As Vikings mull defensive changes, ask yourself: What took them so long?

It is a frailty of the human condition that we have a hard time learning life lessons through the grace of near-misses.

Almost getting into a car accident while texting might make a distracted driver feel fortunate, but it tends not to change the behavior the same was as would the real thing.

Oh, if only football teams — made of toughness hardened through sacrifice — were not just, in the end, comprised of humans afflicted with that same frailty.

Perhaps then the Vikings might be in a different position now with their defense than the one they are in.

Because the truth is this: The defense hasn't been very good for much of this season, and particularly in the last five games — as La Velle E. Neal III and I discussed on Wednesday's Daily Delivery podcast.

It was bad against Buffalo, covering its tracks with four turnovers. It was awful against Dallas, putrid vs. New England, bent as far is it could possibly bend without completely breaking against the Jets and downright terrible against Detroit.

In Pro Football Reference's "expected points added" column, the Vikings' defense has been on the minus side each of the last five games and in 10 of 13 games overall this year. The offense has only been on the negative side four times. Special teams? Just once.

And the two losses before Sunday were blowouts where not much went right on either side of the ball.

So now there's this: A crisis of confidence in the defense, with head coach Kevin O'Connell talking about changes he wants to see and defensive coordinator Ed Donatell generally agreeing but saying they don't need to be "drastic."

Maybe these conversations were happening behind the scenes before they became more public this week, but from here it looks like this: A team that waited too long to address a problem because it kept getting away with it and is now scrambling to recover because the defense definitively cost them the game against the Lions.

It's hard to make big changes this late in the year, which O'Connell acknowledged this week. That's why a more aggressive approach needed to happen sooner — like, say, after that Week 2 loss to the Eagles when players like Patrick Peterson already seemed to be asking for it.

A more thorough reckoning might have to wait until the season actually ends — a point in time that will come sooner rather than later unless minor defensive adjustments pay major dividends.