NFL Network's top 9 defense list going into 2020.

[JAF-N72EX]

On 8/20/2020 at 10:40 PM, Yin-Yang said:

The DVOA has the Chiefs, Packers, and Titans ranked 14, 15, and 16 consecutively. Like I said, if you look at their performances in totality, they’re pretty similar - and that’s with Tennessee fielding a handful of injuries at corner. 

But we’re not using solely last season’s performance, otherwise a team like the Chargers wouldn’t even be mentioned. We do have to project some, and those other two teams field more complete and overall more talented units. So if they’re grouped closely in performance and then take an edge in talent, seems pretty plausible that they might be ranked above KC (granted KC seems to play a little bit like the Bills, where the play exceeds the talent). 

You're only looking at the DVOA rankings themselves and not the percentage differences between them and how they got to be that way in the first place. It's a certain pet peeve of mine when people only use DVOA rankings and ignore the most important factor so you'll have to excuse me for a minute.

I agree that they were similar defenses last year but I disagree that they were as close as you seem to think. KC was actually significantly better.

-----------
KC's overall DVOA was -3.4%. GB was -1.1%. TEN was -1.0%. 

That's a 2.3 percentage difference between KC(14th ranked) and GB(15th ranked) which is a pretty significant gap between the three teams that you seem to be overlooking. 

Let me put this way. If you take that 2.3% difference and add that number to each teams current DVOA (KC-GB) you will see how big of a gap there really is between them, regardless of their rankings. (Not going to include TEN since they were so close to GB)

To put this into perspective, this is what you would end up with; 
KC's DVOA being -5.7%, which would be good for 11th in the league (or top 1/3) by a good margin instead of 14th. 
GB's DVOA being -3.4% (coincidentally, the EXACT SAME % as KC's current DVOA), which would be good for 14th in the league instead of...well...15th (KC's current spot). 

---------
Also, if we're using last years DVOA to project then I think it's only fair to look at how each team ended the year rather than how they looked as a whole. This is were weighted DVOA comes into play, which also shows a significant gap. 

GB's defense ended with a weighted DVOA of 0.0%(16th)--1.1% lower than their overall DVOA (-1.1%). 
TEN's defense  ended with a weighted DVOA of +1.7%(20th)--0.7% lower than their overall DVOA (1.0%).
KC's defense ended with a weighted DVOA of -5.3% (13th)--2.2% higher than their overall DVOA (-3.4%). 

You see the big differences? 

---------
Something else that you seem to be overlooking here is the significant differences between each teams opposing offensive schedules. KC's defense played the T-8th toughest schedule(+1.7%) while GB and TEN played against the 17th(-0.2%) and 22nd(-0.8%), respectively. 

KC's defense played 8 games against top-11 offenses (7 different teams) and only 3 games against bottom 11 offenses. In fact, they only played against 5 offenses that finished the season with a negative DVOA percentage--CHI, DEN, DET, IND, and JAX. (FYI, negative means is below average for offenses).

Meanwhile, GB's defense played 7 games against top-11 offenses (6 different teams) and played 6 games(5 different teams) against bottom 11 offenses. 

The Chiefs offensive opponents had a combined average DVOA of +2.6%. The Packers offensive opponents had a combined average of +1.6%.

----------
Moving on to Archimedes point about the Chiefs pass defense being better. He's absolutely right. The Chiefs pass defense was much better and much more consistent while playing against a much tougher offensive pass schedule (as shown above), and DVOA confirms this as well. KC's pass defense was 6th in the league with a -9.3% DVOA. GB was 9th with -1.3% DVOA. TEN was 21st with a +10.5% DVOA. 

The variance percentage (which measures consistency) was 5.6% for KC defense (16th) vs GB's 8.1% (27th). This shows that not only was GB's defense not as good as it portrayed on paper but also inconsistent. This also became evident while watching the games as well. TEN defense was the most consistent defense in the league (1.7%) but that's not necessarily a good thing when you have a average to below average group. It only shows they were a consistently average unit while playing a relatively easy schedule.

