It's in the D.

by GeoMak on Oct 12, 2010 7:45 PM PDT

Back in the month of May, Woody Paige of the Denver Post & ESPN wrote a column saying that the Broncos should start Tim Tebow over Kyle Orton. Paige stated that Tebow has the potential to be a 'star' and that Orton most certainly did not.

I emailed Paige and told him that Orton played very well as the starting QB with the Bears in 2008 ( that was my opinion based on actually watching the games he played in). That the reason they missed the playoffs that season was because of the defense, not the offense. Starting Tebow over Orton made no sense. Woody replied back to me by basically saying that I didn't know what I was talking about.

(I emailed Paige back again just a few days ago. After four games Kyle Orton led the NFL in passing. Now after five games he's ranked second overall and has more passing yardage than both Manning's, Brees, Romo and Aaron Rodgers, among others. His overall passing stats are right up there with Peyton Manning's so far in 2010. I guess starting Orton over Tebow doesn't look so bad right now.)

The Bears made the playoffs in 2005 and reached the Super Bowl in 2006. Their defense was ranked #1 and #3 (points allowed) in those two seasons.

In the following three season after that SB appearance in 2006, they missed the playoffs each season, going 7-9, 9-7, and 7-9. Under .500 at 23 - 25.

They also slipped in team defense from 1st and 3rd to 16th, 16th and 22nd in 2007 - 2009.

It's hard to make the playoffs when your defense goes from top 5 to the bottom half. It can be done . . . but it's a lot more difficult (especially without a QB named Peyton, Warner or Brees).

The 49ers are currently ranked 27th in defense, giving up an average of 26 points per game (last season they gave up 18 points per game). They are giving up a TD more than the league average so far in 2010, which is 20 points per game.

Thus, if you subtract six points from the opposition in each game they've played so far, they would've beaten the Saints, Falcons and Eagles and would now be 3-2 , if they had an average defense. That's an oversimplification to be sure but still; they were ranked 4th overall last season and are now currently ranked 27th in points allowed.

It's hard to understand that dropoff. Same basic players and coaches. They are average or below average in most defensive statistical catagories so far in 2010.

The other four teams in the top five in defense last season (Jets, Cowboys, Ravens and Patriots) are currently ranked 4th, 10th, 6th and 15th. No other team in the top five has come close to the dropoff experienced by the 49ers defense in 2010.

This constant obsession with the Quarterback kills me. Yes, he's extremely important. But still. Kyle Orton is currently ranked #2 overall in the the NFL in passing yardage (and this is a guy many considered to be mediocre at best, a journeyman at worst). And yet the Broncos are only 2-3. Perhaps that anomaly has something to do with the fact that their defense is currently ranked 26th, only one spot ahead of the 49ers. The Chargers are #1 in passing with Philip Rivers. Like Denver they are also 2-3. Their defense is ranked #20.

I always look at the defense. When they said that Jay Cutler never made the playoffs in Denver, I took a look. They were 7-9 in 2007 and 8-8 in 2008 with Cutler under center and missed the playoffs both seasons. They were also ranked 28th and 30th in defense back then (13th and 3rd in passing offense). Almost dead last in team defense. Last year in Chicago Cutler and the Bears were 7-9. They were ranked 22nd in defense.

So far this season they are 4-1 and ranked 7th in team defense.

It's truly amazing how much better a team's record usually gets when they play better defense.

It's a team game. The 49ers passing offense is ranked 11th. Their rushing offense is ranked 28th. As mentioned, their defense is ranked 27th.

* It would really help this team if they could run the ball a little better, to take some pressure off the QB.

* It would really help this team if the offense could cut down on some of their turnovers (They currently have 15 turnovers. The league average is less than 9).

* It would really help this team if the defense could take the ball away more (They currently have 5 takeaways. Again, the league average is almost 9).

* Sack/Pressure the QB more often (They currently have 10 sacks - exactly the league average).

* Stop the opposition's game ending drives more often.

A modest level of improvement in these three catagories would help make a big difference.

For all the endless chatter about Alex Smith, better defense and rushing would go a long way towards far better football in SF.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Nice post.

I think the Bears stats say a lot about this team. No matter how good our offense gets (or is not), we still won’t win games without solid defense.

Hopefully the Alex Smith haters take heed: we own the 11th ranked pass offense, but thanks to turnovers and defense, we’ve yet to win a game.

by See Jay on Oct 12, 2010 8:52 PM PDT via mobile reply actions

Define "11th ranked passing offense"

Would you rather pass for 234 yards per game, but throw 9 picks or pass for 233 yards and 5 picks (Miami)? Or 232 yards and 1 pick (Philly)? Or… I could go on. What about 199/game and only 6 picks (Cleveland)? What about 136/game and only 4 picks (Pitsburgh & Carolina)?

By the oft derided QB Rating, our passing offense is 28th. And that’s after Smith’s “stellar” past game. We’re only better than Minny (starting a grandpa), St. Louis (Starting a rookie from day one), Arizona (Started a hack, now an undrafted rookie), and Carolina (Started an even worse hack, now starting a rookie). Woo! Our passing offense is better than grandpas and babies!

Don’t get me wrong, I do like Alex Smith. I do think his mistakes come from bad luck and overthinking due to attempting not to make a mistake… and transparency in the offensive scheme. But to reference statistics that say our passing game is above average at this point is utter ridiculousness.

Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 13, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions

The 11th ranked passing offense

refers to yardage gained. That’s all. No more, no less

One could write a million word post trying to compare and contrast the 49ers entire offense in all catagories with those of other teams. That wasn’t the purpose of this post.

But to reference statistics that say our passing game is above average at this point is utter ridiculousness.

Again, I wasn’t trying to say that the passing game was above average. Just referenced passing yards.

