Is the "Aging Defense" Narrative Overblown

[Scorpion05]

Retain:
Sherman- the guy takes away half the field and has been extremely consistent AND healthy. This is very difficult to find, and nearly impossible to replace easily.

Thomas-again, durable, fast, tough and smart. Must keep

Wagner-see above. The guy is a beast and incredibly consistent.

Bennett --install say what you will, but he is a team leader. Believe whatever you want about his politics, but he is and has been solid. Needs to watch for the ball being snapped though.

The above vets are in my opinion the "core" of the defense. They are paid as such. Some of the rookies look good and are developing well, and some of the hired one year mercs are helping to fill the void. Mcdougald seems to be doing a good job and could become one of the core, but that will depend on money.

Rest of the positions are a draft/udfa if we want to spend more on the offense.

I agree. I'm more flexible in letting Bennett go. My two guys to let go are Bennett and Kam if it comes down to it. But I am open to keeping Bennett ONLY because we have so many young guys on the D-line. I just wonder which defensive players are open to a paycut

But I especially agree with your list. I know we want a "feared defense" but personally I just want a strong one. The Broncos aren't "feared" but they're strong. The Ravens aren't "feared" but they're strong. Honestly, we're one great safety, DL, or LB draft from restoring that FEAR anyway, if necessary. One player can make the difference and bring the "Boom." That's what made Kam special and he was the main part of the BOOM in the Legion

 

[FidelisHawk]

1) Terrell Suggs - 35 years old
2) Von Miller - 28 years old
3) JJ Watt - 28 years old
4) Calais Campbell - 31 years old
5) Cameron Jordan - 28 years old
6) Sean Lee - 31 years old

Who are these players surrounded by? Most on this list are surrounded by younger defensive starters.

Our problem is not having 1-2 vets, it's that we now have almost our entire defensive core on the decline.

So yes, you can have older vets playing well and contributing like you've listed above, but it's hard to win with 75% older vets. Especially for a team that has dedicated the majority of their cap on the defensive side of the ball.

I see your point, but what more should they do, a side from just “picking probowl players” in the draft? Since 2012 they’ve drafted 9 DTs, 4 DEs, 8 DBs, they’ve brought in cheap FAs, expansive FAs, UDFAs and made trades. All to get younger and improve on an already pretty good defensive.

Because they haven’t been able to find these young aggressive cheap players doesn’t mean they are not trying to do exactly what you’re suggesting.

And let’s not even get started on the offensive side...

You keep your core of Wagner, Earl, Reed, Clark, Jones, Griffin, etc and then use the freed up cap space to go after younger talent.............AND draft.

It's not a perfect science by any means, and it's easy for me to nitpick in hind sight.

But IMO John and Pete are guilty of doing the cardinal sin of managing a roster...............rewarding players for past performance, and allowing their loyalty to get in the way of making some tough decisions.

I guess we sort of agree, I’d pay for past performance at DE, Corner, FS, then DT in that order.

Elite DEs and Corners are the hardest things to find in the NFL, hench the price tag for having one. I’d never let go of one unless I had another in the wings, and maybe not even then.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I see your point Sgt. but I kind of agree with Montana. Our biggest, most glaring flaw to me is Cable and Bevell. If we have a competent offense, I don't see why we can't win a SB. I just don't think being 2013 great on defense is necessary. Our next Super Bowl can be won with a solid defense and a competent, consistent offense

On offense you may be right, and probably are.

But this discussion is about the aging defense narrative, and if you've built your team around a defense and ball control run game as Pete and John have tried to do? Then my points are valid that it's failed.

I'll ask again, when has there ever been an old dominant defense in the modern era of football? The cracks were there last year, and even the year before when Kam and Earl were hurt, and Bennett's nagging injuries started showing up.

THAT was the time to re-tool, not now after the dead cap hit exploded and our defensive stars have very little to no trade value due to injuries.

