Denver Defense vs. SD Defense

[Panama]

Both of you are missing the point. The point is that they were able to incorporate an effective ground game into their attack to keep us away from the ball. Their ground game didn't just produce adverse effects on our defense, it also produced them with respect to our offensive output.

By shutting down the run, we get opponents into known passing situations in which the odds for success shift in our favor. We also prevent opponents from being able to use a TOP heavy approach against us.

Stopping the run is not irrelevant as the failure to do so allows opponents to chew clock and keep our offense off of the field.

I saw the game and felt that we lost the battle of the line of scrimmage, but were not blown off the ball (see preseason games versus DAL and SEA). I agree that Charles is a challenge in space and that part of their success was because of that. But generally speaking, they were gaining some yardage before meaningful contact. It was a combination of both. We were not winning the battle at the line of scrimmage.

To me, I like the idea of combining a space eating two gap NT with quicker players who can pursue laterally as a potentially effective run defense strategy. Such a NT would clog the middle while the quicker defenders would prevent wide runs. I completely agree that the players still must tackle and that that was a problem against KC. But regardless of what I might like, the fact is that that hypothetical NT player does not and will not be playing for the Chargers in 2014 (barring a near immediate trade).

So, we need to come up with a different way to slow down the ground game of our opponents because I think other teams might look at the KC game as a blue print for beating us (which it is for teams with a good ground attack and a solid/efficient QB).

It was reported that Smith called us "soft". As I have stated already, if he said that, he was stupid to do so because that is bulletin board material for us. But we should at least ask ourselves why Smith would be making such a comment (assuming it was made). I think the answer is obvious. We are not very stout up front. It remains as our primary defensive weakness.

As for interior pass rush, I think we need a NT that can collapse the pocket. Then, there is nowhere for the QB to step up when the edge rushers generate pressure. IMO, any sacks form the interior pass rush is gravy.

I guess we're all missing the point but you, then.

(1) Go back and look at the game. Despite a decent run game, they were still in passing situations. The key was that they converted in those situations. It doesn't really matter how you get there, whether by run or pass, but that you keep converting. KC was converting both the manageable and the less manageable. So, yes, unless they are consistently picking up 4 yards a run (and by consistent, I'm not referring to average), stopping the run is not as relevant as you think.

(2) We did not lose the battle of the line of scrimmage. We lost the battle of the perimeters and the flats. We were very respectable at the line of scrimmage. In fact, two of our highest graded players, according to PFF, were interior linemen. There was at least one highlight-worthy play from a NT. (I didn't catch whether it was Palepoi or Carrethers.)

(3) Smith wasn't saying the defense is soft. He was saying we were playing soft coverage, which we were, out of necessity after Flowers went down. We just didn't have the horses to play our normal D so we had to play a lot of soft coverage.

[Panama]

I think the mythical NT would also lessen the ability of teams to employ that approach against us as part of the issue was tackling in space, but part of the problem was also not winning at the line of scrimmage.

So how do you account, then, for the fact that our best players on D against the Chiefs were Liuget and the NTs?

[Panama]

First, I made no assumption whatsoever about the meaning of what I read from another poster which were words to the effect that "Smith called our defense soft." There was no further clarification provided. There was no explanation that the statement was made in a discussion about our pass defense. Absent that clarification, that phrasing only has one meaning, which was the meaning I took from it. No other interpretation makes any sense without the additional clarification that you provided. Nobody that follows football could reasonably have read that any other way, especially in light of the fact that that has been a criticism of our defense from multiple persons in the past.

Just stop. Really? No other meaning is possible? I can think of several meanings in a football context. And despite your protestations to the contrary, you did make assumptions. We all do. You even admit to the assumptions in the very paragraph you claim otherwise, contradicting yourself. (And I now expect a length post in which you explain how you haven't contradicted yourself -- because you can't see the subtle shades you assume they don't exist.)

Look, Smith is a smart player. I know his parents, and they are smart people, too, who are considerate and would have taught Alex not to make the sorts of incendiary remarks you assume (despite, or because of, the lack of clarification) he made. A safer assumption, knowing the kind of person and player Smith is, would have been to assume he meant something other than what you concluded.

But I suppose when it's so important to your fragile psyche to be right so much that you close your mind to other possibilities, you might miss what is obvious to a lot of people but which you wouldn't even consider given the (lack of) variables in your equation. Go back and read Q's admonition to you sometime.

[Panama]

ARE you fucking stupid.

Do you have to ask?

[Yubaking]

Yuba, the point isn't whether you run 60/40 or 40/60, it's whether you can keep converting and moving the ball and scoring. KC did that. Yes, they ran effectively, but more importantly they passed effectively, and they got timely penalties. If a team passes 100% of the time they can accomplish the same thing KC did. It's also possible if you run all the time, if you have an effective enough running game. But the point isn't the ratio of run to pass but the conversions and the scores. See TTK's post. It wasn't KC's runs that killed us but the fact that they kept converting on 3rd down, whether by pass, run, or penalty.

