G-Dub's First Season: What Can We Expect?
Awhile back, Saintsational Dave proposed that we run a story on defensive rebirths under first-year coordinators—how often does it happen, and what can we expect?—and asked me if I would take it on. After giving it some thought, I came to the conclusion that there were far too many variables involved, and that we couldn't expect the experience of a different team, with different personnel, a different coach, a different system, playing different opponents, to meaningfully apply to the upcoming Saints season.
What we could do, however, was look at Gregg Williams' own past, and try to discern any patterns that might be there. Williams took over as defensive coordinator for three teams: the Oilers/Titans, the Redskins, and the Jaguars (He also served as head coach of the Buffalo Bills—but since he had duties there other than the day-to-day management of a defense, we're not going to count that experience. Gregg would probably rather put it behind him as well.).
First, some history
Williams began his career as a coordinator in 1997, when he took over the Oilers' defense in their first year in Tennessee. The season before, they had earned an 8-8 record, and their defense was ranked 16th in scoring. (Note: all rankings in this article are based on what I believe to be the only realistic measure of a defense: points allowed, rather than yards allowed. Nobody ever lost a game because they gave up too many yards.) At the end of that first season, the Oilers had the same 8-8 record as the previous year. Their defense had shown modest improvement, and was now ranked 12th. The defense would show steady improvement, eventually reaching the Super Bowl after the 1999 season, and would be the NFL's #2 defense in 2000. It was after that season that Williams was lured away by the Bills.
In 2004, after being dismissed in Buffalo, Williams was made defensive coordinator in Washington. The year before, in Steve Spurrier's final season, the Redskins had ended 5-11, and had a wretched defense, ranked 24th. Williams was able to turn them around in his first year. The Redskins ended up improving only to 6-10, but it wasn't the fault of the defense: they were ranked 5th. In subsequent years, however, they sank to 9th (2005) and then plunged all the way to 27th (2006), before rebounding to finish the 2007 season as the 11th-ranked defense.
Following the 2007 season and the retirement of Joe Gibbs, Williams failed to win the head coaching job, so he left Washington with one year left on his contract. Jacksonville picked up that contract, and he served his final season as defensive coordinator of the Jaguars. It wasn't a stellar performance: the Jags, the 10th-ranked defense the year before, fell to 21st. At the end of the season, Williams was a free agent, and was quickly snapped up by the Saints.
Now we come to the main question...
Why did things happen the way they did?
First off, I think we should dismiss the 2008 season. It's not that we can consider it an aberration; it's that we don't know what to consider it. Williams was attempting to install a new defense on a team headed by a strong-willed, defensive-minded coach (Jack Del Rio) whose philosophies of scheme and personnel differed from his own. It was a situation of oil and water trying to mix. On top of that, the team's locker room imploded mid-season, and Del Rio never really got it back. He ended by banishing his top defensive star, linebacker Mike Peterson, first from the field and then from the team. Under those conditions, it would have been difficult for anyone to succeed.
Taking only the experience with the Oilers/Titans and Redskins, then, here are a few things that stand out. These are only tentative conclusions, and they're offered with a great deal of trepidation. For one thing, coherent stats are—unbelievably—still difficult to find. For instance, one of the best measures of defensive effectiveness is takeaways—but the NFL doesn't keep that stat. If you go to NFL.com, you can find sortable stats, and rankings, for interceptions—but not for interceptions, fumble recoveries, and blocked kicks as one category: takeaways. Why this should be, I don't know; maybe they're understaffed, and too busy planning their move to London. I know what it's like to be stretched thin, so I can sympathize.
Another problem is the relevance of the stats: how closely does what happened in Nashville in 1997 really relate to what happens here in 2009? I'm afraid the answer can't be known. But we can take our best guesses; and what follows is really nothing more than that.
Personnel
In 1997, the Oilers' only defensive star was Pro-Bowl safety Blaine Bishop. The line-up that season was virtually identical to that in 1996. Williams accomplished a modest improvement with the same personnel; and in subsequent seasons upgraded the personnel gradually until he had his best unit in his fourth season. By that time, he had added stars Jevon Kearse and Samari Rolle, and every position on the front seven had turned over at least once. There was, in other words, a measure of continuity, but the overall turnover in personnel was still nearly total.
Gregg Williams takes a mad scientist approach—something of a grand New Orleans tradition—to his personnel.