 

[Shanegotyou11]

I think the narrative is overblown. I just worry injuries are going to be annually instead of once every few years. So I don't think it has to do with age for me yet as much as the possibility of the injury bug.

Kam comes to mind.

 

[Scorpion05]

I see your point Sgt. but I kind of agree with Montana. Our biggest, most glaring flaw to me is Cable and Bevell. If we have a competent offense, I don't see why we can't win a SB. I just don't think being 2013 great on defense is necessary. Our next Super Bowl can be won with a solid defense and a competent, consistent offense

On offense you may be right, and probably are.

But this discussion is about the aging defense narrative, and if you've built your team around a defense and ball control run game as Pete and John have tried to do? Then my points are valid that it's failed.

I'll ask again, when has there ever been an old dominant defense in the modern era of football? The cracks were there last year, and even the year before when Kam and Earl were hurt, and Bennett's nagging injuries started showing up.

THAT was the time to re-tool, not now after the dead cap hit exploded and our defensive stars have very little to no trade value due to injuries.

True, my counter point to that would be, when has there ever been this many great players on defense in the modern era of football? I'm not talking about good players who play elite for a few years. What we have is elite talent all over that defense. The closest example I can think of is Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, and Terrell Suggs for their SB win. Reed had clearly lost a step, but was around 35. Suggs was 30. Ray was 37. Haloti Ngata surprisingly was only 28.

They did have a great infusion of young players though, and I suppose that's the balance I'm looking for. I think we have a great one in Griffin. Justin Coleman is not all pro but he's pretty good. Nazair Jones and Quinton Jefferson are also young, and give us good production. We were hoping Sheldon Richardson would be the game breaker on our D-line but he's had flashes. Can he be better with great coaching? Who knows

I think Pete and John looked at their ages, saw that they were top 3-5 at their positions entering their primes, and figured he could get 3-5 more years out of em and a top 5 defense to boot

EDIT: Also one point to add, how much of the wear and tear on defense is due to our offensive inadequacies? I'm not just talking 3 and outs. I'm talking about the inability to control the game with a strong running game, time of possession, and our obsession with deep shots which has the "Chip Kelly" effect of scoring quick but wearing down our defense.

 

[mistaowen]

Coming into the season this defense was employing 5-6 pro bowlers with an emerging Frank Clark. It is very, very hard to replace a unit like this, I don't see how any young depth player would chip into this, and while playing together were a top 5 group. As injuries began piling up, the accountability needed to shift to the offense being able to sustain drives and get touchdowns. We've seen game after game (since last year really) how lifeless they are up through the third quarter.

Playing a team like the Rams required the offense to go blow for blow and went into halftime with 0 points, unable to sustain a single drive before the game was already over. You can't blame a depleted defense who held a very good offense to a FG, FG, TD (defending from the 1 yard line), INT while the offense collectively takes a dump in their pants.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Seriously, if you whittle it down by process of elimination, the entire old/broken down/overpaid narrative seems to be stemming almost entirely from Kam Chancellor. He's been injured and in decline more than anyone else, but I'd argue he's still Top 10 at his position.

My old narrative stems from the fact that all the players you listed are injured or in Earl's case were injured.

All these guys CAN still play at a high level, but not at the consistently high level needed to win a SB. Some bad luck, but in most cases, they're just old now and are going to be injured.................a LOT.

Yeah, I just don't make the automatic connection between age and injury as strongly as you do, especially not when the intent is obviously just to blame the coaching staff. You're not going to have an easy time replacing every single damn Pro Bowler. At some point, you keep some guys.

I never said replace every pro bowler. Before this year, or even last I would have kept Earl and Wagner, and traded Sherman, Cliff and Bennett...........and not resigned Kam.

They tried to trade Sherman. They couldn't get sufficient value for him. That's the problem with trades - they're dependent on a number of factors.

Kam I can see, purely because someone has to go. Avril is harder. Bennett, maybe, but he's still quietly producing, and he pretty much secured a place in Seattle permanently with his mouth, much like Sherman.

