Our defense....not that bad

[Susan]

Listening to the radio and reading the papers over the past few months I've been reading all about how terrible our defense is and how they're going to have to step up in order for the Bears to return to the playoffs. So I looked up some of the advanced stats from http://www.footballoutsiders.com and it seems that the Bears defense last year was bad because their offense was bad.

When I mean that they were bad I mean they gave up lots of points and lots of yards compared to the rest of the NFL but if you take it at a per drive basis, the Bears were actually quite good. The problem was that the offense averaged 23.9 yards per drive. This was okay because the special teams gave the Bears the best field position in the NFL (something they've been great at since Mr Hester came aboard). The Bears offense lacked the ability to sustain drives and our defense was 6th best at yards per drive so it was basically a ping pong type of punt the ball back and forth until somebody broke type of game. Overall I think that if we get the same performance level out of our defense with a REAL offense, we'll be very very good.

Second off Rod Marinelli is a stud. The Bears were the second best running defense last year by FO's metrics but were in the bottom 5 in getting sacks.

The best thing for the defense this year is Jay Cutler. If Jay can sustain drives then our defense will be more than adequate. If the front four can get pressure like Rod's teams in the past have and like how they did in 2007 and before, this team will be all out awesome.

[CjayC]

Here's a great post I found on the Bears messageboard

People are really underrating our defense. First, lots of people are talking like it's terrible and you can't even come close to winning with it despite the fact that we went 9-7 with a below average offense last year, which is sort of mind boggling in itself. I've seen some chicken littles saying "8-8 at best with this defense."

Second, it wasn't even bad. The yardage totals have it ranked low as hell, but that's a dumb measure to begin with. They keep talking about "21st ranked defense" or wherever the hell we were like we are the Broncos. Yardage totals = a terrible way to evaluate a defense or offense, especially when looked at in a vacuum as everyone seems to do.

We were top 5 in yards/play last year. 7th in DVOA. The problem was the defense was on the field way too freaking long due to an offense that was 29th in time of possession. This does a couple of things. First, more plays = more yards. The defense is out on the field for more plays and simply has to give up more yards by definition. Second, (and this one admittedly is a little less of a direct correlation and more difficult to prove) fatigue. The more the defense has to stay on the field, the more their performance is bound to suffer, be it within a given game or cumulatively over the course of the season. This seems to be especially pertinent with a defense that has some main cogs that are either aging or struggling with health. Keeping guys off the field would seem to especially help players like that (namely Urlacher and Harris).


Basically, what I'm saying is, even if they performed on the same level as last year, they'd still be significantly improved just by virtue of having an offense that stays on the field more and converts more first downs. There's obviously a big difference between top 5 in yards/play and 21st in yards (which is a stupid metric to begin with). If this offense performs as well as we expect (and I think we're being reasonable in doing so), the same defensive performance from last year would result in a pretty good defense overall.

If they actually improve their play in addition to this, be it due to new players like Tinoisamoa and Bowman, or Urlacher's health, or Marinelli's effects on the line, or Lovie calling the plays, or anything else, they could easily be very good, if not dominant, again.

Really, any defense would suffer, if they were backed by an offense such as Kyle" Checkdown" Orton's offense last year.

[emperorjones]

Larry Mayer answers a variety of email questions from fans every day on ChicagoBears.com.


I have heard that the Bears defense was on the field for more snaps than any other defense last year. Is that true?

Raymond H.

Yes, it’s true. The Bears defense was on the field for an NFL-high 1,086 plays last season. The Seahawks were next with 1,057, followed by the Raiders (1,044), Chiefs (1,041) and Chargers (1,037). The NFL average was 984, meaning that the Bears defense was on the field for 102 more plays that average. That’s pretty remarkable, especially given that they ranked fifth in the NFL in third-down percentage.

Completely agree with you guys. Time of possession is critical for our offense this year. One long drive a game could be the key.

[Balance-a-Bull]

Listening to the radio and reading the papers over the past few months I've been reading all about how terrible our defense is and how they're going to have to step up in order for the Bears to return to the playoffs. So I looked up some of the advanced stats from http://www.footballoutsiders.com and it seems that the Bears defense last year was bad because their offense was bad.

When I mean that they were bad I mean they gave up lots of points and lots of yards compared to the rest of the NFL but if you take it at a per drive basis, the Bears were actually quite good. The problem was that the offense averaged 23.9 yards per drive. This was okay because the special teams gave the Bears the best field position in the NFL (something they've been great at since Mr Hester came aboard). The Bears offense lacked the ability to sustain drives and our defense was 6th best at yards per drive so it was basically a ping pong type of punt the ball back and forth until somebody broke type of game. Overall I think that if we get the same performance level out of our defense with a REAL offense, we'll be very very good.

Second off Rod Marinelli is a stud. The Bears were the second best running defense last year by FO's metrics but were in the bottom 5 in getting sacks.

The best thing for the defense this year is Jay Cutler. If Jay can sustain drives then our defense will be more than adequate. If the front four can get pressure like Rod's teams in the past have and like how they did in 2007 and before, this team will be all out awesome.

I agree .....and good stats from all you guys.

