 30 HR’s. Do your research on that topic as well. Not really a claim at this point. The two things are the same. Shift the rules to push a part of the game casual fans find exciting. 

 

More likely it it has turned FG into TD’s? You can’t have it both ways. If that was the case points would be up at a rate that you have all ready went to great lengths to refute. 

 

 

It's fun debating invented stats.  There are a grand total of 32 MLB players who hit more than 30 HRs last year.  

 

Anyway, the NFL isn't doctoring the balls to change the game.  TWENTY THREE years ago they changed the rule so that defenders couldn't contact the receiver beyond 5 yards unless it is incidental, or unless he is trying to and is in position to, intercept the ball.

 

The OP's claim is that "defense" went missing and scoring ruined the game.  We see that scoring has not changed to support that claim.  So where is the massive impact of these new rules?  Looking back now, I was wrong about the FGs--the number made per game is at its highest in the past 5 years or so.

 

In 1952, the avg passing TDs per team per game was 1.51 and scoring from all means was 22.3 pig.  

 

1956:  1.57/23.1.

 

1987:  1.45/21.6

 

1997 (4 years after the change):  1.37/21.3

 

2004 (10 years after ): 1.43/21.5

 

2015 (NFL's highest):  1.64/22.8

 

2017:  1.45/21.7

 

 

[Mikie2times]

29 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

It's fun debating invented stats.  There are a grand total of 32 MLB players who hit more than 30 HRs last year.  

 

Anyway, the NFL isn't doctoring the balls to change the game.  TWENTY THREE years ago they changed the rule so that defenders couldn't contact the receiver beyond 5 yards unless it is incidental, or unless he is trying to and is in position to, intercept the ball.

 

The OP's claim is that "defense" went missing and scoring ruined the game.  We see that scoring has not changed to support that claim.  So where is the massive impact of these new rules?  Looking back now, I was wrong about the FGs--the number made per game is at its highest in the past 5 years or so.

 

In 1952, the avg passing TDs per team per game was 1.51 and scoring from all means was 22.3 pig.  

 

1956:  1.57/23.1.

 

1987:  1.45/21.6

 

1997 (4 years after the change):  1.37/21.3

 

2004 (10 years after ): 1.43/21.5

 

2015 (NFL's highest):  1.64/22.8

 

2017:  1.45/21.7

 

 

Dude. Give up. I conceded a 2 point increase in PPG wasn’t material and that the thread topic should have been more about how the game is played. You have no chance of winning an argument that the passing game is not drastically more efficient then years past. So unless you want to debate that, drop it.  Points per game are not up THAT much. Passing attempts per game, completion %, yards, 1st down through the air, quarterback rating are all up dramatically. Are you saying that isn’t the case? If so please provide something outside of random years to your liking. Provide at least a decade sample. 

Edited February 26, 2018 by KzooMike

[Mr. WEO]

13 hours ago, KzooMike said:

Dude. Give up. I conceded a 2 point increase in PPG wasn’t material and that the thread topic should have been more about how the game is played. You have no chance of winning an argument that the passing game is not drastically more efficient then years past. So unless you want to debate that, drop it.  Points per game are not up THAT much. Passing attempts per game, completion %, yards, 1st down through the air, quarterback rating are all up dramatically. Are you saying that isn’t the case? If so please provide something outside of random years to your liking. Provide at least a decade sample. 

 

This is a thread about scoring and defense or the perceived lack of defense.  I have consistently shown that scoring hasn't changed--there were no good old days in anyone on this board's lifetime where 10-7 games dominated the Sunday scoreboard. 

 

It has morphed (for you) into a thread about how the 1994 rule change "drastically" changed the game.  All passing stats are up, you say...except passing TDs per game, which goes back to the point of the OP.  The rule change has not changed the passing TDs per team per game significantly, so, in the end, what is the OPs beef?

 

Anyway, from 1980-90, the passing TDs per game per team was 1.33.  passing ypg was 204.  Passing 1st downs 10.4.

