Does a good/great secondary matter?

by Kdo09 on Jul 21, 2009 10:59 AM MDT

OK, I give up. For two months now I've been trying to write a particular article and have finally decided.......I cant. I simply don't know how. So instead, I open it up to my friends and Bronco Family at MHR.

I've realized that this is all one big exercise is prognostication. I was trying to predict the outcome of the Denver Bronco Defense. Here is my original question to myself.

Does a good/great secondary result in a SOLID Defense?

This is precipitated by trying to defend the Broncos upcoming season, of course. If you can get an "expert" to admit that the Broncos Offense ISN'T going to be problem this year, they will inevitably point you to the Defense. I can't blame them, I would too. But as far as personnel are concerned, the only DEFINATIVE improvement, the only area we can point to and say "we are without a doubt better here", is our secondary. But can a secondary lead the way to an all-around dominant Defense?

I've asked this question to several friends and the resounding answer is........"Wow you spend too much time thinking about this stuff." I've asked "experts" about the key to winning football on Defense, and the answer is always "pressure on the quarterback." Well obviously, the secondary can't put pressure on the QB consistently. Sure there's the occasional Corner Blitz but that obviously can't be the basis of your D. So, I started analyzing. I'm a professional analyst. It's what I do for a living. But this particular task killed me. So, I'm opening it up to you.

After crunching numbers and asking questions, it's MY OPINION, that the following are the teams with the BEST COLLECTIVE secondary's in 2008 (in no particular order).

Tampa Bay

Philly

Miami

Pittsburg

Tennessee

New York (Giants)

Washington

This list is MOST CERTAINLY up for debate

Here is what I interpreted:

Interceptions ARE NOT a definitive indicator of a teams overall strength at the secondary level.
Passing TDs ARE NOT a definitive indicator of a teams overall strength at the secondary level.
Passing Yards APPEAR to be an indicator of a teams overall strength at the secondary level.
Completion Percentage APPEARS to be (but to a lesser degree) an indicator of a teams overall strength at the secondary level.

So based on Passing Yards and Completion Percentages, the seven teams I previously listed are the best secondary's of 2008.

What can also be derived is that 5 of those 7 teams made up the top 8 teams in the league in Quarterback Sacks, and all 7 of those teams were included in the top 10 teams giving up passing TD's. And, if you're interested, 6 of those 7 teams were also in the top 10 for interceptions (Philly tied with 3 others at #11).

Now the question is "who made who?" It's really a chicken or the egg sort of question. Did the secondary strength result from QB pressure, or did QB pressure result from secondary strength? I don't know the answer. I'm not sure there is a definitive answer. But it does appear you can't have one without the other.

What about Rushing Defense? Cleveland, Oakland and Green Bay were all in the top ten for Interceptions last year but at the bottom of the league in Rushing Defense.

Of the 8 teams that had 40 or more sacks last year, only Dallas, Minnesota and the Jets were not in my 7 best secondary's list. Dallas and Minnesota had Demarcus Ware and Jared Allen respectively to skew their teams' numbers, but Miami had Joey Porter skewing theirs so draw your own conclusions.

I have to assume that Denver's secondary is going to be one of the top groups in the league. Up to this point I haven't even mentioned that Denver pilfered 3 of our starting 4 secondary players from those top 7 secondary teams and nobody in their right mind will say Champ doesn't fit in with that group. I have NO REASON, ZERO, ZILTCH to think our secondary will be anything less than excellent. But does that result in QB pressure? What about defensive prowess in general? Green Bay is in the top 3 for Interceptions AND passing percentage but 20th in total yards and gave up a boatload of passing TD's. There are hundreds of ways to look at this. So I open it up to you my friends. Is there a conclusion to be drawn?

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Secondaries are meaningless if you can't get to the QB

With the rules regarding coverage, no CB will be able to stay with a good WR for much more than 4 to 5 secs if they are very good, if the guys can’t get to QB within 3 secs, it pretty much is a losing battle for any secondary.

The one thing that I notice about your list is most of those teams can also get to the QB, hence making your secondary look much better than it actually may be, pass rush and pressure are far more important than great secondary defenders, I think if you look at Pittsburgh, they have an all world safety, but the other three guys are pretty average. Look at what Arizona did to them when Warner could deliver the ball.

"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" - Ash from Army of Darkness
"H.I., you're young and you got your health, what you want with a job?" - Evelle from Raising Arizona
"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes." - Agent Rogersz from Repoman

by Broncoman on Jul 21, 2009 11:48 AM MDT reply actions

I cant disagree

Nobody can question the Steelers front seven strength. But would they be as effective if their secondary was bad? Does confidence in the guys behind you allow you to do your LB job, DE job better? And more importantly, is Denvers front seven going to benefit front having a good secondary this year?

by Kdo09 on Jul 21, 2009 12:09 PM MDT up reply actions

+1

Great Secondaries can’t do squat if they have to defend for 5 seconds or more. PERIOD

What I think a great secondary gains you though are two big posisitves:

1. Turnovers
2. Minimizing mistakes

Number 1 is obvious. Number 2 is something that is probably very overlooked by people in general. Have a good secondary keeps opponents from making big plays when your call goes bad or a guy blows his assignment.

I don’t want breakaway speed. I want break-some-poor-fool-as-I-bowl-you-over power getting 6 yards off a play that should have been stopped for 2 at most.

by sadaraine on Jul 21, 2009 4:49 PM MDT up reply actions

but

If a secondary could cover more than 3 secononds that sure would help a DL

"Sanity is the realization that everyone is insane to some degree." Me

by 3nS on Jul 21, 2009 5:54 PM MDT up reply actions

+1

Preach on brotha

I don’t want breakaway speed. I want break-some-poor-fool-as-I-bowl-you-over power getting 6 yards off a play that should have been stopped for 2 at most.

by sadaraine on Jul 22, 2009 8:18 AM MDT up reply actions

Let me add

I’ve too been contemplating this subject. If the DL makes the secondary, why then are there so called coverage sacks. These teams with great sack totals, how much credit can be given to the secondary.

