The best Defense in the NFL is……

[SZ James (banned)]

 

[Sgt Schultz]

Based on what I saw yesterday, the Niners are at the top of that tree, but to be mentioned by somebody who is not a comedian trying to get the entire audience to explode in laughter is a plus.

Let's face it: if you are going to be a consistent threat in the playoffs you need to be able to lock down an opposing offense from time to time.  I'm not professing we are a playoff team or even a threat yet, but it is nice to see the defense coming together and holding up its end of the bargain in that conversation.

[MasterAwesome]

6 minutes ago, TLGPanthersFan said:

What about the 49ers or Browns? One theme running throughout those 3 losses. Defense couldn’t stop an elite, or in the case of the Niners elite scheming, running back and the offense had to shoulder a ton of the weight. Which pretty much never turned out good for the offense.  
 

Well 49ers and Browns were under Rhule where dysfunction was rampant.  The Bengals game just stands out as a disappointment because it was post-Rhule while things seemed to be trending up offensively and defensively until that abomination of a game.

Statistically, you're right in that those games would be included in the graphic in the OP.  But I'm more interested in how good our D is right now, so those earlier games when Rhule was still coaching hold a lot less weight for me.

[pantherclaw]

33 minutes ago, cookinbrak said:

The same defense that let Seattle back into the game. Twice.

Not the offense that was completely stagnate the 3rd quarter?

[Dunn]

If they didn't get two kickoffs back to basically mid field on us, the score might have been much worse for Seattle.  Only having to drive 50 yards is much nicer and easier then 75.  

The only thing that matters is they are clicking now...and hopefully continues this towards the end of the year.

[Wundrbread33]

33 minutes ago, PleaseCutStewart said:

How do they define garbage time? Was the entire Bengals and 49ers game considered garbage time?

Our defense is good and I would consider them a borderline top 10 defense. They definitely aren't the best in the NFL and we have lucked out we haven't had to play many elite offenses. Honestly, outside of the Bengals and maybe the Seahawks, have we played a good offense this year (not sure what to consider the 49ers pre-CMC and with no Mitchell)

At the top is shows it measures garbage time as win probability being either below 20% or above 80%.
 

Now how that is calculated, I’m not sure. 

[Wundrbread33]

EPA/play shows you how much the poo offense the past few years has made the defense look worse than what it has been. 
 

With no offense, a defense has to work so much harder. On the field for longer. Shorter fields to defend. Less time for rest in between drives, and as Mark Schlereth pointed out yesterday (referring to Seattles defense) less time between drives means less time for a defense to make coaching adjustments too. 

[outlaw4]

1 minute ago, Dunn said:

If they didn't get two kickoffs back to basically mid field on us, the score might have been much worse for Seattle.  Only having to drive 50 yards is much nicer and easier then 75.  

Seeing this really peeved me off. I hope they weren't short by design.

The early turnover was massive and our defense stifled their few run attempts. When we got pressure on Geno's face, he struggled but it didn't look like our front four were able to do so by themselves. It is concerning giving up easy TDs near the end of both halfs.

[rayzor]

1 hour ago, electro's horse said:

I'd really like to know what happened in that game from a coaching perspective. 

i thin it was just a matter of them focusing on ATL knowing that it was going to be a short week anyways. i know they keep pushing this idea of the next game is the big game and looking at it only one week at a time, but it was going to be a division rival coming to Charlotte on a short week after losing to them in a close hard loss a week before. 

the team needed a win and beating ATL at home on thursday night was going to be a bigger deal for the team and fans from a morale point and in division standings. 

basically they just sacrificed that game to focus on the falcons. that's what makes sense to me.

 

[L-TownCat]

1 hour ago, MasterAwesome said:

I'd have a much easier time buying into this if it wasn't for that damn Bengals game.  Maybe that entire game is excluded as "garbage time" because that pretty much summed up my experience watching it.

In this league some days you’re the hammer, some days you’re the nail.

That was just a bad game. All the way around.  Call it a funk or the wrong vibe, whatever.  It happens to good teams too.

[electro's horse]

17 minutes ago, rayzor said:

i thin it was just a matter of them focusing on ATL knowing that it was going to be a short week anyways. i know they keep pushing this idea of the next game is the big game and looking at it only one week at a time, but it was going to be a division rival coming to Charlotte on a short week after losing to them in a close hard loss a week before. 

the team needed a win and beating ATL at home on thursday night was going to be a bigger deal for the team and fans from a morale point and in division standings. 

basically they just sacrificed that game to focus on the falcons. that's what makes sense to me.

 

maybe. Teams absolutely do things like that, but the Bengals were limping at the time and you'd think, especially without Chase, that was a game they could win. 

and if it was really just punting to worry about next week, why fire the coaches? besides the obvious fact they sucked. 

[rayzor]

4 minutes ago, electro's horse said:

maybe. Teams absolutely do things like that, but the Bengals were limping at the time and you'd think, especially without Chase, that was a game they could win. 

and if it was really just punting to worry about next week, why fire the coaches? besides the obvious fact they sucked. 

i think for wilkes it was a chance to rebuild the team's confidence. getting spanked by the bengals didn't help things, but i think most people were considering that a loss anyways. beating atl at BOA in a prime time game was the most attainable goal for a new coach trying to build something.

[PleaseCutStewart]

2 hours ago, Wundrbread33 said:

At the top is shows it measures garbage time as win probability being either below 20% or above 80%.
 

Now how that is calculated, I’m not sure. 

Thanks, didn't see that.

I'm also curious that if a team was below 20% to win but then got a TD/FG to go back over 20%, did those defensive plays while they were below 20% not count?

Just seems like if you asked 10 people to define that stat, you would receive 10 different answers.

[Peon Awesome]

10 hours ago, TheCasillas said:

I believe garbage time is classified as final 8 minutes of the 4th quarter and 3 possesion+ score difference

Based on the chart it's anytime one team has over an 80% win probability. I don't think this is how people conventionally think of "garbage time" but I assume the writer used the term to simplify the tweet. Your suggestion is too extreme for that definition; that's gotta be easily over 95% win probability. But it does give flexibility in that it's not limited to any specific part of the game. I bet midway through the 2nd quarter of the Bengals game qualified by that metric which may be why we score so well.