RealGM

There seems to be a trend with teams that have good offenses. Normally they play a style of defense that is described as bend, but don't break. Teams like the Colts, Saints, Rams etc have employed this strategy for years. If you play soft, teams can sustain long drives against you and keep your offense on the sidelines.

Wouldn't it be a much better idea to play super aggresive on defense?

Nowak008 wrote:There seems to be a trend with teams that have good offenses. Normally they play a style of defense that is described as bend, but don't break. Teams like the Colts, Saints, Rams etc have employed this strategy for years. If you play soft, teams can sustain long drives against you and keep your offense on the sidelines.

Wouldn't it be a much better idea to play super aggresive on defense?

More often than not, teams that usually have great offenses, pool a lot of their salary cap space on offense, and therefore, have to employ a certain strategy that requires them to spend less cap space on defense. And more often than not, the undervalued players are the ones that are either too short or a bit slow... so they have to employ certain strategies to make up for these deficiencies. And hence, you don't have a domineering defense like a Chicago or a Baltimore would have, but you have more of a bend-but-not-break defense of Indy and St. Louis (Although Indy's case is a bit of an anomaly, since they play their variation of the Tampa 2 so well).

It occurs vice versa too. If you have a great defense, you pool a lot of the salary cap space on defense, and less on offense. And what you'll most likely end up is a power-rushing attack, rather than a combination of being good at both. Because O-Linemen and RBs are generally cheaper than QBs and WRs, you tend to employ a rushing attack rather than a balanced out offense or a pass-heavy offense.

Nowak008 wrote:There seems to be a trend with teams that have good offenses. Normally they play a style of defense that is described as bend, but don't break. Teams like the Colts, Saints, Rams etc have employed this strategy for years. If you play soft, teams can sustain long drives against you and keep your offense on the sidelines.

Wouldn't it be a much better idea to play super aggresive on defense?

Playing super aggressive allows for big plays. The idea behind the bend but don't break defense is to allow the opposing offense to get small gains but never the big play. Eventually the offense makes a mistake and the drive is stalled.

Worm Guts wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Playing super aggressive allows for big plays. The idea behind the bend but don't break defense is to allow the opposing offense to get small gains but never the big play. Eventually the offense makes a mistake and the drive is stalled.

Obviously. Thats what I am arguing against. It sucks getting a big play against you. Sure. With a great offense it isn't as big of a deal. Look at the super bowl. Hester gets the opening TD. Thats much better then say a 10 min drive that just eats the clock.

J.Kim wrote:More often than not, teams that usually have great offenses, pool a lot of their salary cap space on offense, and therefore, have to employ a certain strategy that requires them to spend less cap space on defense. And more often than not, the undervalued players are the ones that are either too short or a bit slow... so they have to employ certain strategies to make up for these deficiencies. And hence, you don't have a domineering defense like a Chicago or a Baltimore would have, but you have more of a bend-but-not-break defense of Indy and St. Louis (Although Indy's case is a bit of an anomaly, since they play their variation of the Tampa 2 so well).

It occurs vice versa too. If you have a great defense, you pool a lot of the salary cap space on defense, and less on offense. And what you'll most likely end up is a power-rushing attack, rather than a combination of being good at both. Because O-Linemen and RBs are generally cheaper than QBs and WRs, you tend to employ a rushing attack rather than a balanced out offense or a pass-heavy offense.

True. You can still use your limited resources to build a defense like I suggested.

The Redskins play a bend but don't break style of defense which is why we've given up only 1 TD in two games so far. Teams can't score on us in the red zone because of our secondary and linebackers.

The only problem is that the other teams defense usually stays fresh but it helps to have Clinton Portis and Ladell Betts to wear down the opposing teams.

btw I don't really like this style. Less turnovers and long yardage situations but it gets the job done.

Nowak008 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



True. You can still use your limited resources to build a defense like I suggested.

If I'm understanding this post correctly (Ignore completely if I'm not), it's hard for those types of teams to play an aggressive defense. Becaue they're picking up the players who are lacking in some type of attribute, if they play a more aggressive style of defense, it'll be easier for the opposing offense to exploit the weaknesses as opposed to a well-rounded defense like a Chicago or a Baltimore.

As well, In general, a 'super aggressive' defense has its own flaws, even with a great defense (I mean, it could work if your secondary can play in man-coverage so effectively, but there's not a single team in the league that can do that). Depending on where you have the blitz coming from, your defense may be susceptible to the flats, the quick hitches, quick hooks and draw/delay runs. Because of this, you'll actually be prolonging the opposing team's offense as opposed to stopping it. (Especially in today's game where a lot of teams employ quick timed routes that allow the QB to release the ball quickly from a 3-step drop).
Of course the 'super aggressive' defense will work on a bad offensive team, which has shown that it can't handle the blitz, but any competent offensive team will be able to pick apart that type of defense easily.

The Bengals try to break the norm a little. Their defense is based almost completely on forcing turnovers to stop the other team. Two years ago they led the league in takeaways and were a playoff team. Last year that fell off and so did the Bengals.

This year they've only had 7 opposing drives out of 25 that didn't result in points, turnovers, or a missed FG. That's stopping without a turnover just 28% of the time. The next lowest are the Giants and Saints, who don't stop anyone, at 44%. If that trend keeps up, two things will happen.
1. The Bengals are going to challenge the record for most points scored in a season
2. The Bengals are not going to win more than about 6 games

So that's one alternative way of supporting a big-play offense--go for the turnover or give up the pretty quick score on defense to get the ball back more often for your offense. Some of Marino's Dolphins teams in his later years played that way, and they were largely major disappointments too.

Icness wrote:The Bengals try to break the norm a little. Their defense is based almost completely on forcing turnovers to stop the other team. Two years ago they led the league in takeaways and were a playoff team. Last year that fell off and so did the Bengals.

This year they've only had 7 opposing drives out of 25 that didn't result in points, turnovers, or a missed FG. That's stopping without a turnover just 28% of the time. The next lowest are the Giants and Saints, who don't stop anyone, at 44%. If that trend keeps up, two things will happen.
1. The Bengals are going to challenge the record for most points scored in a season
2. The Bengals are not going to win more than about 6 games

So that's one alternative way of supporting a big-play offense--go for the turnover or give up the pretty quick score on defense to get the ball back more often for your offense. Some of Marino's Dolphins teams in his later years played that way, and they were largely major disappointments too.

62-7! 62-7! 62-7!