Anybody find the lack of Defense in the NFL boring?

[Mikie2times]

58 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?

 

 

Yes, thank you for illustrating my point clearly, 11% increase in passing TD's, 10% increase in passing yards, 9% increase in passing first downs. That's going off your data from 1994-2004 vs 2004-current? (2004 being a key year as that was the year heavy enforcement of illegal contact started). I already stated about 4 times in this thread the thread title should have been about how the game is played more than scoring defense. The original language in the first post discussed frustration with a passing league. So I felt that was in bounds to discuss? You stuck on a strawman fixating this discussion about points scored when it was conceded long ago that it was not a material difference. All the while, you have no earthly clue how that moderate and not severe incline came to be...... Bad offense perhaps or great defense? I don't know the answer, but I know you know. At least either that or we will talk about points scored for another 2 hours.  

[dave mcbride]

On 2/24/2018 at 10:39 PM, 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. 

Assuming you're referring the DH as a "pitcher" (I could be wrong), I'll say that I like watching a pitcher bat even less than a DH. The pitcher Ab is a non-athletic play and shouldn't be in the game. Ironically, I don't like the DH rule much either, and the obvious solution is to field 8 batters. However, that'll never happen because of the havoc it'll wreak on baseball's record books. If I had to choose between a DH rule I don't like and one ninth of all at-bats being non-athletic events, I'll take the former. Again, I don't like the DH, but the alternative is worse given the unwillingness to adjust lineup size. As for the HR increase, it's not the ball, it's the launch angle revolution more than anything: https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/home-runs-are-back-in-baseball-why-were-going-to-see-more-homers-and-strikeouts/ .

Edited February 26, 2018 by dave mcbride

[Mr. WEO]

27 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

Yes, thank you for illustrating my point clearly, 11% increase in passing TD's, 10% increase in passing yards, 9% increase in passing first downs. That's going off your data from 1994-2004 vs 2004-current? (2004 being a key year as that was the year heavy enforcement of illegal contact started). I already stated about 4 times in this thread the thread title should have been about how the game is played more than scoring defense. The original language in the first post discussed frustration with a passing league. So I felt that was in bounds to discuss? You stuck on a strawman fixating this discussion about points scored when it was conceded long ago that it was not a material difference. All the while, you have no earthly clue how that moderate and not severe incline came to be...... Bad offense perhaps or great defense? I don't know the answer, but I know you know. At least either that or we will talk about points scored for another 2 hours.  

 

 

Look ,for the final time, the changes were not "dramatic".  You've certainly "illustrated" that (more accurately, I did for you at your request).

 

Defenses ARE still formidable. The fact that they are preventing these "best QBs" (and offenses) as well as they did 15, 20, 25, 30, 50  from scoring more points is proof that you are pining for a perception, not a reality.

 

We get it, you would prefer that teams score those 21-22 points per game they have averaged for 50 years with 9-11% less passing offense so it will somehow look better when you watch.

 

A great argument for nostalgia.

[nedboy7]

Don’t you guys get tired of non stop whining? Find the nfl boring?  Watch something else!  

[wagon127]

I mean, to prove the rules are slanted towards the Offense, I look at how penalties work. Why do offensive teams get to replay their down, but if the defense gets a penalty, they almost always result in an automatic first down? I'd be interested in seeing how things would change if Offenses, didn't get to replay their down. Maybe that would be a good Preseason experimental rule change.

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

I agree. My annoyance is that it's set off an arm's race where teams scramble to pay mediocre QBs gobs of money because unless you have an elite guy, you need someone to get hot at the right time with an otherwise elite squad to stand a chance.

[Mikie2times]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Look ,for the final time, the changes were not "dramatic".  You've certainly "illustrated" that (more accurately, I did for you at your request).

 

Defenses ARE still formidable. The fact that they are preventing these "best QBs" (and offenses) as well as they did 15, 20, 25, 30, 50  from scoring more points is proof that you are pining for a perception, not a reality.

 

We get it, you would prefer that teams score those 21-22 points per game they have averaged for 50 years with 9-11% less passing offense so it will somehow look better when you watch.

 

A great argument for nostalgia.

What does dramatic mean to you? If I  took 10% of your annual earnings would you consider that a dramatic reduction or would you minimize it in the same fashion you have toward every stat that doesn't fit your agenda?

[Mr. WEO]

22 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

What does dramatic mean to you? If I  took 10% of your annual earnings would you consider that a dramatic reduction or would you minimize it in the same fashion you have toward every stat that doesn't fit your agenda?

 

If you shifted one source of my income down by 10% and yet the total income stayed the same, why would I care?  Or is one revenue stream more "boring" than another?

 

Dramatic, to anyone, would at least have to include a change in outcome. 

 

I have presented all the facts.  You tried to rewrite your original post. Now you are flailing----and I have the agenda?  You are bothered by your perception of the game.

 

Enjoy your 3 and outs and those long lazy days at the ballpark watching pitchers strike out.

[ddaryl]

there were some significant changes made over the last 2 decades the heavily favor the offense and to protect the QB in the NFL.

Yeah I prefer the NFL of the 80's and 90's over today's product.

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

there were some significant changes made over the last 2 decades the heavily favor the offense and to protect the QB in the NFL.

Yeah I prefer the NFL of the 80's and 90's over today's product.