Just as many times a secondary can not stay with a reciever. An OL can not block a DL indefinately. So if a secondary can stay with a reciever for lets say a second longer allowing a DLineman a second more to get to the QB then does the DB make the DL? Just as if a DLineman gets to a QB a second faster does that DL make the DBs? So to me a team will have to have both or at least adequate at both areas so one will make the other better or that they will complement each other.

Noted to should be the comments made by Nolan in todays Horsetracks.

I’m looking forward to what HT has to say about this topic.

"Sanity is the realization that everyone is insane to some degree." Me

by 3nS on Jul 21, 2009 12:33 PM MDT reply actions

Well the thing is that coverage sacks are pretty rare these days

Usally you only get a coverage sack when a guy can’t make up his mind, most good QB’s are going to go through their progressions and if a guy isn’t available then they throw the ball away or try to run with the ball. I disagree with the OL can’t block a DL indefinately, I can remember plenty of times that our defensive line was blocked indefinately last year, hell there were plays I think the QB had the ball 8 secs or longer.

by Broncoman on Jul 21, 2009 1:54 PM MDT up reply actions

I think during the Jets game...

Favre actually read the ball a story before he threw it.

Peyton Hillis is also referred to in early Greek mythology by his other names such as Zeus or Poseidon.

by Joe Medina on Jul 21, 2009 2:09 PM MDT up reply actions

Yes

We were talking Broncos 08 defense were the line wasn’t adequate enough to make up for the problems in the secondary nor the secondary adequate enough to make up for the problems on the line.
You gave an example of the DL not doing its part. But may I ask how many times was a QB quickly able to find an open reciever just before a lineman hit him? If the DB’s could have covered a second longer and the offensive play would have not been made.
I’m not saying a decent DL is not needed but what I’m saying is that DB’s can make the DL better just as the DL can make the DB’s better. Is one more important than the other? Not in my opinion!

"Sanity is the realization that everyone is insane to some degree." Me

by 3nS on Jul 21, 2009 2:35 PM MDT up reply actions

Says it all

We were talking Broncos 08 defense
Right. We couldn’t penetrate, rush the passer, stop the run, tackle or cover people. But other than that, we were pretty good.

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Jul 21, 2009 6:00 PM MDT up reply actions

Thanks 3nS

You have a valid question. I wrote this hoping to start a good long debate and i think HT opinion on the matter will go a long way towards that.

by Kdo09 on Jul 21, 2009 12:37 PM MDT reply actions

As far as

Broncoman’s statement about the Super Bowl result, one game cannot be used as an argument for any particular teams defense because look what happened to the Patriots undefeated season. Any team can be defeated in any instance of one game just by having a solid game plan. So that should not be used to quantify a whole season, and therefore one teams defense in that particular year. Yes, pressure has a definite place in the effectiveness of a secondary, but it goes hand in hand with the coverage too.
I think you must also consider in your analysis; Was the opposing team ahead or behind? That would have a factor in the play calling (Run vs.Pass). This would be a tremendous task, as it would take hours of film study to determine. I don’t know if the effort is worth the time for one point, as there are 32 teams.

"You give 100 percent in the first half of the game, and if that isn't enough, in the second half you give what's left." – Yogi Berra
"No, I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space."

by KaptainKirk on Jul 21, 2009 3:09 PM MDT reply actions

The Benefit of Secondary Improvement

I would say that from a statistical standpoint you may very well get a better bang for your buck from an intelligent secondary.

It would be an interesting number crunch to compare the effectiveness of taking away all of a team’s YAC or yards after first contact versus taking away a couple of their plays entirely.

I guess as a fan I would like to see:

1st) When a player catches the ball our defense drops him at that spot and when a player is hits first contact with a Bronco he is stopped, then

2nd) Our defense become aggressive and force sacks and interceptions.

Lets face it we have a long ways to go from last years Defense and I like the path they are taking.

Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.

by Kfustud on Jul 21, 2009 3:36 PM MDT reply actions

One factor in the demise of the Broncos defense was Slowik.

His play calling and preparing this team was a disaster. Dre Bly will have a better year with the 49ers. They were used in a wrong play scheme and system. But it is a combination of both pass rush and man coverage IMO.

by bfree2bronc on Jul 21, 2009 6:50 PM MDT reply actions

A good secondary does make a difference

I want to preface this by pointing out that I believe the whole defense really has to work together at least to a minimum level. I also believe that a good pass rusher offers the single biggest improvement to a defense that one player can contribute.

However when you’re talking about an entire unit it makes a big difference if your secondary is good.

If you have a good secondary then you can don’t have to spend as much time in nickle which helps against the run, or you can even walk one guy up to have eight in the box.

When you have a good secondary you don’t need the LB’s or as many LB’s to drop into coverage so they can rush the passer.

When you have a good secondary then you can blitz one of them like Dawkins which helps the pass rush and adds another schematic wrinkle to the defense.

Something that shouldn’t be discounted are coverage sacks. A good secondary can give an average front seven more time to get to the QB. It’s always good to ring the other guys bell. They can’t really do too much for a crappy front seven, but they can be a huge help to an average one.

A good secondary can also get INT’s all on their own, although this is much harder.

They may also make the play calling more one dimensional which helps because a predictable Offense is one that can be exploited.

by Fan in Exile on Jul 21, 2009 9:39 PM MDT reply actions