SB Nation User Blog: shawndgoldman

The Bears Pass Coverage was Good in 2008

shawndgoldman — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:07:40 -0000

So after reading wiltfongjr's excellent piece on the cover 2, I quickly realized the numbers back up and expand upon one of his main points, using the 2008 Bears as an example. Namely, pressure on the passer is a key to the success of the cover 2 defense.

<blockquote>Penetration from front 4 is essential to any variation of the Cover 2. If you are forced to blitz, like the Bears were last year, you just can't run the defense. You need those 4 down lineman to penetrate and disrupt running plays or to pressure the QB on passing plays, so your remaining 7 defenders can play their zones accordingly. This is why Lovie calls the signing of Defensive Line Coach Rod Marinelli such an important piece of the puzzle. If Marinelli can max out the potential of the D-Line the defense will get back to more Cover 2, and subsequently less blitzing. Last years numerous blitzes and Mug look (lining the LB's up close to the line of scrimmage near the A gaps) took away from what Lovie Smith had built the defense up to be.</blockquote>

If you look at the breakdown they have at footballoutsiders.com, you'll see that the Bears had the 7th-best D in the league, according to both their DVOA stat (5.5% better than average, see here for an explanation of how FO arrives at these numbers) and their weighted number (2.5% better than average). Their rush D was particularly good -- 16.5% better than the average team -- and was the 5th-best in the league. Their weakness was against the pass, where they were 3.3% worse than average, and only ranked 11th in the NFL.

Now, if you look at the numbers they had against different types of receivers, they actually did quite well. They did better than average against #1 WR's, #2 WR's, "other WR's" (i.e. 3/4/5), and TE's. They only were worse than average against RB's (where they were pretty bad). This may lead you to ask how they were below average against the pass, if they were good against everything but RB's, who don't get many passes thrown their way. The answer is simple, and right on the page those numbers come from: DVOA of defense against receivers does not include sacks or passes with no intended receiver listed. To put it another way, the problem was the Bears simply allowed too many passing plays to turn into pass attempts; they didn't get enough sacks. The numbers also bear this out as the Bears were horrendous at rushing the passer. They had a sack rate of, 5%, which was 6th worst rate in the league. This was the case despite the Bears high blitz rate. This blitzing was also probably part of the reason the RB was successful catching passes out of the backfield, as it was often the OLB's blitzing, who would otherwise be responsible for wrapping up the RB after the catch.

If you ask me, the Bears need to upgrade their pass rush this offseason more than anything else on D. When you blitz the passer and don't get pressure on the QB, you're going to have trouble in coverage no matter your scheme; that's not on the secondary, it's on the D-line. And if this happens when you're playing the cover-2, the problem is accentuated. The passing D was a problem last season, but it wasn't the secondary or "coverage" that was the issue. Rather, the problem was the D-line and the pressure (or lack thereof) on the QB. They didn't really make any big acquisitions in terms of pass-rushing D-linemen this offseason. Hopefully, Rod Marinelli can turn improve the talent they already had.

Bears add DT Darwin Walker

shawndgoldman — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:45:31 -0000

The offseason evolution of the Bears' D-Line took another step forward today when they traded a 5th round pick to the Bills for Darwin Walker, a former Eagles player. Apparently, the Bills were in a bind as Walker hadn't reported to camp and would have had to give Walker back to the Eagles for a 6th round pick if he didn't report by August 5th.

Here's his ESPN page.

The Bulls won't draft Roy Hibbert...

shawndgoldman — Wed, 23 May 2007 20:37:17 -0000

as he just pulled his name out of the draft. This hurts a bit - he would have been one of the better post scorers that available at 9, if he had entered the draft. I think this makes the prospect of some sort of trade (either up in the draft or for a veteran) that much more likely.

Here's a link to the story on ESPN.

Bears (including Briggs) like Williams

shawndgoldman — Wed, 23 May 2007 16:12:37 -0000

David Haugh (the best Bears writer, IMO) had a nice piece on Jamar Williams earlier this week. He opened with an interesting note that Briggs called Williams, asking him to take his job. The insinuation is that its good for Lance's buddies still with the Bears and will allow the Bears more leverage and flexibility in dealing him.

