Surprising defensive stats

[derekshank]

We all remember how badly we got run on in that last Steelers game. Everyone does. Analysts still talk about it, and rail on our rushing defense because of it, but get this...

Since that game, we have played 5 games, and are allowing an average of only 104 yards/game. That would be 12th in the league... not too shabby (maybe not elite, but nothing to complain about).

But there's bad news... While our run defense has improved, our passing defense has become a weakness. In those same 5 games, we are allowing 278.8 yards/game... that would rank us 31st! (Yes, 2nd to last!) And in that span we are also giving up 24.2 points/game, which would rank us 25th!

It sucked when we gave up a lot of yards on the ground... but we were still in the top 5 in points allowed. We are still ranked 24th in rushing defense, which shows how bad it was earlier in the season... but we weren't giving up points. We were ranked 3rd in the league in scoring defense.

We've dropped all the way to 24th in passing defense now too... We're still getting turnovers... but maybe we should go back to doing what we were earlier in the season.

It might have something to do with how many points our offense is scoring right now too... but that didn't seem to matter early in the season, when we were winning by 20 points/game. When you look at the stats, it is hard to deny that our rushing defense has improved, but our overall defense has regressed. Strange statistics indeed, when you consider that stats generally show that rushing defense is one of the most important categories.

[Ripper]

Who else missed madieu ! ! !

[HoosierCat]

It might have something to do with how many points our offense is scoring right now too... but that didn't seem to matter early in the season, when we were winning by 20 points/game. When you look at the stats, it is hard to deny that our rushing defense has improved, but our overall defense has regressed. Strange statistics indeed, when you consider that stats generally show that rushing defense is one of the most important categories.

I think it has more to do with our opposition the last few games. Indy and Pitt both have the ability to beat a team on the ground or through the air, and the Bengals D still isn't good enough to stop both at the same time. They've been picking stopping the run, and that let both Manning and Cheeslisburger go over the top. Throw in Boller's 3 junk TDs when the D started daydreaming halfway through the game...and there's your change.

[redsfan2]

It might have something to do with how many points our offense is scoring right now too... but that didn't seem to matter early in the season, when we were winning by 20 points/game. When you look at the stats, it is hard to deny that our rushing defense has improved, but our overall defense has regressed. Strange statistics indeed, when you consider that stats generally show that rushing defense is one of the most important categories.

I think it has more to do with our opposition the last few games. Indy and Pitt both have the ability to beat a team on the ground or through the air, and the Bengals D still isn't good enough to stop both at the same time. They've been picking stopping the run, and that let both Manning and Cheeslisburger go over the top. Throw in Boller's 3 junk TDs when the D started daydreaming halfway through the game...and there's your change.

Pretty much what I thought as well. Consider too that with the number of points we've been putting up ... the opponenets have HAD to throw a lot more than they probably wanted to in the first place. That is leading to the INT's as well too though. We're first in that category by the way.

Shoot outs produce lots of yards ... points etc. As long as we're coming out on the winning end ... I'm not complaining.

By the way Joisey ... I laffed my ass off when I read the post on the Steelers site where you had to explain to them that the article they were bitching about was by Eisen and not Boomer. Can't believe they are still obsessing about the Bengals. If they don't get over it soon, they'll still be complaining about us while da Bears are beating the hell out of them.

Nicely done.

[skyline]

I'll take what we're doing now, over the bad run defense any day.

When we were giving up a lot of yards on the ground it allowed the other team to control the clock, and it played right into their hands. At least this way we get the ball more and have more changes to put points on the board. It's also a lot easier to force turnovers when a team is throwing the ball than when they're running you into the ground...

[Stripes]

I'll take what we're doing now, over the bad run defense any day.

When we were giving up a lot of yards on the ground it allowed the other team to control the clock, and it played right into their hands. At least this way we get the ball more and have more changes to put points on the board. It's also a lot easier to force turnovers when a team is throwing the ball than when they're running you into the ground...

Exactamundo. Agreed on all points. When our offense is playing at full speed, then the opposing offense has to keep pace. In effect, the defense sacrifices yards for a turnover jamboree.