Now, granted, the variance percentage measures the defense as a whole so let's look at season splits and weighted pass defense to see how each pass defense finished the year since we're using this as sort of a tool to project. 

Season splits (first 8 games / last 8 games)
KC's pass defense ranked 6th in the league with a DVOA of -3.7% in the first 8 games and was ranked 5th in the second half with a DVOA of -16.7%. That's ending the season on a pretty high note.

GB's pass defense ranked 13th with a positive DVOA of +2.2% in the first 8 games and was also ranked 13th in the second half with a DVOA -5.9%. This is a pretty big difference from KC.

TEN's pass defense ranked 19th with a positive +13.6% in the first 8 games and also ranked 19th in the second half with a DVOA of +8.0%--still in the positives which isn't good for a defense.

Weighted DVOA, pass defense only.
KC = -11.0% (8th)
GB =  +3.2% (15th)
TEN = +11.1% (22nd)

^^ Huge difference. That's a 14.2% gap between KC and GB, and a 22.1% gap between KC and TEN. 
---------

All that said though, I personally don't think either of those defenses are going to be top-10 units next year but if I had to pick which team had the best chances then I'm going with KC without a doubt.

[Soko]

5 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

You're only looking at the DVOA rankings themselves and not the percentage differences between them and how they got to be that way in the first place. It's a certain pet peeve of mine when people only use DVOA rankings and ignore the most important factor so you'll have to excuse me for a minute.

FWIW, my argument wasn’t based on DVOA. I wasn’t even the one to bring it up.

Quote

I agree that they were similar defenses last year but I disagree that they were as close as you seem to think. KC was actually significantly better.

Well, which is it? 😉

Quote

KC's overall DVOA was -3.4%. GB was -1.1%. TEN was -1.0%. 

That's a 2.3 percentage difference between KC(14th ranked) and GB(15th ranked) which is a pretty significant gap between the three teams that you seem to be overlooking. 

Let me put this way. If you take that 2.3% difference and add that number to each teams current DVOA (KC-GB) you will see how big of a gap there really is between them, regardless of their rankings. (Not going to include TEN since they were so close to GB)

To put this into perspective, this is what you would end up with; 
KC's DVOA being -5.7%, which would be good for 11th in the league (or top 1/3) by a good margin instead of 14th. 
GB's DVOA being -3.4% (coincidentally, the EXACT SAME % as KC's current DVOA), which would be good for 14th in the league instead of...well...15th (KC's current spot). 

It’s all relative. Some gaps are small in the rankings, 17th and 18th are separated by 0.3%. Some are massive (aside from the first and last, even), 4th and 5th are 5.7%. The gap from 1st to 32nd is 47.6%.

So yeah, 2.3% seems relatively small. And the point of bringing it up is to show that they were ranked similarly. I would think 2.3% difference fits that bill.

Quote

Also, if we're using last years DVOA to project then I think it's only fair to look at how each team ended the year rather than how they looked as a whole. This is were weighted DVOA comes into play, which also shows a significant gap. 

GB's defense ended with a weighted DVOA of 0.0%(16th)--1.1% lower than their overall DVOA (-1.1%). 
TEN's defense  ended with a weighted DVOA of +1.7%(20th)--0.7% lower than their overall DVOA (1.0%).
KC's defense ended with a weighted DVOA of -5.3% (13th)--2.2% higher than their overall DVOA (-3.4%). 

You see the big differences? 

I wasn’t using DVOA to project. 

Quote

Something else that you seem to be overlooking here is the significant differences between each teams opposing offensive schedules. KC's defense played the T-8th toughest schedule(+1.7%) while GB and TEN played against the 17th(-0.2%) and 22nd(-0.8%), respectively. 