There was also talk of support from teammates, with this interesting lack of doubt:

In contrast, a year ago during Briggs' mini-camp holdout, replacement Leon Joe was nicknamed "Not Briggs" by a couple irreverent teammates who couldn't envision Joe ever starting in the Bears' defense. There were no such signs of disrespect for Williams, a former fourth-round pick.

So i guess that makes Jamar "Not Not Briggs," which is a good thing. If the team isn't just blowing sunshine up Haugh's ass (and i trust him enough to catch on to that sort of thing), the Bears could end up with a win-win situation. Either they trade Briggs and get proper value in return or they call his bluff and if he comes back they'll have great depth at LB. The only way they lose is if Williams tanks it (or gets hurt again), Briggs holds out the whole year, Okwo doesn't pan out, and the team can't find good value for Briggs in trade. I like our chances.

Bears dissed by MNF...

shawndgoldman — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:58 -0000

After a season in which the Bears dominated the regular season and went to the Super Bowl, setting national ratings on fire on the way, they're being rewarded with only one scheduled Monday Night Football appearance in 2007. They have 5 primetime national TV appearances, but only one is on Monday night.

This may not end up being a big deal as the Sunday night games are on a public network (NBC) and the Monday night games are on cable (ESPN). Regardless, i still think the team will see this as a dis.

I'll be able to see them whenever they play, so as far as i'm concerned i'm happy to give Coach Smith more blackboard material to fire up the troops with. I'm just confused as to why the NFL and the networks wouldn't put such a successful and popular team on its showcase game more often.

If the Bears are going to get a QB...

shawndgoldman — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:45:44 -0000

they should do it now. Apparently, Trent Green is on the trading block, and may be cut altogether. While i haven't been in favor of pursuing a new QB all off-season, its more for a lack of legitimate alternatives to Grossman. If we're going to replace him, it has to be with a QB who can win NOW. Jeff Garcia doesn't fit because he can't throw the ball downfield. Green can. Statistically, he's been one of the best QB's of the decade, placing in the top 5 in DPAR 5 of the last 6 seasons. If that makes no sense to you consider his career QB rating: 87.5.

There are three concerns i'd have with Green, all based on his poor play last year, when he posted a career-low 74.1 QB rating (slightly higher than Grossman's 73.8), and a 15.6 DPAR (only 22nd in the league, but still better than Grossman's 4.1):

he may never recover from the concussion he suffered last season;
he might only do well in Dick Vermeil's offense; and
his abilities may be regressing due to age.

I still think the Bears should go after him. They should offer up Brian Griese and a late-first day or early 2nd day pick for Green (or perhaps we could switch 2nd round draft picks ala the Jones-2-Jets deal). Obtaining him would require him passing a physical, which should help to alleviate the health-related concerns above. The Chiefs can have Griese be an insurance policy in case Huard and Croyle both implode, and also would get an extra value in their draft. The Bears could open up a QB competition between Grossman and Green. If Grossman wins, Green isn't much worse off than he would have been in KC. If Green wins, the team can still try to develop Grossman for the future while going for a title next season. If Grossman balks, they can then look to deal him for something else.

If the Bears are considering upgrading the QB position for next year, this will be their best opportunity to do so. Green comes with more experience and a better resume than Harrington, Schaub, or Carr and comes with a better arm than Garcia. If nothing else, they should at least look into it.

What do you all think?

Yahoo! Lovie, Angelo sign contract extensions!

shawndgoldman — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:33:06 -0000

According to Don Pierson at the Trib:

Smith was given a four-year extension through 2011 and Angelo a six-year extension through 2013, the Bears announced. The deal features $22 million in new money, so Smith will be paid a total of $23.45 million for next five years for an average of $4.69 million per season. After all the drama, the two sides agreed on a reasonable contract. The $4.69 Million includes the last year of his original contract, the pay rate during the extension is $5.5 million/year. This is a really big day for the Bears, as these signings will do a few things for the organization:

decrease their reputation for being cheap
secure their braintrust for the next 5 seasons
ensure continuity for the nucleus of young players on the team
check off the last 2 of the top 4 offseason priorities - deciding what to do with Briggs, Smith, Rivera, and Angelo
allow them to focus on free agency and the draft

Yes!