By contrast, Williams' first season in Washington was marked by radical, immediate personnel changes. Between 2003 and 2004, the starting front four changed completely (Renaldo Wynn remained, but was switched from weakside to strongside); the linebacker corps was totally revamped (in part due to LaVar Arrington's knee injury in the fourth game); and three-quarters of the secondary changed, due to the trading of Champ Bailey, the drafting of Sean Taylor, and the emergence of Ryan Clark. The improvement in the defense was dramatic.
But the personnel turnover didn't end. By 2006, only Taylor, cornerback Shawn Springs, and linebackers Lemar Marshall and Marcus Washington were left from the 2004 starting lineup; Arrington had been benched, and Adam "Extinction Level Event" Archuleta had taken over as strong safety. Williams made major changes again in 2007: the Redskins replaced Archuleta with LaRon Landry, and replaced Marshall at middle linebacker with London Fletcher. The impact was immediate, and Washington climbed back to the 11th spot in the defensive rankings.
What should we take away from all this? That Williams has almost a mad scientist approach to his lineup. If the Saints' starting defense two years from now looks anything at all like the 2008 defense, I think we'll need to do DNA testing on Williams to be sure he's not an imposter. It may be that he'll effect dramatic changes in our lineup the very first season, as he did in Washington; or he may take a more gradual approach, as he did in Tennessee. Either way, whoever impresses him most will be the starter: Williams isn't afraid to tinker. He's also not afraid to make mistakes: he'll pull the trigger quickly, and occasionally (as with Archuleta) he'll miss badly. We might even—hold onto your butts—we might even see the defense get worse the first season. Whether the Saints will follow the Titans' gradual slope upwards, or the Redskins' yo-yo paradigm, we have no way of knowing.
Turnovers
Williams has the reputation of bringing relentless pressure, using multiple fronts and personnel packages to confuse the offense. You would think such an approach, applied consistently, and executed by good players, would result in just scads of turnovers. You'd be wrong.
Hardly any of Williams' defenses have lived up to their reputation in terms of takeaways. Even in 2000, when the Titans were #2 in points allowed and #1 in yards allowed, they were tied for 14th in takeaways with 30 on the season. (By contrast, the Ravens—the top defense in terms of points allowed, and the eventual Super Bowl winners—had 49 takeaways). In 2004, his best year in Washington, his team ranked 22nd in takeaways—almost in the bottom quarter of the league! Only once in his years in Washington did the Redskins enter positive territory in turnover differential: in 2005, when they were +1. Of course, turnover differential is just as dependent on the number of giveaways as it is on the number of takeaways. But Washington was never all that bad at turning the ball over. In 2007, for instance—their worst year in terms of turnover differential—18 teams had as many or more turnovers. But only 7 teams had fewer takeaways.
The sole exception to this trend was the Titans' Super Bowl year of 1999, when they produced a whopping 24 fumble recoveries. Together with 16 interceptions, and low interception totals by Steve McNair and Neil O'Donnell, this put the Titans at +18 for the year—good enough for 2nd place in turnover differential.
Sacks
Well, how about sacks, then? That pressure on the quarterback might not produce a lot of turnovers, but it surely results in a lot of sacks, right? Right?
In a word: yes and no (I didn't say which word). In 2000, the Titans produced 55 sacks, good enough for 3rd place in the rankings. During their Super Bowl season of a year before, they produced 54 sacks—again, good enough for 3rd place.
In Washington, Williams was not quite so successful. In 2004, his Redskins defense produced 40 sacks, good enough for 9th place, but below their #5 overall ranking. The next year, when his defense ranked 9th overall in points, they were tied for 20th in sacks, with 35. In 2006, when they were a dismal 27th in total points, they were an even dismal-er 32nd in sacks, with only 19. (No pressure, bad safety play, familiar result.)
Which way will it be in New Orleans? Again, there is no way we can know. That depends almost entirely on the competence of the personnel running the scheme. We know, at least, what Williams is going to try to achieve: he's going to try to knock the #%$&! out of the offense. Whether it will look like 2000 or 2006 is anybody's guess.
My own guess
The way the Saints have been adding and subtracting defensive players looks a lot more like Williams' first offseason with Washington than his first year with the Titans. And because I think our talent level is better than everyone gives us credit for, I'm predicting the Saints climb into the top half of the league in terms of points allowed. Based on figures from last year, that would mean an improvement per game of about 3 points. And in 2008, that would have given the Saints three extra victories (Denver, Chicago, and Carolina), and sent 2 more games (Tampa, Minnesota) into overtime. Assuming a split in those overtime games, the Saints would have ended the year with a 12-4 record. That's pretty much what I'm hoping for in 2009.