If you notice in the post, I said:

His (Orton’s) overall passing stats are right up there with Peyton Manning’s so far in 2010. I guess starting Orton over Tebow doesn’t look so bad right now.)

There, I was commenting on Orton’s other passing stats (hence the word ‘overall’) like TD’s, QB rating, etc, as compared to a guy like Manning.

I did no such thing with Alex Smith.

Orton is right up there overall with Peyton Manning in overall stats. Alex is Smith is not, nor did I suggest he was.

When I rank offense and defense, I use POINTS, cause that’s the purpose – to score or to stop the oppostion from scoring.

When ranking things like passing offense or rushing, passing defense or rushing, I use yardage.

by GeoMak on Oct 13, 2010 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions

The 49ers are 31st in scoring..

that’s the stat that people should take heed here.

BTW, Smith has 9 ints (one a pick six) and a fumble lost for a TD.

The 2010 SF 49ers: It's FAIL, done better

Official Sponsor of Steve Young for Vice President of the 49ers in 2011

by drummer on Oct 12, 2010 9:03 PM PDT reply actions

^^ response to sanguines

The 2010 SF 49ers: It's FAIL, done better

Official Sponsor of Steve Young for Vice President of the 49ers in 2011

by drummer on Oct 12, 2010 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions

He's perfect in the red zone

Maybe he should be our closer QB. “Niners at the 30, and there goes Smith warming up in the bullpen.”

Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 13, 2010 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Turnovers give the defense bad field position. The pick 6 and the fumble count against defensive stats.

This, IMO, is where the rankings do not tell the story.

Damn you Montana and Young, your success has spoiled a great percentage of our fan base into speculative rants and raves and pure denial of reality.

rlott#42

by rlott#42 on Oct 12, 2010 10:40 PM PDT reply actions

Not quite

None of the turnovers in the Seattle game put the D behind the eightball (except the ST turnover, and the safety, which doesn’t count as a turnover). The two in Atlanta didn’t put the D in bad situations. And only one of the 5 turnovers against the Eagles was in Niners territory. Opponents have scored two TDs on turnovers, taken over at the SF 13 once, and taken over at the SF 45 once.

That’s not “giving bad field position.” We’ve had two turnovers inside the opponents’ 10 yard line, one at the end of the game that doesn’t effect the defense, two directly resulting in TDs, and two that have been on our side of the field. The remaining eight have been between our opponents 20 and 50 yard line. That’s pretty average for starting field position. There are 6 teams that have given up 2 or more defensive TDs, and 13 total that have given up one or more TDs. They’re still giving up a lot of points… which is bad. They’re NOT the same team as last year, which is the OP’s point. The referred to rankings don’t tell the exact story, but they do tell the correct story: Something is wrong with the 49ers defense, they’re giving up a lot of points.

Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 13, 2010 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions

Seattle game?

by mr. instigator on Oct 13, 2010 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions

One TD given up by the offense and one inside the 15

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, but:

Opponents have scored two TDs on turnovers, taken over at the SF 13 once (against Seattle), and taken over at the SF 45 once (against Philly).

That was also included here:

We’ve had two turnovers inside the opponents’ 10 yard line, one at the end of the game that doesn’t effect the defense, two directly resulting in TDs, and two that have been on our side of the field.

Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 13, 2010 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions

So...

I don’t think our defense has been put in any worse situations than anybody else in the league. Whether your offense scores, punts, or turns the ball over, the other team gets the ball usually at or past the 30 yard line.

Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 13, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Most were drink'n the kewl-aid on how this D was rank'd this and that ...

… I thought it was middle of the road at best , and they did nothing to improve it over the off-season , so i’m not surprised it’s where it is … inconsistent and slow …!!

I'm your " Huckelberry "...it's just my game ...Jimmy Raye your no daisy ...!!

by Edggy on Oct 13, 2010 8:35 AM PDT reply actions

Actual Points Given Up Per Game For The Defense
23.2

Because Smith has given up 14 points himself on turnovers.

by mikeinsp on Oct 13, 2010 10:50 AM PDT reply actions

Which would put us at...

26th: Denver and New England have each given up special teams TDs, so their averages are 21.8 and 22.3 respectively.

Our defense is 17th in yards given up, 18th in rushing yards given up, 21st in passing yards given up, 26th in points given up (no matter how you count it), and tied for 27th in turnovers generated. They can’t stop a single opponent from doing what it wants to do at the end of a half or a game. They did successfully stop the Eagles in the first half, good for them. But McCoy stopped himself at the end of the game, the Niners D gave up that first down but were gifted another chance, which they somehow managed not to blow. However, twice this year our defense has been given the ball with the lead. All you need is a single stop. In neither time did they come close. They never forced a fourth down. They didn’t force opponents into tough time situations. They failed. If they were really a good defense, they would have been successful on at least one of those opportunities.

What part of this equation doesn’t suck? Our D sucks. Our O sucks. I see reasons and potential fixes for why our O sucks (i.e. it has for a while, the QB is shaky, the play calling and filosophy sucks). The D was good/great last year. What’s so different now? Blaming these losses on the offense and ignoring the defense’s contribution is like blaming Alex Smith for everything that’s wrong with the offense. Well, yeah, he certainly contributes a good bit to the failure, but so have the other 10 guys on the field and the play caller.

It was expected that if Alex Smith could be “passable” we’d be a great team because our defense is spectacular. Guess what? Our D isn’t spectacular. It’s not even good.

Again, I’m not excusing the offense or the hated Alex Smith for their failures, of which there have been many. But let’s not ignore the flip side of the coin. The defense has underwhelmed far more than the offense has.

Trust me, learning english isn’t a waste of time. It is actually sort of useful.

-randolphforpresident

by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 13, 2010 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions