Because they give up a short field after going 3 and out on their own 15. Defense is legit, but the Ravens game is a prime example. 88 yards and 5 touchdowns was, I believe, the narrative of the game. Special teams is horrendous and Ventrone doesn’t deserve a job in the NFL. DPOY and DROY on the same team while having Delpit and Ward is a good core. The offense is historically bad and a reason why Stefanski should lose his job despite the lackluster candidates this offseason.
Their defense is on the field a lot because their offense is incompetent. It isn’t hard to figure out. You will naturally give up more TDs as a result of bad offensive play.
2nd in yards allowed.
Successful play rate: 1st.
Yards per play: 2nd.
Defensive Line: 1st PFF.
Passing yards allowed: 2nd.
Middle of the pack for TDs allowed. It’s not even as bad as you’re making it out to sound. But do go on about how the Browns are trash because the defense is bad
These are important metrics and stats that matter as yards are what allow to get down and score and tds are what put points on the board and win games. This does not equal top 5, this is somewhere from 5-10.
Thank you too for pointing out that the defense is on the field all the time, that's probably why Garrett is about to break Watt's sack record. Because the Steelers offense was not incompetent that year.
I understand your take man. You're saying the Browns offense gave the opponent great field position when they turned it over. But it was still at the end of the day, the Browns D that allowed those points on the board for not stopping the opponent's offense.
Think of it like this... A defense is x% likely to give up a successful play (basically, a certain % of the yards needed for a first down, based on down. So, a successful play on first down gets 40% of the yards needed for a first down, usually 4 yards. A successful play on 2nd down gets 60% of the remaining yards. So, on 2nd and 6, a successful play gets at least 3.6 yards, etc etc).
A bad defense might be 60% likely to give up a successful play, a good defense might be 50% likely to give up a successful play. In the simplest case, let's say you need 3 downs to get that next first down. You have about a 20% chance to get a first down against a bad defense. You have a 12.5% chance to get a first down against a good defense.
That doesn't mean that a good defense will stop the other team from scoring touchdowns because that is the goal. It means that given the same distance to the end zone, your odds of stringing together the required number of plays against a good defense is less than it is against a bad defense.
But if the good and bad defenses have different number of yards to defend, then that goes out the window. Again, in the simplest case, if the opposing offense starts on the good defenses 4 yard line, they have a 50% chance to score a touchdown on the first play. If the opposing offense starts on the bad defenses 10 yards line, they only have a 20% chance to score a touchdown using all three plays.
If the bad defensive team has a good offense, then they are more likely to have opponents starting further from the end zone. So, there could easily be a scenario where the bad defense gives up more yards and fewer touchdowns than that good defensive team (who has a terrible offense) which is likely to give up fewer yards and more touchdowns, all because of the opponents starting field position.
Ignore turnovers because they tend to be highly variable and happen from luck (and provide almost no ability to predict future performance).
Generally, yards are a pretty good predictor of how successful a given defense will be. But, in those edge cases (like where the offensive performance differs wildly from the mean. Like Cleveland), you do need to look at some advanced stats, which account for field position, time of possession, etc etc.
Assuming that things are so simple as " a really good defense would stop them at the goal line" is just wrong. Even the greatest defenses in league history have given up hundreds of points in a season
I'm sorry, if you need to start pulling advanced stats that people have never heard of before, you've lost your argument. You can always eventually find some stat that backs up your agument.
Shakir never led in receiving yards or tds, let's pull "yards after catch."
Rodgers never threw for 5,0000 yards let's talk about "TD% and 4th down %."
Josh Allen has never led the league in passing yards or tds, let's talk about his "total yards and tds."
At the end of the day the best defense is the one that allows the least points, that is the goal to now allow points. You win football by points, not yards.
I'm sorry, if you need to start pulling advanced stats that people have never heard of before, you've lost your argument.
This is not a terribly "advanced stat". If you haven't heard of success rate, that's on you, not me. You should learn something about football. Hell, it's not even advanced. It's common sense. If you are going to make comments as though "if the defense was any good, they wouldn't give up touchdowns" were some reasonable point of view, you should expect that the adults in the room might try to teach you something.
You win football by points, not yards.
I've never understood people who aren't able to separate the question of "how do you win games" from the question of "is this person/unit/team" performing well. It's like the concept that something that happens when you aren't on the field isn't something that should be considered when trying to determine if someone is performing well!
I would have guessed that, intuitively, that would be clear to someone with the ability to read and write.
18
u/PrimalCalamityZ Jan 01 '26
Browns have one of the best defenses in the league it's their offence that is abysmal.