 

In the 10 years after the '94 rule change, the passing TDs per game was 1.33.  Passing ypg was 208.  Passing 1st downs 10.8.

 

In the last 10 years the number increased to 1.48, ypg 229, passing 1st downs 11.8.     A 13% increase in TDs per game and ypg.  I don't consider that dramatic or radical.  And it clearly refutes the OP's claim that there is "a lack of defense" in today's NFL.

 

I also don't think that if all of the passing stats have so significantly increased, a 13% increase in 10 years (less than that if you take all years since '94) doesn't count as "drastically more efficient".  The only conclusion that can be drawn is that, since all of this dramatic change in the passing game hasn't changed the amount of points scored, it has to be true that defenses have gotten better as the game has favored the passing game. 

 

It should be obvious to anyone that as the offenses have become "dramatically" better, the defenses have become equally better.

 

Does this help?

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

10 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

This is a thread about scoring and defense or the perceived lack of defense.  I have consistently shown that scoring hasn't changed--there were no good old days in anyone on this board's lifetime where 10-7 games dominated the Sunday scoreboard. 

 

It has morphed (for you) into a thread about how the 1994 rule change "drastically" changed the game.  All passing stats are up, you say...except passing TDs per game, which goes back to the point of the OP.  The rule change has not changed the passing TDs per team per game significantly, so, in the end, what is the OPs beef?

 

Anyway, from 1980-90, the passing TDs per game per team was 1.33.  passing ypg was 204.  Passing 1st downs 10.4.

 

In the 10 years after the '94 rule change, the passing TDs per game was 1.33.  Passing ypg was 208.  Passing 1st downs 10.8.

 

In the last 10 years the number increased to 1.48, ypg 229, passing 1st downs 11.8.     A 13% increase in TDs per game and ypg.  I don't consider that dramatic or radical.  And it clearly refutes the OP's claim that there is "a lack of defense" in today's NFL.

 

I also don't think that if all of the passing stats have so significantly increased, a 13% increase in 10 years (less than that if you take all years since '94) doesn't count as "drastically more efficient".  The only conclusion that can be drawn is that, since all of this dramatic change in the passing game hasn't changed the amount of points scored, it has to be true that defenses have gotten better as the game has favored the passing game. 

 

It should be obvious to anyone that as the offenses have become "dramatically" better, the defenses have become equally better.

 

Does this help?

 

 

Did your first case cancel this morning?  Dear God WEO, the man has a family.

Edited February 26, 2018 by jmc12290

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, jmc12290 said:

Did your first case cancel this morning?  Dear God WEO, the man has a family.

 

 

LOL second case did.  Flu!

 

Adding another on though.  Turnover times are killer....

[BringBackOrton]

10 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

LOL second case did.  Flu!

 

Adding another on though.  Turnover times are killer....

Nothing like a 10:30 case that isn't draped and prepped til 11:30  Ruins the whole day.

[Mr. WEO]

18 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Nothing like a 10:30 case that isn't draped and prepped til 11:30  Ruins the whole day.

 

 

Indeed.

[corta765]

This has been an issue for me for a while. I love football and I understand that things evolve so I am good with the limiting of head hits by defenders. What I hate though is how the rules are soo slanted for offenses now. God forbid you touch a WR remotely past 5 yards, if a QB is grazed anywhere not in his middle its 15 yards, QB's are virtually never called for intentional grounding, etc.. after a while its off putting as a fan. One of the issues the NFL has with the catch rule is if they just did it where the moment its caught its a catch without 3 steps etc.. there would be wayy more fumbles and turnovers which team coaches freaked out about. This is probably the same reason the intentional grounding rule is such crap. Even these two minor adjustments would give the defense a better shot and IMO a closer better played game.

 

I hate in general how the league has went from QB being the primary focus in the game to the only focus. QB mattered a ton in the 70-80-90s BUT you could still win if you had a good RB defense and average QB play. That just doesn't exist anymore.

 

I am not saying I necessarily want the 9-3 Carolina game either weekly, just a little bit more back in the favor of the defense.