KC's defense played 8 games against top-11 offenses (7 different teams) and only 3 games against bottom 11 offenses. In fact, they only played against 5 offenses that finished the season with a negative DVOA percentage--CHI, DEN, DET, IND, and JAX. (FYI, negative means is below average for offenses).

Meanwhile, GB's defense played 7 games against top-11 offenses (6 different teams) and played 6 games(5 different teams) against bottom 11 offenses. 

The Chiefs offensive opponents had a combined average DVOA of +2.6%. The Packers offensive opponents had a combined average of +1.6%.

You purposely not include Tennessee here, or an oversight? And since we’re (apparently) using DVOA to project, let’s look at the final 8 regular season games. 

The Chiefs’ opponents in offensive DVOA: 4.6, 12.6, 3.8, 5.6, 4.1, -10.8, -10.1, 3.8. Average of +1.7, total of +13.6. 

Packers: 22.8, 3.8, -14.3, 7.2, -7.3, -20.4, -10.1, 4.6, -2.8. Average of -4.13, total of -16.5.

Titans: -14.3, 22.8, -9.5, -3.1, 5.6, 0.4, 21.4, 0.4. Average of +2.96, total of +23.7. 

So you have a point there with the Packers. They had an easier offensive schedule. The Titans, not so much. And of course this is just using DVOA (flawed method). KC for example played the Vikings (4-4 on the road) in KC, while GB swept them. 

Quote

Moving on to Archimedes point about the Chiefs pass defense being better. He's absolutely right. The Chiefs pass defense was much better and much more consistent while playing against a much tougher offensive pass schedule (as shown above), and DVOA confirms this as well. KC's pass defense was 6th in the league with a -9.3% DVOA. GB was 9th with -1.3% DVOA. TEN was 21st with a +10.5% DVOA.

Don’t recall pushing too hard on the pass defense point.

Quote

The variance percentage (which measures consistency) was 5.6% for KC defense (16th) vs GB's 8.1% (27th). This shows that not only was GB's defense not as good as it portrayed on paper but also inconsistent. This also became evident while watching the games as well. TEN defense was the most consistent defense in the league (1.7%) but that's not necessarily a good thing when you have a average to below average group. It only shows they were a consistently average unit while playing a relatively easy schedule.

Tennessee was dealing with injuries across their secondary. Hard to put up great performances when your top corners are out. 

We’re back to 2.3%. Big difference in rank (but I know you detest using ranks over gaps), but what’s the 2.3% difference? 

Quote

Now, granted, the variance percentage measures the defense as a whole so let's look at season splits and weighted pass defense to see how each pass defense finished the year since we're using this as sort of a tool to project. 

Season splits (first 8 games / last 8 games)
KC's pass defense ranked 6th in the league with a DVOA of -3.7% in the first 8 games and was ranked 5th in the second half with a DVOA of -16.7%. That's ending the season on a pretty high note.

GB's pass defense ranked 13th with a positive DVOA of +2.2% in the first 8 games and was also ranked 13th in the second half with a DVOA -5.9%. This is a pretty big difference from KC.

TEN's pass defense ranked 19th with a positive +13.6% in the first 8 games and also ranked 19th in the second half with a DVOA of +8.0%--still in the positives which isn't good for a defense.

Weighted DVOA, pass defense only.
KC = -11.0% (8th)
GB =  +3.2% (15th)
TEN = +11.1% (22nd)

^^ Huge difference. That's a 14.2% gap between KC and GB, and a 22.1% gap between KC and TEN. 

I mean, again, wasn’t using this as a tool to project. 

Quote

All that said though, I personally don't think either of those defenses are going to be top-10 units next year but if I had to pick which team had the best chances then I'm going with KC without a doubt.

That’s fine. Referring to my original post, I was pretty flexible in regards to pushing KC down/TEN or GB up. 

I don’t think picking a team with a significantly better back 7 is hardly a tough call at all. Same can be said with GB, which I think has the better defensive roster (albeit it’s close).