And Boltx, yes, they did have some manageable 3rd downs, but they also converted on a few 3rd-and-longs. It really didn't seem to matter what the distance needed on 3rd was, they would pick it up (or we would give it to them via penalties). So, while yes, an effective run game (or high percentage pass game) will put you more often in favorable down-and-distance situations, the key isn't so much how you get into and out of them as much as it is converting them.

From a numbers standpoint, I disagree with some of what you are saying. Running plays keep the clock moving. Incomplete passes do not. Also, YPA is always greater than YPC, so going pass heavy, even if successful, tends to get the team with the ball down the field faster. For both of these reasons, there tends to be less time of possession when a team goes pass heavy versus if that same team goes run heavy.

While I agree that a team can, in theory, control the ball either way, if they are able to incorporate a higher percentage of running plays, it tends to take more time off of the clock.

I agree with your focus on converting third downs and would even extend that to the opponent making first downs in general. However, having an effective running game makes it easier for the team to pick up first downs. Conversely, not being effective in run defense makes it more difficult to prevent the other team from picking up first downs.

In fact, in identifying teams that I thought could present problems with establishing time of possession against us with a ground attack, I specifically identified SEA, KC, SF and BAL not only because they have solid ground attacks, but also because they have solid QBs capable of making third down conversions when necessary. Note, that I suggested in the range of a 60/40 run/pass split, not 100/0. Obviously, that means our opponent will have to pass some against us as well. I anticipated that in the approach I was suggesting, which was the approach that KC actually adopted.

I think Telesco has done a great job of getting us personnel that are strong against the pass. When we are fully healthy, we are a very good pass defending team.

But where we continue to lag behind is with respect to our run defense. It is so obvious. Yes, we missed some open field tackles against KC and that does not help, but we are not close to shutting opponents down in the running game. And we really struggle against 2nd down runs when we are set up to defend the pass. We are not stout versus the run, really not even close. The result is that we rank 24th in YPC against. I think that pretty accurately describes where we are as a run defense by NFL standards.

With us using a ball control offense and our relative strengths and weaknesses, what should teams do against us? To me, that answer is really clear. Our opponents should run against us as much as possible. That will keep our offense off of the field and, with our defense the way that it is, teams should be able to get some traction with their running game.

It's what our defense invites and what would naturally tend to thwart our offensive approach. That's why I suggested that teams would be best served using a run heavy approach against us before the KC game. I think we will continue to be vulnerable to this approach until we get better in run defense. Thankfully, though, not every team has the pieces to execute it against us.

[Yubaking]

ARE you fucking stupid. How many 3rd and longs were there? KC was copying us, and part of that is not caring if they didn't always get yards running. AS long as they could keep throwing short passes and we weren't going to tackle them, they were going to keep doing it. And we didn't stop them. But it had NOTHING to do with our inside run D. That was fine. It was our inability to play in space that killed us.

Chart the 39 runs. You will see that KC had some success running everywhere at times. We didn't shut down anything.

All year long we have been comparatively weak against the run. You have your head in the sand if you can't see that. That's why we are ranked 24th in YPC against.

And there was a mixture of third and longs and third and shorts exactly as I anticipated when I suggested the 60/40 run heavy approach as the best possible way to attack us. Third and long is where some of that "40" part of the equation comes into play.

The Chiefs basically did exactly the approach I had suggested and beat us with it despite our team being the better team. Again, the approach was obvious all the time. We thrive on ball control, we are good against the pass, we are not good against the run. When you put all of that together, it is as plain as day what approach would be ideal against us. Unfortunately, KC figured it out. I can't imagine SF and BAL not exploring that approach against us, especially after KC's success with it.

We need to get better versus the run.

[TTK]

Chart the 39 runs. You will see that KC had some success running everywhere at times. We didn't shut down anything.

All year long we have been comparatively weak against the run. You have your head in the sand if you can't see that. That's why we are ranked 24th in YPC against.

And there was a mixture of third and longs and third and shorts exactly as I anticipated when I suggested the 60/40 run heavy approach as the best possible way to attack us. Third and long is where some of that "40" part of the equation comes into play.

The Chiefs basically did exactly the approach I had suggested and beat us with it despite our team being the better team. Again, the approach was obvious all the time. We thrive on ball control, we are good against the pass, we are not good against the run. When you put all of that together, it is as plain as day what approach would be ideal against us. Unfortunately, KC figured it out. I can't imagine SF and BAL not exploring that approach against us, especially after KC's success with it.

We need to get better versus the run.

Wrong. They need to get better at stopping 3rd down conversions, whether it's by run or pass (mostly pass). But it's going to be tough until you get some of these backups off the field first.

[Guest]

Chart the 39 runs.

[Yubaking]

And I said a team running 60/40 pass would stand a good chance to beat the bolts, but not for any of the reasons you state (YPC, NT, rinse, repeat)...

Your mythical NT would not have made a difference sunday. Both guys who played NT on Sunday weren't the reason why the bolts lost. There were tons of issues, NT was far down the list, if on it.

