Let's talk about the defense in general

[dolphins4life]

The main reason for the playoff loss was the defense.

Do you think it was just a bad day for them?  The few weeks leading up to that game were exhausting, down the wire games.

Do you think the Dolphins have a good enough defense to go past the first round of the playoffs?

[Dolfanalyst]

The defense was poor against the run and average against the pass.

Under those conditions, the offense would have to be a juggernaut to contend for a Super Bowl, and of course the offense was not a juggernaut.

Same situation confronts the team this year, as the offense looks to be no better than average at first glance.

The defense will need to improve from poor against the run and average against the pass, to very good against the pass, and at least average against the run.

I don't see how the changes made in the offseason are going to facilitate that.

So to answer your question, no, the defense isn't good enough to make this team pose any threat in the playoffs.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the team didn't make the playoffs.  Last season was done largely with smoke and mirrors, and that isn't easily replicated.

[Pappy13]

The defense was really beat up by the time the playoffs started which didn't help. No, even healthy I don't think the defense was that good, but beat up they were really pretty bad, so yes I do think the defense can be improved. Enough to make the playoffs? Well that's a tough question that I think we will just have to wait and see once the season starts. One thing is certain, they can't sustain the same number of injuries as last year and expect to be very good. There's just not enough talent on the roster for that.

[dolphins4life]

Can one of the mods delete this thread?

I realized after I posted it that it is not consistent with my new direction.

It doesn't matter about the defense.  The only part of the game that matters is the quarterback. 

[CF DolFan]

The defense was poor against the run and average against the pass.

Under those conditions, the offense would have to be a juggernaut to contend for a Super Bowl, and of course the offense was not a juggernaut.

Same situation confronts the team this year, as the offense looks to be no better than average at first glance.

The defense will need to improve from poor against the run and average against the pass, to very good against the pass, and at least average against the run.

I don't see how the changes made in the offseason are going to facilitate that.

So to answer your question, no, the defense isn't good enough to make this team pose any threat in the playoffs.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the team didn't make the playoffs.  Last season was done largely with smoke and mirrors, and that isn't easily replicated.

I completely agree with this. Our team needs to get better on both sides of the ball but our defense is much farther behind. They seem to like the upgrades they made so in time we will know.

[Dolfanalyst]

Can one of the mods delete this thread?

I realized after I posted it that it is not consistent with my new direction.

It doesn't matter about the defense.  The only part of the game that matters is the quarterback. 

If you're actually serious about that, then the defense inherently matters, because it defends against the opposing quarterback.

[Tenshot13]

Improved LB core
Reshad Jones is back
Improved FS
Xavien Howard much improved and healthy
Deeper DL

Nope, no improvements to the defense at all.

[Phishfan]

Can one of the mods delete this thread?

No

[dolphins4life]

If you're actually serious about that, then the defense inherently matters, because it defends against the opposing quarterback.

If the quarterback is good enough the defense doesn't matter.

Last year's Super Bowl proved this quite clearly.

[Dolphster]

Can one of the mods delete this thread?

I realized after I posted it that it is not consistent with my new direction.

It doesn't matter about the defense.  The only part of the game that matters is the quarterback. 

You definitely add a unique aspect to this place.  If they kept stats of unintentional LOLs, you would be crushing it.  You are ok in my book, D4L.

[Dolfanalyst]

If the quarterback is good enough the defense doesn't matter.

Last year's Super Bowl proved this quite clearly.

There is a 0.92 correlation between win percentage and QB rating differential in the NFL since 2004.  That means 84% of the variation in win percentage in the league is associated with QB rating differential.  That's astronomical.

So there are two ways to win:  1) have a great quarterback, like you mentioned, and 2) have a defense that stifles other teams' quarterbacks.

You cite last year's Super Bowl.  In the one before that, Denver's very good pass defense held Cam Newton to a very low 55.4 QB rating, which is largely what made it possible for the team to win despite Peyton Manning's lowly 56.6 QB rating.  Denver's +2 turnover margin accounted for the score that was more discrepant than would be expected based on QB rating differential alone.

In the 2014 Super Bowl the QB rating differential was 85.3 (Russell Wilson) to 49.0 (Peyton Manning), which, when combined with the turnover margin in favor of Seattle, accounted for the 43-8 blowout.  Again, a team (Seattle) with a tremendous pass defense that year, making it possible for them to overcome Russell Wilson's slightly below-average performance in the game.