[JAF-N72EX]

9 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

14 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

You're only looking at the DVOA rankings themselves and not the percentage differences between them and how they got to be that way in the first place. It's a certain pet peeve of mine when people only use DVOA rankings and ignore the most important factor so you'll have to excuse me for a minute.

FWIW, my argument wasn’t based on DVOA. I wasn’t even the one to bring it up.

I know that you were only responding to Archimedes, but you did list the overall DVOA rankings between the Chiefs, Titans, and Packers as sort of a rebuttal (for lack of a better word), and that's what sparked my response is all. Again, it's just a pet peeve of mine when I see people using FO stats in the wrong way and not properly utilizing the info that they provide which adds much more context.  Granted, alot of info is hidden behind a paywall so I get it and I try to understand it.

 

9 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Quote

I agree that they were similar defenses last year but I disagree that they were as close as you seem to think. KC was actually significantly better.

Well, which is it? 😉

What I meant was they were similar in a way that both defenses were good against the pass but terrible against the run. But overall, the Chiefs defense was much better when taking all factors into account. 

 

9 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Quote

KC's overall DVOA was -3.4%. GB was -1.1%. TEN was -1.0%. 

That's a 2.3 percentage difference between KC(14th ranked) and GB(15th ranked) which is a pretty significant gap between the three teams that you seem to be overlooking. 

Let me put this way. If you take that 2.3% difference and add that number to each teams current DVOA (KC-GB) you will see how big of a gap there really is between them, regardless of their rankings. (Not going to include TEN since they were so close to GB)

To put this into perspective, this is what you would end up with; 
KC's DVOA being -5.7%, which would be good for 11th in the league (or top 1/3) by a good margin instead of 14th. 
GB's DVOA being -3.4% (coincidentally, the EXACT SAME % as KC's current DVOA), which would be good for 14th in the league instead of...well...15th (KC's current spot). 

t’s all relative. Some gaps are small in the rankings, 17th and 18th are separated by 0.3%. Some are massive (aside from the first and last, even), 4th and 5th are 5.7%. The gap from 1st to 32nd is 47.6%.

Yes, and that's why the formulated numbers are there in the first place. To show how big of a gap there is between each team. Which is why looking at only the rankings themselves does not tell the full story. 

 

8 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Quote

KC's overall DVOA was -3.4%. GB was -1.1%. TEN was -1.0%. 

That's a 2.3 percentage difference between KC(14th ranked) and GB(15th ranked) which is a pretty significant gap between the three teams that you seem to be overlooking. 

Let me put this way. If you take that 2.3% difference and add that number to each teams current DVOA (KC-GB) you will see how big of a gap there really is between them, regardless of their rankings. (Not going to include TEN since they were so close to GB)

To put this into perspective, this is what you would end up with; 
KC's DVOA being -5.7%, which would be good for 11th in the league (or top 1/3) by a good margin instead of 14th. 
GB's DVOA being -3.4% (coincidentally, the EXACT SAME % as KC's current DVOA), which would be good for 14th in the league instead of...well...15th (KC's current spot). 

So yeah, 2.3% seems relatively small. And the point of bringing it up is to show that they were ranked similarly. I would think 2.3% difference fits that bill.

I disagree. It's not a relatively small increase when you in add in all of other factors that I mentioned such as; schedule and consistency. 

As I showed in the example above, with a 2.3% increase the Chiefs would have been ranked 11th while GB and TEN would stay the same. A 2.3% can mean the difference of a team being ranked few spots higher in the overall rankings and that's a pretty significant change. 