For the Bears fans out there...

shawndgoldman — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:24:25 -0000

I've been gone for a while because i'm trying to finish up my PhD dissertation and have been tied up with the Bears. Today, i posted a diary on Windy City Gridiron bringing together statistical analysis from various places on the web. In this case, the statisticians agree with the conventional wisdom that defense wins championships. I hope you'll all enjoy it.

For those nervous about the game, don't be. The Bears will win.

Defense wins champtionships: not just a cliche

shawndgoldman — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:12:57 -0000

There have been a number of studies the last few years of what succeeds in the playoffs and in the Super Bowl. Put together, the arguments are quite compelling, and for the most part boil down to "defense wins championships," being more than just a cute saying. When one considers the history of playoffs and the Super Bowl, it becomes clear that the Bears are the team to pick on Sunday. This begs the question of why the Colts are being picked by all the experts, including the professionals. I think i know why, and i also think the arguments for why the Colts will win are either invalid or misguided. This diary explores why history favors the Bears, and why the arguments for the Colts don't hold much water.

First, lets look at Super Bowl and playoff history, which heavily favors defensive teams, and thus the Bears. John Dewan from baseball info solutions posts a stat of the week. This week, he discusses two trends that heavily favor the Bears. First, there have been 11 Super Bowls where one team's defense has surrendered at least 50 points fewer than their opponent's defense over the course of the season. The defenses that are at least 50 points better are 11-0. This year, the Bears defense has surrendered 105 points less than the Colts D over the course of the year. Clearly, this trend strongly points towards a Bears win. Last week's "Stat of the Week," showed a set of 12 statistics each of which independently predict the Super Bowl correctly at least 55% of the time. The prediction utility of these numbers increases when taken together. The team that wins more of these statistics has won 14 of the last 16 super bowls. This year, the Bears are better than the Colts in 9 of the 12 statistics, and the two teams were tied in one. That means the Colts only won 2 of the 12 stats: the 10th and 12th best predictive stats of the 12 used in the system. Team's favored in 9 or more of the 12 categories at 15-3 in the Super Bowl, another trend heavily favoring the Bears. If one actually looks at the statistics in the system, a clear trend emerges: most of them are associated with measurements of a team's defense and its ability to control the clock. Given that, its no surprise the Bears are favored by this system. Similarly, consider the study done by Football Outsiders at the outset of this year's playoffs on what wins in the playoffs. Its an excellent article, which i would recommend to anyone that has the time to read it. If you don't here's a quote from the article summarizing the impact different units have on a team's playoff success:

A good defense is important, specifically a good run defense
A good offense doesn't mean very much
A kicker's regular season performance means nothing for the playoffs
A team's end-of-season momentum isn't as important as it might seem

One other trend that is important but not mentioned in that synopsis: the quality of special teams is a better predictor of postseason success than the quality of offense is.

I can't imagine a better set of trends arguing for the Bears winning this game. The Bears strengths are their defense, special teams, and its aggregate performance over the course of the season. The Colts strengths are its offense, clutch kicker, and late-season resurgence. The Bears' strengths are emphasized in the payoffs, whereas the Colts strengths are not as important. Finally, consider a statistic posted by "Tampa Bay Mike" in an open discussion on Football Outsiders: top 3 defenses are 9-0 in the Super Bowl against top 3 offenses. Once again, the old adage is backed up by objective historical analysis: defense wins championships.