We also have to remember that it's the chemistry between Earl, Kam, and Sherm that made that defense go. THAT is what Pete and John were re-signing. Earl isn't suddenly turning Maxwell and Griffin into Pro Bowlers back there (although McDougald is probably finally on the way to making Kam expendable).

And in the end, you don't just cut a player because they get injured. Carroll obviously thought he had some more Suggs' on his hands, and despite Bennett's issues, he has produced this year.

If Pete and John mortgaged the future, it was because of injury that they failed, not talent. On paper, this team had enough talent to win the Super Bowl back in September. Losing Kam, Sherman, Avril, Wagner, and Wright is going to create games like the Rams game. Then you've got Pete's offensive clumsiness and...yeah. I just can't fault the personnel strategy for the problems this year.

 

[Scorpion05]

Coming into the season this defense was employing 5-6 pro bowlers with an emerging Frank Clark. It is very, very hard to replace a unit like this, I don't see how any young depth player would chip into this, and while playing together were a top 5 group. As injuries began piling up, the accountability needed to shift to the offense being able to sustain drives and get touchdowns. We've seen game after game (since last year really) how lifeless they are up through the third quarter.

Playing a team like the Rams required the offense to go blow for blow and went into halftime with 0 points, unable to sustain a single drive before the game was already over. You can't blame a depleted defense who held a very good offense to a FG, FG, TD (defending from the 1 yard line), INT while the offense collectively takes a dump in their pants.

That Rams game perfectly defined our offense. 6 of the Rams first half scoring drives started on our side of the field, because we couldn't even get the ball to mid-field. That is pitiful. No creativity, it's like they knew what we were doing, and just basically walked through our O-line. And then of course, Russ needed to hit those throws the rare times he had a clean pocket, assuming receivers were open

 

[AubHawk71]

Yep, yep, you can't have an offense that barely scores ONE touchdown, on average, in the first half, and not expect your defense to get banged up. It's too much.Especially as they are all staring down 30. They need to adjust for that, this is really the first year reality beat the coaching staff on the head.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

EDIT: Also one point to add, how much of the wear and tear on defense is due to our offensive inadequacies? I'm not just talking 3 and outs. I'm talking about the inability to control the game with a strong running game, time of possession, and our obsession with deep shots which has the "Chip Kelly" effect of scoring quick but wearing down our defense.

Not just offensive inadequacies, but draft/depth inadequacies.

Our D-line was the best in the league from 2011-2013 because of two things;

- talent
- depth

We had 8-9 guys rotating through, keeping everyone fresh for the entire year. Hell, Bennett and Avril were only playing 40% of the snaps back then. Over the past 2-3 years? 70-80% of snaps.

That's a recipe for what we've seen, ineffectiveness as the season goes along, and injuries.

 

[Scorpion05]

EDIT: Also one point to add, how much of the wear and tear on defense is due to our offensive inadequacies? I'm not just talking 3 and outs. I'm talking about the inability to control the game with a strong running game, time of possession, and our obsession with deep shots which has the "Chip Kelly" effect of scoring quick but wearing down our defense.

Not just offensive inadequacies, but draft/depth inadequacies.

Our D-line was the best in the league from 2011-2013 because of two things;

- talent
- depth

We had 8-9 guys rotating through, keeping everyone fresh for the entire year. Hell, Bennett and Avril were only playing 40% of the snaps back then. Over the past 2-3 years? 70-80% of snaps.

That's a recipe for what we've seen, ineffectiveness as the season goes along, and injuries.

Great point. To be honest I completely forgot about that fact

 

[Jville]

Not just offensive inadequacies, but draft/depth inadequacies.

Our D-line was the best in the league from 2011-2013 because of two things;

- talent
- depth

We had 8-9 guys rotating through, keeping everyone fresh for the entire year. Hell, Bennett and Avril were only playing 40% of the snaps back then. Over the past 2-3 years? 70-80% of snaps.