[HoosierCat]

By the way Joisey ... I laffed my ass off when I read the post on the Steelers site where you had to explain to them that the article they were bitching about was by Eisen and not Boomer. Can't believe they are still obsessing about the Bengals. If they don't get over it soon, they'll still be complaining about us while da Bears are beating the hell out of them.

Nicely done.

Thanks. I think they'll get over us, one way or the other, this Sunday.

[HairOnFire]

I'll take what we're doing now, over the bad run defense any day.

When we were giving up a lot of yards on the ground it allowed the other team to control the clock, and it played right into their hands. At least this way we get the ball more and have more changes to put points on the board. It's also a lot easier to force turnovers when a team is throwing the ball than when they're running you into the ground...

Total disagreement. I barked about the change in strategy when they switched and I think the increase in points surrendered, the most important defensive stat of all, are proof that the Bengals are guilty of playing with fire. And everyone knows that playing with fire will make you pee the bed.

The yards surrendered per rush never bothered me much because the Bengals were able to force most teams to abandon the run by the 2nd half of most games. In addition, the Bengals greatest success in forcing turnovers came before the strategy change. They're now stacking against the run and even though turnovers are still coming (4 last week) they've been unable to put teams away even when the opposition were mediocre passing teams. Plus, the Bengals will likely lose the battle of the clock against most teams due to their fondness for the deep passing game and due to the number of short field opportunities the defensive turnovers have provided.

Last, I've always felt that too much was made about the rush defense in the Bengals losses to the Jags and the Steelers. The Bengals barely lost on the road to a very good Jag team, and may not have lost at all if Chris Perry hadn't gotten crushed on a blitz pickup. And against a good Steeler team the run defense was gashed all day long, but an argument can be made that the loss was due just as much to the Bengal offense leaving points off the scoreboard early, and then totally misfiring during a 3rd quarter collapse.

[skyline]

I'll take what we're doing now, over the bad run defense any day.

When we were giving up a lot of yards on the ground it allowed the other team to control the clock, and it played right into their hands. At least this way we get the ball more and have more changes to put points on the board. It's also a lot easier to force turnovers when a team is throwing the ball than when they're running you into the ground...

Total disagreement. I barked about the change in strategy when they switched and I think the increase in points surrendered, the most important defensive stat of all, are proof that the Bengals are guilty of playing with fire. And everyone knows that playing with fire will make you pee the bed.

The yards surrendered per rush never bothered me much because the Bengals were able to force most teams to abandon the run by the 2nd half of most games. In addition, the Bengals greatest success in forcing turnovers came before the strategy change. They're now stacking against the run and even though turnovers are still coming (4 last week) they've been unable to put teams away even when the opposition were mediocre passing teams. Plus, the Bengals will likely lose the battle of the clock against most teams due to their fondness for the deep passing game and due to the number of short field opportunities the defensive turnovers have provided.

Last, I've always felt that too much was made about the rush defense in the Bengals losses to the Jags and the Steelers. The Bengals barely lost on the road to a very good Jag team, and may not have lost at all if Chris Perry hadn't gotten crushed on a blitz pickup. And against a good Steeler team the run defense was gashed all day long, but an argument can be made that the loss was due just as much to the Bengal offense leaving points off the scoreboard early, and then totally misfiring during a 3rd quarter collapse.

We're talking about slightly different things here...

You were discussing yards per carry, and I was talking about total yards given up on the ground. The YPC #s didn't bother me at first either, for the same reason you mentioned. We forced them to abandon the run, and their total rushing yards never amounted to much. But when talking about total yards allowed, things change. If I'm being forced to decide between giving up a lot of yards on the ground, or through the air, then I'll take through the air.

Looking at stats:

In two of our losses (I'm leaving Indy out, and I'll explain why in a minute) we gave up 181 yards to Jacksonville and 221 yards to the Steelers. In each of those games, the turnovers just weren't there for us. We got 1 from Jacksonville, and 2 from Pittsburgh.

On the other side, look at games where we held the opposing team to less than 100 yards rushing: 95 to Cleveland (3 TOs), 77 to Minnesota (7 turnovers), 76 to Green Bay (5 TOs), and 95 to Pittsburgh (4 TOs). We only gave up 106 rushing yards to Chicago and came out with 6 TOs.