The best offensive acquisition is also the best defensive acquisition considering how Cutler will drastically reduce the amount of time our defense is on the field.

It should be interesting to see how the defense performs with a little rest.

[NZB2323]

The first touchdown that we gave up against the Broncos in the preseason game came after we took Jay Cutler out.

Cutler for DPOTY!

[Susan]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-r ... rojections

They have us ranked 4th.

[SportsWorld]

I don't think the Bears have a bad defense but it's definitely not what it was in 2005 when we went to the Super Bowl. We're probably on the fringe of top 15 defense in the NFL.

[CjayC]

That's pretty harsh. Because if the TOP wasn't so skewed due to our garbage offense, the defense would have been within the Top 10. The Pass Defense sucks I'll concede, but the D-line should be even better this year, at applying pressure

[SportsWorld]

That's pretty harsh. Because if the TOP wasn't so skewed due to our garbage offense, the defense would have been within the Top 10. The Pass Defense sucks I'll concede, but the D-line should be even better this year, at applying pressure

Maybe I'm being a little harsh but it's nice that the Bears can stop the run but the passing game killed us last season I have more hope for this year with Lovie calling the plays and Marinelli helping out the D Line.

[NoSkyy]

Another thing to note: Out of the entire league, the Bears D was on the field the longest(approx. 1086 snaps) last year, that's more than Raiders( 1057) and Chiefs(1041) who both kind of suck. The NFL average was 986 so, that's a LOT of freaking plays.

Hopefully with Jay Cutler this changes. More sustained drives should help.

[SpinninHouse]

this thread brings up an interesting point. even though stats can be manipulated to prove anything, I do think that our defense being on the field so often in '08 directly tied in to our overall ineffectiveness. while virtually every QB that faced our defense in 2008 absolutely shredded us -- that was last year. and even though our D was routinely shredded, we still finished 9-7. And of those 7 losses, 3 could easily have been victories.

1) the squib kick that lost the Atlanta game should have been a victory.

2) the Tillman penalty in OT against the bucs could easily have been a victory.

3) the two fumbles by Olsen against the panthers could easily have been a victory.

I highly doubt our defense will be as bad as it was last year because A) marinelli B) our offense should stay on the field longer C) it's unlikely all our high-priced defenders (urlacher, tommie harris, ogunleye, etc) will perform as miserably as they did in '08.

even though we don't have a top-10 defense anymore -- it, like you said, is not that bad. and hopefully will be good enough to carry us to the post-season. gonne be fun!!!!!

[NoSkyy]

I just realized I just quoted something else someone already posted. Maybe next time I'll read the thread.

[Ayt]

The main thing I'm interested in seeing out of you guys is your pass rush.

[Cliff Levingston]

F you Packers fan!

Cliff Levingston agrees. Marinelli was brought in to improve that. If he can make Anderson a viable pass rushing threat, then that'll help out a lot. Ogunleye is in a contract year as well so hopefully he's got that extra fire to earn himself another contract. We shall see though; a lot of that hinges on Harris being healthy AND effective.

[Icness]

I agree completely with what Cliff Levingston said above, especially regarding Harris. If he's good, the defense will be okay. If he's not his old self, the defense is fundamentally changed for the worse. Teams won't have to scheme to help the guard; the ends won't get straight 1-on-1 blocking anymore. That means blitzing like last year, and y'all saw how patient QBs could just pick apart the incomplete zone behind the blitz.

I still think the safety position is going to be a real issue. Tampa-2 with poor safety play leads to Detroit 2008 and Indy sans Sanders the last few years.

[SportsWorld]

FYI Sporting News has Tommie Harris ranked as the 58th best player in the NFL after Lance Briggs (57th). I nearly spit out the milk I was drinking when I read that.

[ChronicKerr]

FYI Sporting News has Tommie Harris ranked as the 58th best player in the NFL after Lance Briggs (57th). I nearly spit out the milk I was drinking when I read that.

I don't get it

[SportsWorld]

FYI Sporting News has Tommie Harris ranked as the 58th best player in the NFL after Lance Briggs (57th). I nearly spit out the milk I was drinking when I read that.

I don't get it

Tommie Harris isn't a top 100 player in the NFL (Matt Forte didn't even make the list) Let alone top 60.

[CjayC]

FYI Sporting News has Tommie Harris ranked as the 58th best player in the NFL after Lance Briggs (57th). I nearly spit out the milk I was drinking when I read that.

Yeah that's pretty funny.

Briggs i can give a Top 100 label. Tommie Harris has been a shell of himself.

It's sad because he really was a force early in his career, and he's a real cool guy. He's downright scary when he's on. But hard to watch when he's not.

I hope he finds whatever step he lost, and can go back to being a force in the middle. That man alone changes the entire way the defense operates. Our LB's will be freed to murder people all game, not to mention Brown and Ogunleye are pretty good defensive ends in their own right

[SpinninHouse]

Tommie Harris is absolutely NOT a top-100 player. Briggs, yes. Harris, no. I'd have to say Forte is a top-100 player, too. He could be the premier all-purpose back in the league -- although Adrian Peterson is far and away the best pure rusher in the NFL.