While the Seattle defense have given up fewer points/game (25.6 vs. 31.5) they rank quite a bit lower in FO's DVOA.
Prior to Week 9 Seattle was 22nd and Bucs 15th. SEA: 19th pass, 23rd run. Bucs: 26th pass, 1st run.
This was a meeting of two bad defenses. By DVOA, the Bucs defense was better than the SEA. Of course, this doesn't factor in Dean playing. The Bucs were also helped by a missed XP and two missed FGs.
I think this indicates a couple things:
1) Points don't factor in schedule and the Seattle D has had an easier one, playing CIN, PIT, ARI and CLE.
In theory, Bucs D should improve just with the schedule.
2) Seattle has a better secondary but worse pass rush.
3) The difference also speaks to the value of turnovers: Bucs offense have given up 18 and Sea 9. The Bucs also have have given up at least 3 defensive TDs and SEA only one.
Turnovers can really impact defensive performance.
4) Arians is behind the times.
Teams that know they have to score scheme ways to keep the defense off the field in today's NFL. There's no better example than John Harbaugh who finds all kind of ways to "steal" extra drives.
Going for it on 4th down, trick plays, etc. are all ways to get extra offensive possessions. Or going for 2 to avoid overtime against a better team.
These are super obvious decisions Arians fails at. And it hurts the defense and team.
5) The Bucs are likely over-committing to run defense.
The top 5 run deficiencies (by efficiency) are TB, TEN, NYJ, LAR, HOU. Of those, only LAR is better than 20th in pass defense efficiency (they're 14th).
In contrast, the best pass defenses (SF, NE, CAR, KC, DEN) are largely BAD against the run (except NE). SF is 15th, CAR and KC 32/30th.