In all of our other wins, we've never given up more than 133 yards on the ground, and our turnover story has been pretty good. One off week was against Houston where we only forced 1 and you saw what happened then. The other was against the Ravens the first time around, and we were blessed that day with the fact that we played against one of the worst passing teams in the NFL.

Those #s seem to show a pretty clear trend to me.

I did leave out Indy (the one major game that goes against this trend). We only gave up 95 yards rushing against them. Unfortunately, they also happen to have the only passing offense in the league that can rival our own. Even amidst that crazy shootout, though, I feel like a couple of bad calls (pass interference/offsides) that extended Indy drives ended up making a huge difference in the final outcome.

Yes, it is playing with fire, and it makes me just as uneasy as it does you. Still, if we see our team give up 150+ yards on the ground, then you know what kind of game it is, and it's not the kind that I feel we have the best chance of winning. It means that the other team has controlled the clock, kept the ball out of our offense's hands, and has been most likely converting a lot of their third down opportunities.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

The Bengals have been selling out vs. the run and opening up the passing game for teams - plus the Bengals tend to score TD's so quickly that other teams are forced to throw the ball to keep up.

Bottom line - the defense is NOT GOOD - borderline terrible - no matter how you spin it.

We all know the turnovers have been their saving grace.

This has been an on-going problem since Marvin's been here and it's suprising considering his defensive pedigree/history of success. We can only assume that will change with time.

Dungy had the same reputation going into Indy and it took him several years of drafts and FA signings to get to where he is now with them, and relied on his high powered offense and QB to win games.

I am really impressed with Thurman, Pollack, Landon and Madeiu - Geathers is also very talented but has not really produced at a level he is capable of, or needs to.

Justin Smith is overrated (he's useless honestly sans a good game or two a year). Hustle is great, producing big plays is better, Smith never does, again, sans once or twice a year it seems.

Marvin will have some tough choice to make next year, and I expect he will just go after the best defensive talent he can find regardless of position or need - every position group needs upgrading and depth on defense still.

[HoosierCat]

I barked about the change in strategy when they switched and I think the increase in points surrendered, the most important defensive stat of all, are proof that the Bengals are guilty of playing with fire.

Maybe. Really, we're talking about two games here, Indy and Pitt. The points the Ravens put up were against a soft prevent D that was already mulling over the coming Pitt game.

In Indy, yeah, the D got burned for 45...but Indy has a damn good offense that's averaging 30+ points a game; Pitt put up 31...but they were averaging 23 with Cheesy under center (26 if you toss the lousy 7 point Colts game).

So in the end you have a Colts team (ranked the No. 1 scoring offense) scoring about 14 or 15 more points than average against a D ranked somewhere in the bottom third of the league, while the Steelers (ranked No. 11 scoring) put up about a TD more than average against the same sub-par D. No matter what the defensive strategy is, that's hardly a remarkable result. Heck, Steelers put virtually the same amount of points up in the first game when Cincy defended the pass and they ran all over us.

[Columbusbengal]

... I barked about the change in strategy when they switched and I think the increase in points surrendered, the most important defensive stat of all, are proof that the Bengals are guilty of playing with fire. The yards surrendered per rush never bothered me much .....

Totally agree with you, HOF. When you force the other team to run more plays in order to score, there's more opportunity for that team to screw up by fumbling or committing a penalty (as well as being forced to throw on third and long - which still gives opportunities for interceptions). One benefit to a defense that allows rushing yards per carry is that it is easier to stop a team in the red zone if they are rushing (rather than throwing) so you have a good chance to force a field goal instead of allowing a TD. I laughed when people complained about the Bengals' poor run defense. The Bengals have a poor defense period - they are certainly capable of stopping the run, but if they do, there are going to be a lot of opportunities for QBs like Manning to score.

I am thrilled that the Bengals have done so well without a great defense and I am not expecting a playoff win (just getting there is such an improvement). The Bengals could win a playoff game the same way they've been winning regular season games, but I'm refusing to be disappointed if they don't. I am looking forward to Marvin and company getting down to serious work on the defense for next year.