That's a recipe for what we've seen, ineffectiveness as the season goes along, and injuries.

I think that's right. The strong defensive line depth and rotation peaked and coincided with the loss of Chris Clemons. Since then they just have not been able to assemble such an overwhelming group. (note: Clemons was the one exception to that rotation phenomenon ...... most years playing 97% .... 98% of snaps during his time with the Seahawks)

I also suspect the defensive backfield peaked during the final year of Byron Maxwell's time prior to his departure to Philly. They just haven't had as rich of a collection of system experience plus talent since then.

However ....... one more telling change may have been the transition from a needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one ...... to that of the needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many. That brother hood evaporated when holdouts and the threat of holdouts became the norm. There is no guarantee that they will find their way back to what made them a once in a lifetime defense.

I've have really enjoyed the line backing play of KJ and Wagner. But, that is another position group in need of fresh reinforcements.

What remains is a once proud but degraded defense that has slipped off it's throne and is now fighting to be competitive.

The "aging defense" narrative is a complete miss as to what has taken place.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

However ....... one more telling change may have been the transition from a needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one ...... to that of the needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many. That brother hood evaporated when holdouts and the threat of holdouts became the norm. There is no guarantee that they will find their way back to what made them a once in a lifetime defense..

This is in a nutshell as to why teams like the Patriot's stay on top, and those like us who cling to loyalty and rewarding their players for past play fade away.

The NFL is a cutthroat business, that requires cutthroat decisions.

The good news is our window with Pete, John, Russell, Earl and Bobby is still wide open. If the FO does the right thing and makes those cutthroat decisions and puts in the work to re-tool, no reason we can't be back on top competing for SB's.

I just hope John and Pete are up for that task, and not try to band aid fix our issues for another 2-3 years before retiring or moving on.

 

[Jville]

However ....... one more telling change may have been the transition from a needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one ...... to that of the needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many. That brother hood evaporated when holdouts and the threat of holdouts became the norm. There is no guarantee that they will find their way back to what made them a once in a lifetime defense..

This is in a nutshell as to why teams like the Patriot's stay on top, and those like us who cling to loyalty and rewarding their players for past play fade away.

The NFL is a cutthroat business, that requires cutthroat decisions.

The good news is our window with Pete, John, Russell, Earl and Bobby is still wide open. If the FO does the right thing and makes those cutthroat decisions and puts in the work to re-tool, no reason we can't be back on top competing for SB's.

I just hope John and Pete are up for that task, and not try to band aid fix our issues for another 2-3 years before retiring or moving on.

With regards to that last sentence, I would think one would also have to add the name of the honorable Paul Allen. I think the three of them have been in lock step with regards to recent extensions and such.

 

[smashmouth59]

No, They are getting old and need to re work contracts. Keep the band together.

 

[scutterhawk]

We were hoping Sheldon Richardson would be the game breaker on our D-line but he's had flashes. Can he be better with great coaching? Who knows

I think Pete and John looked at their ages, saw that they were top 3-5 at their positions entering their primes, and figured he could get 3-5 more years out of em and a top 5 defense to boot

EDIT: Also one point to add, how much of the wear and tear on defense is due to our offensive inadequacies? I'm not just talking 3 and outs. I'm talking about the inability to control the game with a strong running game, time of possession, and our obsession with deep shots which has the "Chip Kelly" effect of scoring quick but wearing down our defense.

You have some really good points Scorpion, Most Defensive minded fans in here keep touting that "Defense Wins Championships", of course they're referring to the 2013 - 2014 Super Seahawks Defense.
To be fair?, we can't talk about Defense without mentioning the importance of what our Offense brings to the discussion.
All that is true, BUT, they also have to admit that the Seahawks also had some pretty awesome Offensive magic to help put them over the top, to get those rings.
I mean hell, Once you sprinkled in some Beastmode to our so-so O-Line, throw in some outstanding plays by Russell Wilson, who could also add some back breaking runs & passes, against worn down Defenses, OUR Defense got a LOT more time to rest.
Richardson (all by himself) ain't going to dominate, there seems to be something missing with the Defensive schemes, & I agree with your assessment, Maybe a change of Coaching?
Same thing with Duane Brown...Coaching?

