Why Can't the Defense Stop Elite QBs?

[Keith]

Starting a new thread here since the other one is focused more on the offense.

Wade Phillips' defense has performed wonderfully against the average and mediocre QBs of the NFL (er, except you, Chad Henne. Not sure what happened there).

It has been atrocious against the likes of Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, and Peyton Manning (and if I pull out my crystal ball, maybe Andrew Luck too). Hard to feel too bad about that since these guys are Hall of Famers in the making, but if the Texans are going to win a Super Bowl against QBs of this quality, they need to do a better job against them than allowing 4+ passing TDs per game.

Wade likes to blitz and play man. Good QBs can read a blitz. So how do the Texans adjust? Or is different personnel needed? Or when the Texans play these guys again, should Kubiak just assume the offense needs to score 5 TDs to have a shot?

[cadams]

i have thought abou this a lot over the past few weeks. i honestly think it is scheme. wade's defesne is GREAT when everything is working like it should, but that doesn't alway happen (obviously), and the great qbs can really take advantage of the defense not clicking when you leave your pass defenders out on islands in man coverage. brady has had his worst performances when defenses have broken from their mold and added a lot of zone work to throw him off (see jets in playoffs two years ago).

specifically, during the game on sunday, brady repeatedly used the hard count to get a guage on where they blitz was coming from, and it seemed like more often that not he got the right read and was able to exploit a bad matchup. cushing being out really hurt this team in pass coverage, and i think that wade should have recognized that and thrown some wrinkles in to try to offset that disadvantage . . .less man, zone blitzes, etc

[Joshua]

With the way the rules currently favor the offense, trying to put together a defense to stop an elite QB is somewhat of a fool's errand. Not to say you shouldn't try, but I certainly wouldn't try to build my team around winning games 14-10 against QBs like them. However, if you want to concentrate on something, seems like the few who have had success are those who get pressure without blitzing. While this involves some scheming, it is largely just having better players who are winning one-on-one battles. So, yeah, I recommend that.

While clearly upgrading your defense is a good thing and a worthwhile endeavor, I think any team should acknowledge that it likely won't be able to contain a QB like Brady for an entire game and better also be figuring out a way to score in the 30s themselves.

[barrett]

Because they are elite.

Every defense is better against average and mediocre QBs than against the elite ones.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by barrett

Every defense is better against average and mediocre QBs than against the elite ones.

Of course, but these guys aren't posting the kind of #s they had against the Texans when they play other teams, even those with lesser defenses, week in and week out.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Keith

Of course, but these guys aren't posting the kind of #s they had against the Texans when they play other teams, even those with lesser defenses, week in and week out.

They are posting exactly those kinds of numbers. Brady scored 4 offensive TDs in less than a quarter against the 49ers last month. They might have the best defense in the last 5 years. Brady averaged 300 yards passing and had better than a 4:1 TD to INT ratio this year.

The NFL is designed for offenses to win and defenses to lose. You can mitigate the damage, but when is the last team to win a superbowl primarily with Defense? Probably the 1st Patriots superbowl and then they changed the rules and haven't stopped changing them since.

And our defense did very well against Manning and Luck. Manning had a career high for incompletions in a game and Luck barely had %50 completion. In the games we scored we won against those guys.

And since we didn't play Brees, that means the question is why can't our defense stop Brady and Rodgers, and the answer to that is a million dollar question.

[WMH]

Watching the game yesterday brought me to the conclusion that we weren't effective against the Pats due to stubbornness by Phillips.

Do the Ravens have that much more talent on D than we do?

I sure don't think so, but they changed thier scheme to combat the quick pace, short passing game that Brady and Co. thrive at. The result, they gave up 13 pts......

Oh, and the Ravens bitch slapped them around too.

Frustrating.

[cadams]

yeah, i am very concerned that no changes to the defensive shceme were made by phillips after the first patriots game. there is a book on the way to try to slow brady down, and it seemed like phillips just decided that he plays defesne his way and that is that.

i don't know that i am right, but it seems like it.

[chuck]

I was profoundly depressed watching both of the games yesterday. The Texans are not an organization that demands nor seeks excellence and as a result they will never be able to compete with those that do.

Maybe in 15 years when Cal takes over things will be different. But I doubt it.

[barrett]

McNair is undoubtedly more concerned with running a "classy and respected" organization than with winning superbowls. With that in mind, 12-4 and a playoff win suits his needs just fine.

As for our defense, Baltimore got redzone stops and that was the difference. They got down near the goalline and Baltimore was lined up and ready. Maybe the issues at MLB contributed to our issues getting lined up, maybe Phillips didn't have them prepared, maybe you need a Ray Lewis to play chess with Tom Brady, who knows.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by barrett

With that in mind, 12-4 and a playoff win suits his needs just fine.

6-10 with a full stadium of drunk rednecks 8 times a year seems to suit him just fine, too.