It's all on you, G-Dub. No pressure.
5 recs |
26 comments
|
Comments
The trouble with going for takeaways rather than stops
…is that the one is faaaaarr more risky than the other. Going for a ball in the air for a two-handed catch is less likely to succeed than a one-handed bat-down for many reasons, the most simple of which being you can stretch further with one arm than two. If you promote takeaways too much, you tend to get a feast or famine approach to secondary play, which will lead to a few big plays for the defense but far more big plays for the offense; not only will defensive backs who’re playing for the interception be more likely to get beat to the ball by (usually) bigger, stronger receivers, they’ll also be far more likely to get suckered by double-moves due to their aggression.
It’s a similar thing with trying to force fumbles, sure you might create a couple more turnover opportunities but to be honest if you tell your guys to go force a fumble you’re likely to see far more missed tackles because they’re either going in head-first to create that missile hit, or only tackling one-handed in order to attempt to strip with the other hand. Right enough, if you create a gang-tackling mentality then you’re probably liable to see more opportunities to force fumbles, but it’s not like the reward doesn’t come with a HIGH level of risk.
The thing I was always led to believe in terms of takeways is that they’re essentially governed by chance rather than by scheme. Stopping a team gaining yards, or scoring points, on the other hand, is far more to do with scheme and personnel than by luck.
by MarcusR on May 18, 2009 7:53 AM CDT reply actions 2 recs
"essentially governed by chance rather than by scheme"
Absolutely false. Designing schemes that pressure and confuse the offense leads to a higher rate of turnovers. That’s not simply an ancillary benefit—it’s part of the reason for the pressure and disguised coverages. Relying on chance to provide turnovers is probably what Gary Gibbs believed in.
Aggressive and complex defenses usually produce higher turnover rates, consistently. Others here have referenced Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York and Baltimore as good examples of this. What is surprising about Williams’ defenses is that that haven’t been outstanding in producing turnovers. I don’t know why, and the only point I wanted to make regarding that is: any expectation that the Saints are going to become a takeaway machine under Williams is probably off-base.
Time to re-sign Deuce!
by MtnExile on May 18, 2009 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I resent being linked to Gary Gibbs
I wouldn’t disagree that complex, aggressive defensive schemes create more opportunities for turnovers, but:
a) the actual numbers fluctuate to a great degree; it’s why you never rely on takeaways to get you anywhere in a fantasy football D/ST unit, even though they’re really valuable,
b) the terms “aggressive” and “complex”, when describing defenses, have become so over-used as an unthinking compliment in media coverage of today’s NFL as to verge on the meaningless,
c) the players within that scheme still have to do what they’re asked to do, which can (depending on levels of ability) still lead to the train wrecks we see when players over-aggressively go for the big pick or the big hit and end up giving up the big score.
by MarcusR on May 18, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We seem to be talking about two different things
You’re focusing on individual actions by individual players—such as jumping routes, or trying for a strip as opposed to a tackle. I’m talking about an overall system which uses strong pressure and disguised coverages to create mistakes on the part of the offense. A perfect example occurred in the last Super Bowl, and was the deciding factor in the game: James Harrison’s interception. You can’t plan on a 100-yard runback, of course; but putting Harrison in a position to jump the expected slant pattern to Fitzgerald was exactly the purpose of that defensive call. It was accomplished by disguising the intention of the defense—not by Harrison freelancing (remember: it was Williams who benched LaVar Arrington for freelancing; he’s not the kind of coach who is going to tolerate sloppy or unintelligent play).
The best institutional example was the Buddy Ryan Bears, on which Williams’ defensive schemes are based. Ryan emphasized not merely turnovers, but defensive scores. His Bears were very good at it, because that was Ryan’s intention. Williams’ defenses, in contrast, have been curiously not much better than average at best when it comes to causing turnovers.
As for the Gibbs crack, that wasn’t directed at you, but at Gibbs.
Time to re-sign Deuce!
by MtnExile on May 18, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Understood
You’re right, of course. That defensive call in the SB was about as good as it could have been.
I’d just say that, without individuals, a scheme means nothing. I’m with you when you say not to expect miracles, hell I’m even halfway to expecting a dip before a rise. I think SaintBevo’s made a good point though: GW’s coming in after someone so bad, it’s like Obama coming in after Bush: even if he’s only competent in his first year or two, he’s still so much better than his predecessor he’ll be feted.
by MarcusR on May 18, 2009 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ooohh
…let us please not go there…
Regarding the personnel issues, see my reply to r c a ’ s post below. I think we’re close.