[Dadraftnick]

A great deal to that is because we played the Colts. Also teams that the Bengals play are playing from behind so they are passing a lot to catch up. Look at the passing yards the Ravens put up on the Bengals after the game was out of hand. The Bengals were in a type of prevent.

The only stat tht matters is W's

I do have to admit I am concerned about the lack of sacks on the Bengals part, other than that I am pretty happy.

[derekshank]

After today's game, giving up only 84 yards on the ground...

We've won 5 of our last 6, and are giving up only 100.6 rushing yards/game (which would rank us 10th).

Our passing defense was decent too, holding Cleveland to only 124 yards through the air. Combined, this is about 100 yards less than they have averaged per game over the season.

However, we still managed to give up 20 points. Not awful... but still, the Browns are only averaging 15.2 points/game... (granted, 7 points came after the INT that put them on our 19... but playoff teams can hold the Browns to a FG)

The rushing stats are improving every week. The Steelers proved today that stopping them wasn't as easy as it looked... but there is no denying that we are still giving up too many points.

The next two weeks we play pretty bad offenses, so it shouldn't be a concern yet... but if we need a win against KC, it could get dicey. Their offense is for real. They chewed up a Dallas defense much better than our own.

[HairOnFire]

Totally agree with you, HOF. When you force the other team to run more plays in order to score, there's more opportunity for that team to screw up by fumbling or committing a penalty (as well as being forced to throw on third and long - which still gives opportunities for interceptions).

Yup. Depending on the team being faced stacking the LOS has it's own merits, but yesterday was just more proof that swamping the oppositions running game by overplaying doesn't guarantee this team anything but a game that's far closer than it should be.

IMHO the Bengals played with fire again, and I'll be damned if they didn't come close to peeing the bed....as predicted. It should also be noted that the Browns nearly won a game that on paper they had no business being in. And they did so by overplaying the pass, always keeping both safeties deep while constantly switching between man and zone coverages on the wideouts. They allowed the Bengals to run at will, and nearly survived a beastly 170 yard effort from Rudi Johnson despite starting a rookie QB.

Last, I've been repeatedly told to ignore the Colt game as proof that this team is playing with fire, and I'm willing to do that to a point. After all, they may be butt ugly, but we're still talking about Bengals wins. However, it's not easy to overlook that game after just enduring a weeks worth of analysis explaining how well the Jags have defended the Colts in the past using exactly the methods I prefer. But moving past that complaint I'll point to a Raven game where an inept Kyle Boller made a blowout into a close game, a Steeler game where the propped up Biggest Ben was allowed career highs in almost every passing category, and a just completed Brownie game where a rookie QB was given so much freedom to work that he nearly engineered a victory despite having no real running game to work with.

Bottom Line: The Bengal defense isn't very good and as a team they probably can't survive allowing 175 to 200 yards rushing against anybody, but it's just as true that a defensive gameplan built upon this team heavily overplaying the run guarantees every opposing team a chance to win.

[walshfan]

Ohalete is a major factor in the pass defense being as bad as it is..

i think Anthony Mitchel could be more effective back there ..

[Jet23]

We all remember how badly we got run on in that last Steelers game. Everyone does. Analysts still talk about it, and rail on our rushing defense because of it, but get this...

Since that game, we have played 5 games, and are allowing an average of only 104 yards/game. That would be 12th in the league... not too shabby (maybe not elite, but nothing to complain about).

But there's bad news... While our run defense has improved, our passing defense has become a weakness. In those same 5 games, we are allowing 278.8 yards/game... that would rank us 31st! (Yes, 2nd to last!) And in that span we are also giving up 24.2 points/game, which would rank us 25th!

It sucked when we gave up a lot of yards on the ground... but we were still in the top 5 in points allowed. We are still ranked 24th in rushing defense, which shows how bad it was earlier in the season... but we weren't giving up points. We were ranked 3rd in the league in scoring defense.

We've dropped all the way to 24th in passing defense now too... We're still getting turnovers... but maybe we should go back to doing what we were earlier in the season.

It might have something to do with how many points our offense is scoring right now too... but that didn't seem to matter early in the season, when we were winning by 20 points/game. When you look at the stats, it is hard to deny that our rushing defense has improved, but our overall defense has regressed. Strange statistics indeed, when you consider that stats generally show that rushing defense is one of the most important categories.