Think about how many times during any debate or discussion that you found yourself referencing or reading "X team was top-5" or top-10...whatever" and essentially ignoring those teams who may have been top-6, 7, 8 or top 12 or 13. That 2.3% in DVOA may have been the difference maker. So again, I disagree that a 2.3% is irrelevant (I know you didn't say irrelevant but you get my point, I'm sure) 

For example, with a 2.3% increase; Steelers would be ranked 2nd instead of 3rd. BUF and TB would have both been 3rd instead of being tied for 5th. Vikes would be 5th instead of 7th. Rams would be 8th instead of 9th. Jets 8th instead 10th. Saints 9th to 11th. Philly 8th instead 12th. Denver 10th instead 13th. Indy 14th instead 17th. Seattle 18th instead 15th. Etc, etc...

 

9 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Quote

Also, if we're using last years DVOA to project then I think it's only fair to look at how each team ended the year rather than how they looked as a whole. This is were weighted DVOA comes into play, which also shows a significant gap. 

GB's defense ended with a weighted DVOA of 0.0%(16th)--1.1% lower than their overall DVOA (-1.1%). 
TEN's defense  ended with a weighted DVOA of +1.7%(20th)--0.7% lower than their overall DVOA (1.0%).
KC's defense ended with a weighted DVOA of -5.3% (13th)--2.2% higher than their overall DVOA (-3.4%). 

You see the big differences? 

I wasn’t using DVOA to project. 

You were using statistical data to back up your opinion based on last years performances(PFR) and so I was only furthering this by using more advanced data while also still showing you the gap between each defense.

 

9 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Quote

Something else that you seem to be overlooking here is the significant differences between each teams opposing offensive schedules. KC's defense played the T-8th toughest schedule(+1.7%) while GB and TEN played against the 17th(-0.2%) and 22nd(-0.8%), respectively. 

KC's defense played 8 games against top-11 offenses (7 different teams) and only 3 games against bottom 11 offenses. In fact, they only played against 5 offenses that finished the season with a negative DVOA percentage--CHI, DEN, DET, IND, and JAX. (FYI, negative means is below average for offenses).

Meanwhile, GB's defense played 7 games against top-11 offenses (6 different teams) and played 6 games(5 different teams) against bottom 11 offenses. 

The Chiefs offensive opponents had a combined average DVOA of +2.6%. The Packers offensive opponents had a combined average of +1.6%.

You purposely not include Tennessee here, or an oversight? And since we’re (apparently) using DVOA to project, let’s look at the final 8 regular season games. 

The Chiefs’ opponents in offensive DVOA: 4.6, 12.6, 3.8, 5.6, 4.1, -10.8, -10.1, 3.8. Average of +1.7, total of +13.6. 

Packers: 22.8, 3.8, -14.3, 7.2, -7.3, -20.4, -10.1, 4.6, -2.8. Average of -4.13, total of -16.5.

Titans: -14.3, 22.8, -9.5, -3.1, 5.6, 0.4, 21.4, 0.4. Average of +2.96, total of +23.7. 

So you have a point there with the Packers. They had an easier offensive schedule. The Titans, not so much. And of course this is just using DVOA (flawed method). KC for example played the Vikings (4-4 on the road) in KC, while GB swept them. 

I didn't include the Titans because, honestly, when I saw their schedule rating was the 22nd easiest in the league and I didn't think I would needed to since I was already using GB as an example and they had a tougher schedule than the Titans did.

My point in that particular part of my post wasn't meant to be used as any sort of projection. It was only meant to further show you just how big of a significant gap there was between each defense despite their rankings by putting more context behind it (i.e offensive schedule). If you wanna talk about the last 8 games then move onto the next part of my post where I delve into that part too, which FO has already covered via weighted DVOA and splits. Or are you purposely ignoring it? Stick with the part that you quoted and let's try to not get off that.

But since you brought up the last 8 weeks and are now changing directions from my original point, after doing a little fact checking, I noticed a couple of interesting things. (This isn't a shot at you man, there just seems to be a possible misunderstanding and I'm basically just doing some convo-ing (is that word lol) at this point, so is sort of off topic from of our original.)

