Should Colts build Opportunistic D to force turnovers or consistent D with more punts?

[chad72]

We have been through the Meeks era with cushions, Coyer "cushiony" era, and now get to see what an aggressive D can do with Pagano.

 

I am looking at the SBs won recently.

 

In 2006, you had the Kelvin Hayden pick six of Grossman

 

In 2008, you had the James Harrison pick six of Warner

 

In 2009, you had the Tracy Porter pick six of Peyton

 

In 2010, you had Aaron Rodgers with good field position with 3 turnovers with one pick six off Big Ben for the Packers

 

In both 2007 and 2011, you had 2 QBs that were very smart with the football not turning it over disastrously and thus the games came down to the wire.

 

In 2012, it was an offensive shootout though it had a few turnovers with 2 fumbles and 1 INT.

 

 

You could have a steady defense that forces a lot of punts but in a war of attrition where it is a low scoring game and neither team is able to put up points, I think the D needs an ability to force turnovers to generate field position, whether it is fumbles caused or INTs generated.

 

So, which is better, a solid D that generates more punts and FGs despite giving up yards or an opportunistic D that generates more turnovers thus flipping field position, come playoff time? What type should the Colts build? Is it possible to build both?

[james_zeigler1994]

If the D can do both then that is fine by me as long as the DB do their job and cover and their not getting burned in the running game every other week thoughts?.

[CS Colts Fan]

Build The Monster !! Force turnovers... keeps our D and their O off the field and allows our to put up more points !!

[Flash7]

Not sure which one this fall under, but build a "pressure" D. A defense that causes relentless pressure on the opposing offense makes the offese play faster than they would like. This can lead to bad offesnive play, 3-and-outs, and turnovers.

[GoColts8818]

I think the goal is to do both

[TKnight24]

Well, my defense in madden is "turnover happy". Average at least 2-3 turnovers per game. Only allowing 10.4 points a game. So, I would say I want a D like that

Probably not too possible, but a guy can dream I suppose

[Stephen]

I just don't want the d to allow 200 yards rushing to people like green and jones drew

[Smonroe]

How many great Ds are there in the NFL? Baltimore used to be, no more. The 49ers? Seahawks?

These days a D has to survive the rules that are geared to making it an offensive game. I really doubt there will ever be a dominant D in the game until there are rule changes.

But to answer the OPs question, I think with our O our D can afford to be opportunistic.

[IndyColtScout]

I would rather have a consistent D because im confident our QB can lead us to points every drive. Opportunistic Ds are for teams that don't score well.

[In Luck We Trust]

how about a defense that avg less then 20 points given up a game??? i would be happy with that. but honestly, a defense that forces alot of 3 an outs. i dont care about turnovers. 

[chad72]

I would rather have a consistent D because im confident our QB can lead us to points every drive. Opportunistic Ds are for teams that don't score well.

 

I think this was the line of thinking that got us into trouble in the past, IMO.

 

Gregg Williams once said that the reason he took chances was because he had confidence that Brees would bail him out every now and then, I wonder why Dungy and Meeks never followed that philosophy when our O was scoring those points. Just the mindset of aggression would have served us well.

 

Playoff Os make you bend-and-break. That is what Brady did at Foxboro with those 80 and 90 yard drives dinking/dunking/running the ball, that is what Brees did to us dinking/dunking in the SB, that is what Big Ben and the Steelers did to us converting all those 3rd downs on the ground/in the air in the 2005 playoff game, that is what almost most of the teams that wanted to control tempo and TOP vs Manning era Colts did, more often successfully than not in the playoffs, IMO.

 

We forced enough punts in the Chargers 2008 game, that is when their punter took over. You start at the 35 or 45 more often, your O is going to score more often than you starting at the 5 or 10, especially in the playoffs where points wont be plenty. That is accomplished more with turnovers than a "give up yards but not TDs" philosophy, been down that road before.

 

At least that is how I view it. We have to be able to take some timely chances based on down and distance.

[shakedownstreet]

in today's nfl, you regularly see the best defenses get shredded by good offenses. ten years ago the best defenses could shut down any offense

 

so i think forcing turnovers is more important that it once was. that doesn't necessarily mean it's more important than forcing punts

[Albaby]

Whatever the philosophy is, I just want to see improvement.  I think that Grigson is definitely heading us in the right direction.  People may not like some of his recent acquisitions, but at least he's being proactive about it.

 

It looks as though we should be better at stopping the run.  Creating pressure on the opposing QB, maybe.  I bet it's better than last year. 

 

turnovers are always fun to watch.  They can turn a hum drum game into something exciting.  

 

As long as they stop the other team, I don't care how.

[jskinnz]

I don't accept the premise. I think the question is inherently flawed because it does not have to be a this or that answer. Why would the Colts not strive to build a defense capable of both?

[IndyColtScout]

I think this was the line of thinking that got us into trouble in the past, IMO.

Gregg Williams once said that the reason he took chances was because he had confidence that Brees would bail him out every now and then, I wonder why Dungy and Meeks never followed that philosophy when our O was scoring those points. Just the mindset of aggression would have served us well.

Playoff Os make you bend-and-break. That is what Brady did at Foxboro with those 80 and 90 yard drives dinking/dunking/running the ball, that is what Brees did to us dinking/dunking in the SB, that is what Big Ben and the Steelers did to us converting all those 3rd downs on the ground/in the air in the 2005 playoff game, that is what almost most of the teams that wanted to control tempo and TOP vs Manning era Colts did, more often successfully than not in the playoffs, IMO.

We forced enough punts in the Chargers 2008 game, that is when their punter took over. You start at the 35 or 45 more often, your O is going to score more often than you starting at the 5 or 10, especially in the playoffs where points wont be plenty. That is accomplished more with turnovers than a "give up yards but not TDs" philosophy, been down that road before.

At least that is how I view it. We have to be able to take some timely chances based on down and distance.

There is no way around it, those teams were soft. We could hit hard we weren't soft in that way. We were soft in that we rarely made big stops.

Ide rather have a consistent team that is physical & can make stops that force punts, than a team that gives up 28 a game but finds a pick 6 to help our team every game.

[Tark The Shark]

Why not both?

[Superman]

Our defense last year did a pretty good job of not giving up points and forcing punts, especially in the second half of games. But the defense sucked at forcing turnovers. That resulted in a lot of long fields for the offense. Ultimately, the game is about points, so that's not necessarily the worst thing in the world. But turnovers can flip the field, making life easier on the offense, which in turn makes life easier on the defense.

 

In a perfect world, our defense would be able to force turnovers and be able to get stops the conventional way.

[ColtJ82]

I just don't want the d to allow 200 yards rushing to people like green and jones drew

The best pass defense is to make sure they keep running it! 

[Balzer40]

I'm not sure how a team could even focus on one or the other. Doesn't make sense to me. Any teams goal is to do both.

[ChuckC1919]

There is no reason to choose, a solid defense that creates 3 and outs is going to create more turnovers. When a team cannot move the ball well they have tendencies to attempt to force the issue. A solid D creates turnovers and everyone seems to forget that in the past and so far still the present we have not had a return game to fear or even mention.  I don't know the specifics on #'s but in the last 10 years we have less than ten returns for TD's.  Punters are kicking up to 65 yards even if a D can stop an offense within there own thirty if the is no return its bad field position.

[atapcl]

Team that wins the turnover battle usually wins the game.