Like you said in another post, the Bengals are overplaying the run, which is hurting their pass D. Even though we have made a couple of average qb's look like Unitas, you can't argue with the results. Win, win, win. The run defense has improved, but at a cost. All of this because our DL is terrible and possibly the worst in the entire AFC. With that being said, they know the weakness and will have to work around it and hope the offense scores a butt load of points.

I was very happy to see SD lose, because their offense would be very bad against our D. They can try to stop LT, but Gates would go for about 300 yards. I think we can employ a game plan similar to the Pittsburgh game and beat KC. I think they can come out on top by making Green beat them.

[HoosierCat]

Yup. Depending on the team being faced stacking the LOS has it's own merits, but yesterday was just more proof that swamping the oppositions running game by overplaying doesn't guarantee this team anything but a game that's far closer than it should be.

Oh, bullcrap. It was no such thing. The Browns came into PBS Sunday averaging about 15-16 points per game; our -- by your allegations -- miserable defensive strategy would have held them to just 13, had the offense not coughed the ball up deep in our own territory and set the Browns up on the 19 yard line.

The closeness of yesterday's game has far, far more to do a badly misfiring passing offense and a dropped pick by O'Neal than any issue with the defensive game plan.

[HairOnFire]

Yup. Depending on the team being faced stacking the LOS has it's own merits, but yesterday was just more proof that swamping the oppositions running game by overplaying doesn't guarantee this team anything but a game that's far closer than it should be.

Oh, bullcrap. It was no such thing. The Browns came into PBS Sunday averaging about 15-16 points per game; our -- by your allegations -- miserable defensive strategy would have held them to just 13, had the offense not coughed the ball up deep in our own territory and set the Browns up on the 19 yard line.

The closeness of yesterday's game has far, far more to do a badly misfiring passing offense and a dropped pick by O'Neal than any issue with the defensive game plan.

If you're going to throw bullcrap around it might be more fair if you didn't agree with most of what I'm saying.

Misfiring pass offense? Yeah, it points directly to how little margin for error this team has using this defensive strategy. They're simply not going to put anyone away, including a 4-win Brownie team that started a rookie QB starting his very first away game...in a windtunnel. Would Charlie Frye been able to outplay a struggling Palmer if the Bengals had constantly dropped both safeties deep, blitzed more often, or simply turned their defensive line loose to rush the passer? He is a rookie, right? And had O'Neal not dropped that potential pick it wouldn't have changed the fact that it was a close game that saw the Bengals trailing for large stretches...something that should surprise the Bengal fans that have argued all year that stopping the run was the key to reversing every loss. To put it bluntly...bullcrap.

Last, the Browns have been averaging 15-16 points a game with a veteran starting QB and an explosive rookie wideout drafted 3rd overall. Luckily for the Bengals neither played yesterday.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Yup. Depending on the team being faced stacking the LOS has it's own merits, but yesterday was just more proof that swamping the oppositions running game by overplaying doesn't guarantee this team anything but a game that's far closer than it should be.

Oh, bullcrap. It was no such thing. The Browns came into PBS Sunday averaging about 15-16 points per game; our -- by your allegations -- miserable defensive strategy would have held them to just 13, had the offense not coughed the ball up deep in our own territory and set the Browns up on the 19 yard line.

The closeness of yesterday's game has far, far more to do a badly misfiring passing offense and a dropped pick by O'Neal than any issue with the defensive game plan.

I just don't see how you can let Cleveland's offense chew up the clock with drives of 4:59, 8:49, 4:11 and 5:27.

The Browns held the ball for close to 10 min's in the 4th quarter alone in a close game - pathetic.

That to me shows signs of a strategic problem - just as giving up a quick and easy 21 points to Baltimore's woeful offense is, even in junk time prevent.

I just have a hard time looking inside the #'s for excuses here - the defense has issues, will have them all year, and unless something changes soon, they are not going to beat anyone in the playoffs this way period. I just don't see it.

But, screw it, who knows, one game at a time - the Bengals have proven they can play with anyone - and beat anyone - but in the interim we'll just clench our teeth watching this defense drive people crazy the rest of the year.