1) The Packers defense registered thier best and worst DVOA rating of the season during the last 8 games. Their best DVOA rating of the year was week 16 against the Vikings, where they finished with a DVOA of -67.0%, and their worst was in week 12 against the 49ers (+50.2%).  

2) Likewise, their top-2 best games of the year were both against division rival Vikings offense and those two games largely carried their overall defensive DVOA. (Lets not also forget the refs involvement in the week 2 game either).

Week 16 = -67.0%
Week 2 = -31.8%

 

9 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Quote

Moving on to Archimedes point about the Chiefs pass defense being better. He's absolutely right. The Chiefs pass defense was much better and much more consistent while playing against a much tougher offensive pass schedule (as shown above), and DVOA confirms this as well. KC's pass defense was 6th in the league with a -9.3% DVOA. GB was 9th with -1.3% DVOA. TEN was 21st with a +10.5% DVOA.

Don’t recall pushing too hard on the pass defense point.

I was only supporting his/her statement and putting more context behind it.
 

9 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Quote

The variance percentage (which measures consistency) was 5.6% for KC defense (16th) vs GB's 8.1% (27th). This shows that not only was GB's defense not as good as it portrayed on paper but also inconsistent. This also became evident while watching the games as well. TEN defense was the most consistent defense in the league (1.7%) but that's not necessarily a good thing when you have a average to below average group. It only shows they were a consistently average unit while playing a relatively easy schedule.

Tennessee was dealing with injuries across their secondary. Hard to put up great performances when your top corners are out. 

We’re back to 2.3%. Big difference in rank (but I know you detest using ranks over gaps), but what’s the 2.3% difference? 

Now apply this same logic with every other team in the league. Offense, defense, and special teams. I mean, the same could be said for every team. Maybe not on the same level but the same logic nonetheless.

I don't know what you mean here. This reference has already been addressed and has nothing to do with 2.3%. 

9 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Quote

Now, granted, the variance percentage measures the defense as a whole so let's look at season splits and weighted pass defense to see how each pass defense finished the year since we're using this as sort of a tool to project. 

Season splits (first 8 games / last 8 games)
KC's pass defense ranked 6th in the league with a DVOA of -3.7% in the first 8 games and was ranked 5th in the second half with a DVOA of -16.7%. That's ending the season on a pretty high note.

GB's pass defense ranked 13th with a positive DVOA of +2.2% in the first 8 games and was also ranked 13th in the second half with a DVOA -5.9%. This is a pretty big difference from KC.

TEN's pass defense ranked 19th with a positive +13.6% in the first 8 games and also ranked 19th in the second half with a DVOA of +8.0%--still in the positives which isn't good for a defense.

Weighted DVOA, pass defense only.
KC = -11.0% (8th)
GB =  +3.2% (15th)
TEN = +11.1% (22nd)

^^ Huge difference. That's a 14.2% gap between KC and GB, and a 22.1% gap between KC and TEN. 

I mean, again, wasn’t using this as a tool to project. 

Again, you were using stats and I was only supporting Achiemads statement about the difference between pass defenses while also further showing the major differences between each team.

 

9 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Quote

All that said though, I personally don't think either of those defenses are going to be top-10 units next year but if I had to pick which team had the best chances then I'm going with KC without a doubt.

That’s fine. Referring to my original post, I was pretty flexible in regards to pushing KC down/TEN or GB up. 

I don’t think picking a team with a significantly better back 7 is hardly a tough call at all. Same can be said with GB, which I think has the better defensive roster (albeit it’s close).

I did recognize that and took a mental note of that on your part and ultimately I do agree.  

We'll just to have to agree to disagree on the second part, which is fine, it's all based on opinions anyhow. Otherwise we're gonna start getting into minor semantics--or atleast I will anyhow lol.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BlaqOptic]

On 8/20/2020 at 10:32 PM, Ozzy said:

The Steelers could be that high if they get better CB play which is possible, and Minkah really helps that secondary overall.  