[Pappy13]

There is a 0.92 correlation between win percentage and QB rating differential in the NFL since 2004.  That means 84% of the variation in win percentage in the league is associated with QB rating differential.  That's astronomical.

So there are two ways to win:  1) have a great quarterback, like you mentioned, and 2) have a defense that stifles other teams' quarterbacks.

You cite last year's Super Bowl.  In the one before that, Denver's very good pass defense held Cam Newton to a very low 55.4 QB rating, which is largely what made it possible for the team to win despite Peyton Manning's lowly 56.6 QB rating.  Denver's +2 turnover margin accounted for the score that was more discrepant than would be expected based on QB rating differential alone.

In the 2014 Super Bowl the QB rating differential was 85.3 (Russell Wilson) to 49.0 (Peyton Manning), which, when combined with the turnover margin in favor of Seattle, accounted for the 43-8 blowout.  Again, a team (Seattle) with a tremendous pass defense that year, making it possible for them to overcome Russell Wilson's slightly below-average performance in the game.

Thank you for pointing out the inherent flaws in the QB Rating system. Interceptions are a large part of the equation and yet interceptions are NOT solely a QB issue. Any offensive coordinator will tell you that not all interceptions are the fault of the QB. It's a team thing. Perhaps the line didn't do their job and allowed pressure on the QB which lead to an interception. Perhaps the WR ran the wrong route or simply didn't catch a catchable ball. Perhaps the defense just read the play perfectly and made a great play. And yes perhaps the QB threw a bad pass or made a poor read, but even then the QB is responsible for maybe 25% of interceptions thrown give or take?

Now what about turnovers that are not interceptions? Certainly we're not going to blame the QB when a ball carrier fumbles the ball are we? How many of the turnovers in those 2 SB's were actual interceptions or fumbles by the QB? I don't really know, I just think that should be considered since you included it as part of your analysis. Don't get me wrong I totally agree that turnovers are a large part of the game, but too much blame is placed on QB's for interceptions when a good portion of the time there's more to it then that.

Same thing goes for sacks which again is sometimes used as a way to grade QB's play and is highly subjective.

[Dolfanalyst]

Thank you for pointing out the inherent flaws in the QB Rating system. Interceptions are a large part of the equation and yet interceptions are NOT solely a QB issue. Any offensive coordinator will tell you that not all interceptions are the fault of the QB. It's a team thing. Perhaps the line didn't do their job and allowed pressure on the QB which lead to an interception. Perhaps the WR ran the wrong route or simply didn't catch a catchable ball. Perhaps the defense just read the play perfectly and made a great play. And yes perhaps the QB threw a bad pass or made a poor read, but even then the QB is responsible for maybe 25% of interceptions thrown give or take?

Now what about turnovers that are not interceptions? Certainly we're not going to blame the QB when a ball carrier fumbles the ball are we? How many of the turnovers in those 2 SB's were actual interceptions or fumbles by the QB? I don't really know, I just think that should be considered since you included it as part of your analysis. Don't get me wrong I totally agree that turnovers are a large part of the game, but too much blame is placed on QB's for interceptions when a good portion of the time there's more to it then that.

Same thing goes for sacks which again is sometimes used as a way to grade QB's play and is highly subjective.

When controlling for INT differential, the 0.92 correlation between win percentage in the league and QB rating differential since 2004 drops only to 0.86.

In other words, the variation in win percentage in the league associated with QB rating differential drops from 84.6% to 73.9% when interceptions are "removed" from the equation.

We're still getting virtually three-fourths (nearly 75%) of the game accounted for by QB rating, offensively and defensively, even when interceptions are "removed" from QB rating.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The only thing this whole BS QBR differential means, is that the old adage about establishing the run does not hold true.  In other words a defense that can shut down the passing game, but is weak against the run is superior to a run stuffing defense that is weak in pass coverage.

[Dolfanalyst]

The only thing this whole BS QBR differential means, is that the old adage about establishing the run does not hold true.  In other words a defense that can shut down the passing game, but is weak against the run is superior to a run stuffing defense that is weak in pass coverage.

That's most certainly what it means, defensively speaking.