A discussion on defense and relative position value

[ChartsandGrafs]

OK, this thread will either go nowhere at all or it will generate some interesting debate. I'll try to phrase my question as best I can:

I recently overheard a discussion by a couple of hardcore baseball fans/stat hounds centered around the relative value of defensive positions on a baseball field. They were using some terminology and statistical acronyms I've never heard of and can't seem to recall, but basically they were arguing back and forth in an effort to determine what each defensive position on a baseball field is worth, all things being equal. For instance, both the pitcher and catcher are involved in every play, which starts with a pitched ball, so their relative defensive value is much higher than that of the right fielder, who might only be needed to make a handful of defensive plays per game. They were debating this in the context of managing a roster, awarding contracts from a limited pool of money, and drafting amateurs. It was a fascinating discussion, and I couldn't help but wonder how the same player value concepts might relate to a football team.

Does anyone know if any statistical/theoretical analysis like this has been with regard to football, specifically defense? I realize baseball is a different beast, since all the players on a baseball team play both offense and defense (with the exception of American League pitchers and designated hitters). A baseball player isn't just drafted and awarded a contract based on his defensive abilities, it's also based on his ability to hit. With football, most of the players specialize in one position, either on offense or defense. Crossover is rare.

So what I want to know is, what is the relative position value of a defensive tackle compared to a cornerback? Or a middle linebacker compared to a free safety? Players closer to the line of scrimmage and towards the middle of the field tend to be involved in more plays, so would their defensive value be higher than that of a defensive back, who's away from the line of scrimmage? If so, would there be a way to put this value in numerical terms?

The answer would seem to be yes, but I don't know how to go about quantifying it. I understand that these values would be different depending on the type of offense played against. For instance, an ace lockdown corner would be more valuable against a Steve Spurrier offense than he would be against a Woody Hayes offense.

Any thoughts or feedback?

[Ahab]

Stud DTs are the rarest commodities out there and can dominate a game. Besides that, I'd say CBs and DEs. There are many more players out there that can adequately fill LB and S positions.

[LakePlacidGator]

Start with your defensive tackles, then build the rest of your defensive line. Next would be your linebackers followed by your defensive backfield.

[petro]

From 50,000 ft view, it seems any competent OC could proactively exploit any obvious player weakness of any given defense via play calling. In baseball, you can't really 'call plays'. You swing the bat and who knows where the ball is going to go. 70%+ of the time it's going somewhere for an easy out. And there are probably stats related to which players are involved in the most plays. Obviously middle infield for example. So, wouldn't you consider all defensive positions in FB to be of equal importance based on proactively scripted game play instead of random ball flight?

[General_Zod]

Originally Posted by Ahab

Stud DTs are the rarest commodities out there and can dominate a game. Besides that, I'd say CBs and DEs. There are many more players out there that can adequately fill LB and S positions.

Not so sure on safeties being rated lowest or second lowest in priority. Reggie Nelson is a good example. If you have a safety that can have good range in the secondary then it can allow a extra defender near the line of scrimmage which would be more valuable in stopping the run without sacrificing coverage down field.

[WeWinWeEat]

It's a passing league. First, get your pass rush, then a lockdown corner. Just look at the defensive players that go in the first round - DTs, DEs, and CBs. Rarely do you see a safety or LB go before these positions.

[lurkingator1]

DT's and larger framed Lb's to stop the run and make the other team one dimensional. Muschamp has said the SEC is a line of scrimmage league. Then lock down Corners and Safeties , I read somewhere that we were in dime packages nearly 65% of the time last years, so we had 6 db’s on the field at one time. This also explains why we have signed and continue to sign safeties that can also play corner too. Not that I place any less value on them but after the other position are in place then you get one quick, fast De and one power rushing DE and make the other teams QB’s life a living hell.

[exiledgator]

• QB
• DT
• CB
• C
• DE
• LT / RT (blind side)
• OL
• RB
• WR
• LB
• S
• PK
• P
• LS

[gatorsfan530]

I didn't know you watched football, to be honest...

[GatorSean]

Originally Posted by General_Zod

Not so sure on safeties being rated lowest or second lowest in priority. Reggie Nelson is a good example. If you have a safety that can have good range in the secondary then it can allow a extra defender near the line of scrimmage which would be more valuable in stopping the run without sacrificing coverage down field.

I agree with this.

If your DT or most other positions screw up, the offense gets some yards. When the Safety screws up, the result is often a TD.

Just look at the end of regulation of the Baltimore/Denver playoff game this year. The Safety position is critical.

[JerseyGator01]

In the age of the salary cap, I think the D-Line is easily the most efficient/effective position in football. I think you need one stud DT and one stud DE as the building blocks. QB position is way overrated without a stud OL.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

In the age of the salary cap, I think the D-Line is easily the most efficient/effective position in football. I think you need one stud DT and one stud DE as the building blocks. QB position is way overrated without a stud OL.

This is a pretty good point. You could have the greatest quarterback in the world, but unless you give him some competent blockers and a receiver or two, his productivity will likely have a very low ceiling. In this regard, an offense can only be as good as its weakest link.

With defense it's different, especially at the line of scrimmage. A good defensive line can single-handedly compensate for lousy linebackers, safeties, and corners by blowing up offensive plays before they even develop.

I remember watching Steve Emtman destroy offenses from the defensive tackle position in 1990 and 1991 for the Washington Huskies. Washington had a real good defense, but most of it was because Emtman chewed up three and sometimes even four blockers all by himself, which allowed the rest of the front seven some room to make plays. Opposing quarterbacks couldn't even get the ball off, let alone find an open receiver down the field. They compiled an ungodly number of TFL in '91 (something like 110 in only 12 games) and it was all because Emtman was unstoppable.

That's why I don't think a great corner or safety can have the same relative value to a defense as a tackle or end. Linemen can take over a game and wreak havoc on the entire offense, whereas defensive backs can only shut a portion of the field down and limit long plays.

[corpgator]

Football is a team sport.

Baseball is an individual sport masquerading as a team sport.

You can break football down by position, but at some level it takes people working together. Baseball does not require very little of that.

[theologator]

DT
DE
CB
MILB
S
OLB

I think having a special player anywhere can help the other positions. RFN, Wilber, Scot Brantley come to mind.

But you have to have that DT rotation or else you cannot stop the run and you get exposed in the passing game & everything else.