So basically if both of their CBs were 1st Team All-Pro level? Because not too many CBs were better than Nelson, Joe Haden was damn good and Mike Hilton still remains one of the best SCB in the NFL. All 3 were literally ranked in the top 25 for PFF coming into the season (take that with a HUGE grain of salt).

[fortdetroit]

On 8/20/2020 at 12:20 PM, HTTRDynasty said:

People are sleeping on the Bears.  I think they'll be a top 5 defense at worst this season.  They had the hardest schedule in the league last year, and were without their 2nd or 3rd best defender for a majority of the year, but they were still quite good: 8th in DVOA, 6th in points per drive, 6th in yards per drive, 6th in 3&outs per drive, and 5th in punts per drive.

They will likely have a more competent offense this year to help with their bulk stats, and therefore, their perception amongst casuals.  I know I'll be drafting them at a discount in fantasy this year.

Not sure about them having the hardest schedule in the league last year.  6 of their games were against QBs who finished the season as the backup QB.  5 of their 8 wins were against those backup QBs.

[Billy86]

On 9/5/2020 at 1:14 AM, BlaqOptic said:

So basically if both of their CBs were 1st Team All-Pro level? Because not too many CBs were better than Nelson, Joe Haden was damn good and Mike Hilton still remains one of the best SCB in the NFL. All 3 were literally ranked in the top 25 for PFF coming into the season (take that with a HUGE grain of salt).

That implies that PIT has multiple 2nd Team All-Pro level CBs last year, despite none of them going all pro. The Steelers did have good CB play, but not quite at that level - though it's not the be-all-and-end-all, for reference PFF had Hilton at 18th and Haden 25th: https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-pff-rankings-top-25-cornerbacks-through-week-17

[ttitansfan4life]

It was a joke the Titans weren’t on this before but they should definitely be now.

[HTTRDynasty]

1 hour ago, fortdetroit said:

Not sure about them having the hardest schedule in the league last year.  6 of their games were against QBs who finished the season as the backup QB.  5 of their 8 wins were against those backup QBs.

According to Football Outsiders, they had the toughest defensive schedule in the league. 

[LuckIsGOAT]

18 minutes ago, ttitansfan4life said:

It was a joke the Titans weren’t on this before but they should definitely be now.

Clowney doesn't come close to making up for either Casey or Ryan let alone both

[BlaqOptic]

1 hour ago, Billy86 said:

That implies that PIT has multiple 2nd Team All-Pro level CBs last year, despite none of them going all pro. The Steelers did have good CB play, but not quite at that level - though it's not the be-all-and-end-all, for reference PFF had Hilton at 18th and Haden 25th: https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-pff-rankings-top-25-cornerbacks-through-week-17

It's almost like you're proving my point... There are 64 starting CBs in the NFL. The Steelers had 3 who ranked in the top 50%.

[ttitansfan4life]

1 hour ago, LuckIsGOAT said:

Clowney doesn't come close to making up for either Casey or Ryan let alone both

Ryan was rated as one of the worst CBs in the league in coverage and Casey has fallen off. Simmons(the guy replacing Casey) was playing better later in the season than Casey even after recovering from a torn ACL from February. Clowney and Beasley are huge upgrades over the guys were starting late last year(Correa/Roberson).  Correa and Roberson were solid and are still going to help this year with depth. Landry the OLB opposite Clowney/Beasley wore down last year because he had no one opposite of him. Logan Ryan was a good player but it was clear he was limited athletically going up against speedy receivers like the Ravens and Chiefs. 2nd round rookie replaces him so yea it probably isn’t an upgrade early on but long-term he should be. Everyone outside of that returns from a pretty good defense last year so try again.