 

 

If that's what 2 decades of rule change has intended, it's not working.

 

7 of the 10 highest Adjusted Games Lost for QBs since 2000 have come in the last 8 seasons.  (Football Outsider).

 

Not all injuries happen during games, but these are tough times for NFL QBs. 

[TheFunPolice]

I agree, and I think there is an important difference in "great defenses."

 

Today's great defenses are stacked at the secondary position and still get lit up when it matters most because of the rules that favor WRs. Teams like the Ravens had a vicious front 7 and a great safety to clean up. That is rare and doesn't last long anymore with contracts the way they are. If you can assemble all that talent it just doesn't last together. A great role player will leave for some obscene contract he'll never live up to and your defense will suffer.

 

But.. if you can manage to assemble a great DL that can consistently get to the QB you can beat anyone. If you have a great secondary but a good but not great pass rush offenses will scheme up some blocking and you'll get shredded anyway, or the refs will toss 50 yard penalty flags that negate an entire half of great football (AFC Title Game).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mikie2times]

14 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

If you shifted one source of my income down by 10% and yet the total income stayed the same, why would I care?  Or is one revenue stream more "boring" than another?

 

Dramatic, to anyone, would at least have to include a change in outcome. 

 

I have presented all the facts.  You tried to rewrite your original post. Now you are flailing----and I have the agenda?  You are bothered by your perception of the game.

 

Enjoy your 3 and outs and those long lazy days at the ballpark watching pitchers strike out.

Lot's of ways to arrive at the same outcome, the ride is not material. Gotcha.

[TheFunPolice]

It's a lot easier to find 3 capable WRs who can produce yards and TDs with a good QB than it is to find 3 DL who can produce pressures and sacks.

 

For the most part WRs can be replaced fairly easily. Good to great DL are a lot more scarce.

 

As soon as you get that great DL the clock starts ticking to when the 3rd best guy gets 70+ million nowadays.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by TheFunPolice

[ddaryl]

25 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

If that's what 2 decades of rule change has intended, it's not working.

 

7 of the 10 highest Adjusted Games Lost for QBs since 2000 have come in the last 8 seasons.  (Football Outsider).

 

Not all injuries happen during games, but these are tough times for NFL QBs. 

 

 

Maybe not but it still changed the game... could be that there is more pass attempts now therefore more QB's dropping back... therefore more QB injuries

 

but IMO the game is not as much fun as it used to be and I too miss the game I grew up loving compared to today's version. I miss the days when RB's where worthy of 1st rd picks where QB's threw for 3000yds in a season and were considered awesome for doing so... 

There seem like there was more balance and the game was truly won in the trenches.. A game of inches

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by ddaryl

[TheFunPolice]

2 of the top defenses (Jags and Eagles) looked like they were playing 7 on 7 in practice as the offenses marched up and down the field at times in the playoffs (Jags: PIT in divisional round and the 2nd half of the AFC Title game) (Eagles: Super Bowl)

 

Even the vaunted Seattle defense couldn't stop NE in the SB with a 24-14 4th quarter lead. It's just too hard to keep a good offense down with all the rule changes and timely penalties, plus the reluctance to call offensive holding.

[Kelly101]

     I think the bills defense was awesome this year, outside of some terrible

games in the middle of the season. The defenses role in making the playoffs 

seems very downplayed amidst all the tt arguing. I would say the bills defense

was the real reason why the bills made the playoffs, outside of the 

bengals qb.

[Mikie2times]

2 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

2 of the top defenses (Jags and Eagles) looked like they were playing 7 on 7 in practice as the offenses marched up and down the field at times in the playoffs (Jags: PIT in divisional round and the 2nd half of the AFC Title game) (Eagles: Super Bowl)

 

Even the vaunted Seattle defense couldn't stop NE in the SB with a 24-14 4th quarter lead. It's just too hard to keep a good offense down with all the rule changes and timely penalties, plus the reluctance to call offensive holding.

Nope,  the game is played exactly the same way as when they had the single wing. Just ask WEO. PPG is only up a smidgen so it all has to be the same. 

[KollegeStudnet]

Still think the Patriots scandals, mixed with them going to the Bowl every season has diluted the NFL product. I remember the jokes about the Bills going to the SB every season and sayin how boring that was.

[corta765]

33 minutes ago, Kelly101 said:

     I think the bills defense was awesome this year, outside of some terrible

games in the middle of the season. The defenses role in making the playoffs 

seems very downplayed amidst all the tt arguing. I would say the bills defense

was the real reason why the bills made the playoffs, outside of the 

bengals qb.

 

Agreed and basically the middle three games go as followed:

NYJ: Team was overhyped and defense just straight missed tackles. Mix in the offense turns the ball over 3 separate times including once when we would've tied the game at 10-10 and twice inside our own 40 and our D didn't have a chance to make many other mistakes.

NOLA: Offense was never on the field, team morale wise looked lost, and NOLA exploited the middle of our D which was transitioning without Darues

LAC: Peterman and the entire team quit come the second half minus a select few.

 

Also for some dumb reason it took 3 horrendous games on D for the coaches to realize Milano should've been starting over Humber. BUT to their credit they fixed and played far better after that.

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 12:03 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? 

You mean you wouldn't enjoy chess where all your pieces were Queens and Rooks ? I happen to agree with you.