Thread: Why do good offenses have bad defenses?

Let's look at three teams in this league: the Vikings, the Colts and the Rams.

All three have explosive offenses. All three rank near the bottom in defense. Why is this? Is it the fact that the three teams simply cannot afford to put together a top knotch defense due to the salary cap limitations imposed by all their offensive studs? Or is there another reason?

It can't be a coaching problem. We Vikings fans know what a defensive mastermind Tony Dungy is. So why do the Colts struggle? Ted Cottrell has been coaching defense for over two decades, and Larry Marmie is great with coverages, and has inherited Lovie Smith's well trained defense to get things done.

I think part of the reason is that with these three teams, the defense never feels pressure. Think about it...the Vikings have trailed in only ONE game so far this year, our only loss, to Philly. The Rams and Colts also usually score with ease, and put up enough points so that the defense never feels that the outcome of the game depends on them making a stop. There is always the assurance of the quick strike offense taking over and getting things done.

There is also the fact that, in the case of the Vikings and Colts, the personnel have changed a lot in the last couple years and the defense hasn't had a lot of playing time together. And of course the Rams lost some key players this offseason.

And if you look at the great defenses in this league, like Miami, Buffalo, Tampa Bay, New England, and Carolina, only the Patsies have a truly great offense. Which makes me wonder if they face the opposite problem of the offense over-relying on the defense to get things done.

Any thoughts?

I think that it is partially the offenses (MN, Indy, STL) that make the other teams offense pin their ears back and just bombs away. It never becomes a defensive chess match. The mind set from the start is this is an offensive battle and we better bring it and bring it good or we will get beat. There are a few teams like Baltimore and TB(few years back) that approach it from the other direction. "We are going to beat you defensively no matter how powerfull you are."

It becomes more like a 2 minute drill the whole game. We now play more like a 2 minute D.

Imagine, if your offensive mind set is we are going to move move move and then strike once or twice for the endzone and maintain time and ball control. You can play defense against that but when you have the mind set that you are going to strike strike strike or we are going to get beat. That puts us on our heels as a D.

"sdvikefan" wrote:

Let's look at three teams in this league: the Vikings, the Colts and the Rams.

All three have explosive offenses. All three rank near the bottom in defense. Why is this? Is it the fact that the three teams simply cannot afford to put together a top knotch defense due to the salary cap limitations imposed by all their offensive studs? Or is there another reason?

It can't be a coaching problem. We Vikings fans know what a defensive mastermind Tony Dungy is. So why do the Colts struggle? Ted Cottrell has been coaching defense for over two decades, and Larry Marmie is great with coverages, and has inherited Lovie Smith's well trained defense to get things done.

I think part of the reason is that with these three teams, the defense never feels pressure. Think about it...the Vikings have trailed in only ONE game so far this year, our only loss, to Philly. The Rams and Colts also usually score with ease, and put up enough points so that the defense never feels that the outcome of the game depends on them making a stop. There is always the assurance of the quick strike offense taking over and getting things done.

There is also the fact that, in the case of the Vikings and Colts, the personnel have changed a lot in the last couple years and the defense hasn't had a lot of playing time together. And of course the Rams lost some key players this offseason.

And if you look at the great defenses in this league, like Miami, Buffalo, Tampa Bay, New England, and Carolina, only the Patsies have a truly great offense. Which makes me wonder if they face the opposite problem of the offense over-relying on the defense to get things done.

Any thoughts?

The Patsies offense isn't that great, only efficient, which coupled with a good defense is what can get you to the Super Bowl (see: the Ravens). All we need is a decent defense to do the same, a defense that can stiffen up at the end of a game and preserve leads for us. Cottrell is going to have to instill that kind of attitude in the defense for it to mature into one that controls the ends of games.

The only one I can comment on is Indy, which does seem to have some cap problems, especially after the recent contract with Paymeaton Manning. I guess Irsay figures that with Dungy on the staff, a great defense can be built without having to shell out the clams.
The other thing is that Peyton is so damn smart with the game, that he is his own defense: the no-huddle not only confuses defenses, but provides a trap when the opponent moves the O-line off the field and sends in the D-line....Peyton starts the playclock with a no-huddle before the exchange is complete, forcing a Too Many Players penalty. DING!! Free yardage!

WOW a Titan fan!!

Our defense can prove itself if we ever get behind in a game. Can they stiffin up and get the ball back to the offense? If a team gets a lead on us they are goin to want to play ball control. Will our defense allow them to do that, or can we stop them?

"sdvikefan" wrote:

Let's look at three teams in this league: the Vikings, the Colts and the Rams.

All three have explosive offenses. All three rank near the bottom in defense. Why is this? Is it the fact that the three teams simply cannot afford to put together a top knotch defense due to the salary cap limitations imposed by all their offensive studs?

Any thoughts?

You partially answered your own question (see bold) except for the Vikings situation (Red is just cheap)...LOL