[TitanLegend]

2 hours ago, ttitansfan4life said:

Ryan was rated as one of the worst CBs in the league in coverage and Casey has fallen off. Simmons(the guy replacing Casey) was playing better later in the season than Casey even after recovering from a torn ACL from February. Clowney and Beasley are huge upgrades over the guys were starting late last year(Correa/Roberson).  Correa and Roberson were solid and are still going to help this year with depth. Landry the OLB opposite Clowney/Beasley wore down last year because he had no one opposite of him. Logan Ryan was a good player but it was clear he was limited athletically going up against speedy receivers like the Ravens and Chiefs. 2nd round rookie replaces him so yea it probably isn’t an upgrade early on but long-term he should be. Everyone outside of that returns from a pretty good defense last year so try again.

Simmons is not replacing Casey and I have no idea how or why it keeps being repeated.

Casey and Simmons played together on the line. It's not "Oh Casey and another 3-4 DE started last year, now Casey is gone and Simmons takes his spot". They started together. Either Crawford or Mack is the one replacing Casey. We aren't gaining Simmons as a new starter in place of Casey.

[Billy86]

3 hours ago, BlaqOptic said:

It's almost like you're proving my point... There are 64 starting CBs in the NFL. The Steelers had 3 who ranked in the top 50%.

Hence why I said they were good. However there are not 25 cbs on the first and second team all pros - there are 5. The highest on Pittsburgh was Hilton at 18th.

[Ozzy]

On 9/4/2020 at 7:14 PM, BlaqOptic said:

So basically if both of their CBs were 1st Team All-Pro level? Because not too many CBs were better than Nelson, Joe Haden was damn good and Mike Hilton still remains one of the best SCB in the NFL. All 3 were literally ranked in the top 25 for PFF coming into the season (take that with a HUGE grain of salt).

You think so?  Ok first off I could give a **** what PFF says, those stats are usually either deceptive or just flat not that accurate and do not always tell the entire story.  Was Joe Haden really that good last year?  I thought overall he has kind of disappointed in his entire career based on what he should be.  But hopefully he finds a new life in Pittsburgh and continues to improve.  I like Mike Hilton a lot no question about it, he is very good.  Cameron Sutton I think has ability and so does Layne as well so hopefully one of them can take the spot of Nelson who I am not a huge fan of.  

Fact is do they have CB depth than the Patriots, Bills, 49ers or Ravens have?  Answer I would say to that is no.  

 

Patriots all day with Gilmore, McCourty, Jackson, Jones and Williams.  That is not even a conversation, I would take the Bills guys with White who is better than any CB on Pittsburgh, Wallace was decent last year and they got Josh Norman as well and Neal but that is the closest one to Pittsburgh out of those four.  49ers have Sherman, Moseley, Witherspoon and Williams so yeah that is a better overall group as well.  And Ravens with Humphrey, Peters, Jimmy Smith and Young, especially with those first three corners, that is rock solid.  Steelers are easily one of the best defensive in the NFL, just not the best and again I think corner they need to be great to become a great defense.  Like I said another year with Minkah and they could be great but CB play will have to continue to improve and maybe Sutton or Layne will take that next step.  

[LuckIsGOAT]

17 hours ago, ttitansfan4life said:

Ryan was rated as one of the worst CBs in the league in coverage and Casey has fallen off. Simmons(the guy replacing Casey) was playing better later in the season than Casey even after recovering from a torn ACL from February. Clowney and Beasley are huge upgrades over the guys were starting late last year(Correa/Roberson).  Correa and Roberson were solid and are still going to help this year with depth. Landry the OLB opposite Clowney/Beasley wore down last year because he had no one opposite of him. Logan Ryan was a good player but it was clear he was limited athletically going up against speedy receivers like the Ravens and Chiefs. 2nd round rookie replaces him so yea it probably isn’t an upgrade early on but long-term he should be. Everyone outside of that returns from a pretty good defense last year so try again.

I dont necessarily disagree with anything you said but Casey and Ryan are both still better players than Clowney