OK, given all this, why is everyone picking the Colts? The main argument is that the Bears D isn't as strong as it once was, whereas the Colts D is all the sudden a juggernaut, largely because of the return of Bob Sanders to the Colts and the loss of Tommie Harris to the Bears. While the Colts have improved since the return of Sanders, the principle that a team can be greatly affected by injury is not considered to its fullest extent. To realize the problem here, consider when Tommie Harris was first injured: during the Minnesota game in week 13, the week after the Bears clinched a playoff spot. The remainder of the Bears regular season was spent resting defensive backs Charles Tillman, Nathan Vasher, and Todd Johnston. Those guys were all healthy in the post season (although Johnston wasn't 100% in the Seattle game). To realize the importance of their absence during the Bears late season swoon, we can look at what the Bears D was worse at during their absence. Again, the Football Outsiders crew is quite useful in aiding our analysis. In their Super Bowl prediction, they state (emphasis mine):

The good news for Bears fans is that the Chicago defense finally reverted to form in the NFC Championship victory against New Orleans. According to single-game DVOA, it was Chicago's best game since the Harris injury. It was the first game since the Harris injury where the Bears played above-average pass defense, and the first game where they had more than two takeaways.
If you look at the numbers posted in that article, you'll see the Bears D was still above average against the run in weeks 13-17, but went from a dominating pass defense to below-average over that time. Later on, the article shows the yards per pass attempt went back down against the Saints. The bottom line here is that although the defense isn't as strong as it was with Tommie Harris, is also isn't as weak as it was when Todd Johnston, Charles Tillman, and Nathan Vasher were taking turns resting injuries.

There's a second problem with the media's sudden obsession with the Colts D, demonstrated by the Football Outsiders Super Bowl prediction. In that article, they show that the Colts D has become worse the last few weeks at defending deep balls over the middle (hello, Berrian!), is still not good against runs off left tackle, and may be further weakened by a high ankle sprain injury to one of their starting cornerbacks, Nick Harper - an injury that usually takes 3-4 weeks to heal. I've done my own analysis trying to find out what causes Rex Grossman to succeed or fail, and he tends to do much worse than a normal QB against good pass defenses but much better than a normal QB against bad pass defenses. The Colts pass D is susceptible to the bomb even with Nick Harper AND Bob Sanders in the lineup. Without one (or both), Grossman should be able to hit Berrian deep at least once. Furthermore, as Chad pointed out in a diary earlier this week, the Colts don't blitz much, and John Morgan's analysis of the Colts D will tell you that, contrary to popular perception, they are bad at rushing the passer. And even when the Colts get pressure, it almost always comes from the edges, whereas Grossman's biggest problems seem to come from a strong pass rush up the middle. Finally, Grossman claims his mishaps come primarily from a lack of focus, and i'm fairly certain he'll be properly focused for Sunday's game. Put all of this together, and things look dire for Indy's pass D, particularly if Nick Harper can't play.

There are a whole bunch of other numbers that heavily favor the Bears, such as the Colts 5-4 record on the road versus the Bears 7-1 road record, the 60% chance of rain on Sunday night, and how most of the Bears strengths are up against Colts weaknesses, and the opposite is true for Colts strengths. But the main reason the Bears will win is quite simple...

DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!

Most Valuable Bear, Mike Brown?

shawndgoldman — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 04:32:23 -0000

There's only one thing that has me worried about the Bears making the Super Bowl this year - the absence of Mike Brown. For some reason, the run D in the cover 2 seems to be strongly dependent on the free safety. Don't ask me why, but apparently it seems to. Look at the difference Bob Sanders has meant to the Colts run D this year, and the difference Brown has meant to the Bears D since Lovie Smith took over in 2004. Here is the Bears' record the last 3 years with and without Mr. Brown (Year/Record with Brown/Record without Brown):

2004/1-1/4-10
2005/9-3/2-3
2006/6-0/7-3
Total/16-4/13-16

Yes, many of those losses came in '04 when Lovie was still building the team around his scheme. However, just over the last two seasons the records are wildly divergent, 15-3 with Brown and 9-6 without him.

We'll beat Seattle this weekend, because they're probably the worst team to make the playoffs and were lucky to escape their own stadium with a win last weekend. I also think we'll be able to beat either New Orleans or Philly at home, but in my mind it would be a sure bet with Brown back at safety.