Time to re-sign Deuce!
by MtnExile on May 18, 2009 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apologies
One thing with being over here in Europe is that it’s like Obama can do no wrong. It’s an unfortunate assumption I slip into sometimes, and one for which I apologise.
by MarcusR on May 18, 2009 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got news for you
it’s like that here, too. Say no more.
Come home, Stuart...
by MtnExile on May 18, 2009 6:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How come some defenses
year after year force turnovers and are very consistent in stopping offenses? Philadelphia’s defense as well as Baltimore’s and then Pittsburgh’s come to mind and the NY Giants most years. I think Tampa Bay and Carolina are usually in this group as of late. It’s about attitude and it starts with the DC and I think we have that kind of DC. It’s an attitude of aggressiveness and they play with no fear. I think of Brian Dawkins, Ray Lewis and Lewis lineback partner (forget his name- is it Suggs) and Tory Polamaolo. These guys go for the play (fumble or interception) but don’t miss tackles or get burned usually. To me, the first step after getting the aggressive DC is to get QB pressure, especially from the DEs.
by Philinwood on May 18, 2009 9:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
also, in regard to sacks
especially in the comparison of sacks with Washington vs sacks while with the Titans, alot depends on the opponents. I think it’s a lot harder to get a sack vs. McNabb or Eli Manning or maybe even Romeo (not sure on that one) compared to Houston or Jacksonville QBs- that could be a factor. I haven’t looked into it that closely, but additionally some of the opponents change from year to year and that could effect that statistic probably more than most stats depending on which opponents pass more, pass longer routes more, have a good all star left OT, have a rookie QB, have weaker blocking backs, favor one back sets vs 2, etc etc.
by Philinwood on May 18, 2009 9:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
one thing to consider
is that when williams was taking over the titans and redskins, he was taking over from another NFL DC. This time, he is taking over from Gary Gibbs, who was pronounced brain dead in 2007 – nowhere to go but up. I expect significant improvement.
by SaintBevo on May 18, 2009 10:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
but what about............
the offenses that complimented his Ds, with the skins and titans,these were ball control teams,with drew,s crew other teams will be forced to keep up with the jone’s. be forced to air it out ,take more chances.this is a recipe for disaster.
by r c a on May 18, 2009 11:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point
The Oilers/Titans offenses ranked 14th, 13th, 7th, and 13th from 1997-2000. The Washington offenses ranked 31st, 13th, 20th, and 18th from 2004-2007. By contrast, the Saints under Payton have been 5th, 12th, and 1st.
But consider: passing teams frequently force their defenses to spend more time on the field, risking fatigue and the mistakes that go with it. A ball-control team allows its defense to rest between possession changes, and that allows it to attack more effectively.
Here’s something that I probably should have added to the section above regarding my own opinion. I don’t think Williams ever had top-notch talent to work with. Yes, in Washington he had Sean Taylor, and in Tennessee he had Jevon Kearse. But he was never as rich as his mentor, Buddy Ryan, who had Mike Singletary, Dan Hampton, Richard Dent, Wilber Marshall, Otis Taylor, William Perry, Dave Duerson…the list just goes on and on. It’s the talent level that probably allowed the Bears to succeed beyond the Titans or the Redskins.
The Saints might be real close to having that kind of talent. If Morgan manages to stay healthy this year, a linebacking corps of Morgan, Vilma, and Fujita might be the best unit Williams has ever coached. The same goes for the line, if Smith and Grant are fully healthy and fully motivated. Lot of ifs, I know, but there are big ifs for every other team, too.
Time to re-sign Deuce!
by MtnExile on May 18, 2009 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our offense might be hurting our defense
The whole issue with ball control comes to mind. There were a few times our offense had long sustained drives, allowing our defense to rest up, but there are a lot of times we find the end zone too quickly and it leaves our defense out on the field for much of the game.
by nanvinnie on May 18, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, yes
I agree and I think what you bring up is extremely important. We also had quite a few 3 and out and more than our share of turnovers which hurt the defense. If we keep the chains steadily moving on offense, our defense can be overachievers.
by Philinwood on May 18, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They would hurt each other at times
In my mind, this year both sides of the ball hurt one another at times.
When the Saints couldn’t convert on a critical 3rd and 1 or whatever situation, then the defense had to go back on the field. When Drew Brees found the chance to get a good quick score on the board, then he took it, and the defense couldn’t get a good rest.