 

[Scorpion05]

We were hoping Sheldon Richardson would be the game breaker on our D-line but he's had flashes. Can he be better with great coaching? Who knows

I think Pete and John looked at their ages, saw that they were top 3-5 at their positions entering their primes, and figured he could get 3-5 more years out of em and a top 5 defense to boot

EDIT: Also one point to add, how much of the wear and tear on defense is due to our offensive inadequacies? I'm not just talking 3 and outs. I'm talking about the inability to control the game with a strong running game, time of possession, and our obsession with deep shots which has the "Chip Kelly" effect of scoring quick but wearing down our defense.

You have some really good points Scorpion, Most Defensive minded fans in here keep touting that "Defense Wins Championships", of course they're referring to the 2013 - 2014 Super Seahawks Defense.
To be fair?, we can't talk about Defense without mentioning the importance of what our Offense brings to the discussion.
All that is true, BUT, they also have to admit that the Seahawks also had some pretty awesome Offensive magic to help put them over the top, to get those rings.
I mean hell, Once you sprinkled in some Beastmode to our so-so O-Line, throw in some outstanding plays by Russell Wilson, who could also add some back breaking runs & passes, against worn down Defenses, OUR Defense got a LOT more time to rest.
Richardson (all by himself) ain't going to dominate, there seems to be something missing with the Defensive schemes, & I agree with your assessment, Maybe a change of Coaching?
Same thing with Duane Brown...Coaching?

Yes, absolute yes :irishdrinkers:

But you know what else? Along with your point, I now wonder if Richardson and others on defense, specifically on the D-line...pace themselves because they know they'll likely be on the field a lot. I may be reaching with that one, but I've noticed some of Richardson (and Clark's) best plays have come in the 4th quarter or in a game of high magnitude(the Rams game aside). The first Rams game, and the Eagles game comes to mind. Or perhaps I'm simply perceiving it that way

The reason I thought of this is because often the defense goes desperately to try and swipe the ball rather than executing a basic tackle. Which leads to extra yards by the opponent. Our ineffectiveness on offense affects the defense in so many ways. In the Russell Wilson/Pete Carroll era this is the WORST running game we've ever had, and this year is the WORST our defense has looked in games. We need a game changing running back

 

[edogg23]

Retain:
Sherman- the guy takes away half the field and has been extremely consistent AND healthy. This is very difficult to find, and nearly impossible to replace easily.

Thomas-again, durable, fast, tough and smart. Must keep

Wagner-see above. The guy is a beast and incredibly consistent.

Bennett --install say what you will, but he is a team leader. Believe whatever you want about his politics, but he is and has been solid. Needs to watch for the ball being snapped though.

The above vets are in my opinion the "core" of the defense. They are paid as such. Some of the rookies look good and are developing well, and some of the hired one year mercs are helping to fill the void. Mcdougald seems to be doing a good job and could become one of the core, but that will depend on money.

Rest of the positions are a draft/udfa if we want to spend more on the offense.

I agree. I'm more flexible in letting Bennett go. My two guys to let go are Bennett and Kam if it comes down to it. But I am open to keeping Bennett ONLY because we have so many young guys on the D-line. I just wonder which defensive players are open to a paycut

But I especially agree with your list. I know we want a "feared defense" but personally I just want a strong one. The Broncos aren't "feared" but they're strong. The Ravens aren't "feared" but they're strong. Honestly, we're one great safety, DL, or LB draft from restoring that FEAR anyway, if necessary. One player can make the difference and bring the "Boom." That's what made Kam special and he was the main part of the BOOM in the Legion

Except the Hawks resigned both of them early and you can't let either go without massive dead cap money.