Smiths comments, of course they would somehow prove your point, even when they don't. When I read that post, I immediately thought no way smith said that. Not sure why you would just accept that smith would be talking shit about the d line, it's so far out of character for the game manager, and think it aligns with reality? Par for the course, everything proves your point.

How clueless do you have to be not to get what I have said about Smith's comments?!

I read an apparently inaccurate (according to you) statement by one of our posters that attributed certain comments to Smith. Why would I doubt the accuracy of one of our posters reporting on something Smith said? Sometimes players do say things in the excitement of the moment. That is what that seemed like as reported.

Obviously, if Smith did not say what the poster said he said, then that changes things. But you act like I knew what he really said (assuming you and not the first poster that I read got it right, which I am prepared to do). I only knew what I read--that he called our defense soft, not our pass defense, but our defense. Like it or not, that statement I read from the poster has a very specific and unambiguous meaning, which is also very different than the meaning of a player calling our pass defense or coverage soft.

Your quarrel isn't with me on this subject, but rather with the poster that originally reported what Smith said if he got Smith's statement wrong. Yet, you do not even seem to comprehend that.

And, naturally, your obsession with Smith's comments is, of course, yet another red herring as is your penchant when you are on the run in a discussion.

Like it or not, whether or not Smith called our defense soft, our defense is soft against the run. Like it or not, before the game, I identified an approach that I said would maximize an opponent's chance to beat us. I was then mocked on this forum for suggesting it. Then our less talented opponent used the approach I suggested and did beat us with it. That's what happened.

I said that the approach would tend to be effective because we are susceptible to the run, because it would generate TOP in our opponent's favor, because it would limit our offense's opportunities and would tend to upset our offense's rhythm. I was right on all counts.

As for why we are susceptible to the run, that's a different discussion. I have some ideas there too, but we need not go into that now as that obscures this discussion. But the fact that we are susceptible to the run is beyond any reasonable doubt.

[sandiego17]

How clueless do you have to be not to get what I have said about Smith's comments?!

I don't give a rat's ass about Smith's comments, he's an average (at best) QB that really shouldn't be saying anything other than thank you to the fat guy that devises game plans to limit his exposure. Simply think its crazy that you would assume, even heat of the moment, that he would say something like that. Sure it's possible, but the immediate reaction should be to question the comment and maybe try to find out the context of such a statement. You, however, are always predisposed to assume things make your point. All day. You once asked, but I wonder, did you ever take a science class?

[Guest]

How clueless do you have to be not to get what I have said about Smith's comments?!

I read an apparently inaccurate (according to you) statement by one of our posters that attributed certain comments to Smith. Why would I doubt the accuracy of one of our posters reporting on something Smith said? Sometimes players do say things in the excitement of the moment. That is what that seemed like as reported.

Obviously, if Smith did not say what the poster said he said, then that changes things. But you act like I knew what he really said (assuming you and not the first poster that I read got it right, which I am prepared to do). I only knew what I read--that he called our defense soft, not our pass defense, but our defense. Like it or not, that statement I read from the poster has a very specific and unambiguous meaning, which is also very different than the meaning of a player calling our pass defense or coverage soft.

Your quarrel isn't with me on this subject, but rather with the poster that originally reported what Smith said if he got Smith's statement wrong. Yet, you do not even seem to comprehend that.

And, naturally, your obsession with Smith's comments is, of course, yet another red herring as is your penchant when you are on the run in a discussion.

Like it or not, whether or not Smith called our defense soft, our defense is soft against the run. Like it or not, before the game, I identified an approach that I said would maximize an opponent's chance to beat us. I was then mocked on this forum for suggesting it. Then our less talented opponent used the approach I suggested and did beat us with it. That's what happened.

I said that the approach would tend to be effective because we are susceptible to the run, because it would generate TOP in our opponent's favor, because it would limit our offense's opportunities and would tend to upset our offense's rhythm. I was right on all counts.

As for why we are susceptible to the run, that's a different discussion. I have some ideas there too, but we need not go into that now as that obscures this discussion. But the fact that we are susceptible to the run is beyond any reasonable doubt.

Did you escape from some asylum? Should we alert the authorities?

[Yubaking]

Wrong. They need to get better at stopping 3rd down conversions, whether it's by run or pass (mostly pass). But it's going to be tough until you get some of these backups off the field first.

Do you not think that there is a relationship between an effective running game and the down and distance situation a team finds itself in on third down?

I get that KC converted a mixture of third downs, some shorter and some longer. Obviously, the longer conversions were disappointing. I am not disputing any of that. And I certainly would never dispute that Marshall couldn't cover a table with a tablecloth much less cover an NFL receiver.

But our poor run defense is giving our opponents easier third down conversion opportunities and is contributing at times to our opponent not even having to face third down situations.

By shutting down the run, we will create more and better third down opportunities for our defense to get off of the field. Also, we will create more known passing situations which will help our pass defense.

We are statistically deficient versus the run, but even more than that, our weakness against the run is plain as day obvious just by looking at the games even without considering the statistical support.