At the same time, thanks to the defense, we couldn’t ever run to ball effectively in most games. A lot of people look at our running game last year and blame it on every running back, but I don’t that was as big as problem as people make it. When your defense is giving up so many points that you have to start catching up very very quickly, and you have one of the top quarterbacks in the league, you have to use the best way to start catching up: Lighting up the opponent’s secondary like its New Years. If you look at a lot of games last year, by 4th Quarter, we had stopped running the ball because we were in such a big hole that it was time to unleash Drew Brees at his full potential. Look at the Carolina game. Down 20 points, tell Drew to win the game, and he almost did it.
by Robwjbucs on May 18, 2009 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with Hap Glaudi's Ghost on this one
We really, really, really don’t want to be relying on Dan Morgan at this point. Anything we get out of him, to be frank, is gravy. Do. Not. Rely. On. Him.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope that he turns out to be the answer to all our linebacking desires, but that many concussions can’t be wrong.
by MarcusR on May 18, 2009 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no-name D
i agree that the cupboard is not bare,the saint’s have talent on D. from what i gather gregg w. uses a lot of different packages,running guys in and out,so starting doesn’t mean you’ll be on the field more than the next guy,i look for dunbar, and shanle to see time and vilma play outside in some packages(i’m probably crazy).on the passing game not giving guys time to rest ,i disagree the problem was our 3rd and long D sucked. no pressure and, bad coverage no need to look deeper.the D never bailed out the O,if the O left any time on the clock, it was a done deal.it’s a lot to ask a of the O get the lead ,than hold the ball for the last 4 min.
by r c a on May 18, 2009 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, this got some lively discussion!
I rec’ed this and I"m excited to at least have a chance for success with G-Will. I’m sad that this change came a year too late but with everyone back healthy I expect a good season.
by xen-cuts on May 18, 2009 1:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
gotta be deep
last year, due to injuries, we had very little to no depth in the secondary and that really hurt us. here’s the thing…because our offense so ultra-high octane, it forces the other team to play catch up…meaning a lot of 3-4 receiver sets. this ultimately broke down our defense. i thought we did a decent job of stopping the run. the game against minn comes to mind, limiting AP’s yards, but we got torched during hurry-up offense when they ran 3+ receiver sets on us.
i think if the saints think tank can find the right balance against each time, we’ll put both our offense and defense in great positions to lock it up each week.
by nanvinnie on May 18, 2009 3:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
your point about the offense's high octane state is very good
Our defense needs to be on the field a lot due to the way the offense runs (and hopefully this season that means the offense is scoring alot and not 3-and-outs.)
by xen-cuts on May 18, 2009 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
An added wrinkle
Before the hiring, the two favorites of this blog were Gregg Williams and Philadelphia’s Sean McDermott. Because of Jim Johnson has been forced to take a leave of absence for cancer treatment, it looks like this will be McDermott’s first year as a defensive coordinator as well—but in Philadelphia instead of New Orleans. It will be interesting to see how McDermott’s season compares to Williams’.
Come home, Stuart...
by MtnExile on May 18, 2009 9:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
good points!
everyone has made great points. we do have a high-octane offense. that’s just how we are and we have to know that the D could be back on the field in 1 play or 10 plays later or more. i will take the 1 play=7 points anyday. the other team has to go out and try to compete against that. what we really need to address on offense, to help our defense, is 3 and outs. we can’t have those. i think if we can give the defense a few plays, like 5-6 plays, we would be ok. also, i think that williams scheme isn’t all about sacks and interceptions. i think it’s more about pressure. if you see the blitz, you know you’re on a short clock to get the ball out, which will make for more bad throws(hopefully). those bad throws could put our secondary in better position to make a play. i’m not too worried about the D giving up long plays so much this season. i think some of it had to do with our safety coverage and the scheme of just sitting back alot. w/ the new scheme we will see more pressure and it might help the secondary, it might hurt the secondary. last year, our run D was outstanding the first half of the season. we didn’t have a 100 yard rusher untill our game in london, which was week 9 or something. we stopped AP from a 100 yard rushing game! if you can stop him, you can stop anyone. its the arial attack that killed us. bombs from above! I think Sharper will be good enough to give a huge boost to our safety play. not as many long passes. definetly no KK sitting in the field tackling a guy, getting the guy to the ground pretty much, and then the ball finally coming down from the throw. GO SAINTS!! PLAYOFFS HERE WE COME!!!!!
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on May 19, 2009 12:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs




















