View Single Post
Old 08-26-2008   #137
ObsiWan
Site Contributor
 
ObsiWan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: League City, Tx
Age: 62
Posts: 13,167
Rep Power: 193947 ObsiWan is a quality contributor and well respectedObsiWan is a quality contributor and well respectedObsiWan is a quality contributor and well respectedObsiWan is a quality contributor and well respectedObsiWan is a quality contributor and well respectedObsiWan is a quality contributor and well respectedObsiWan is a quality contributor and well respectedObsiWan is a quality contributor and well respectedObsiWan is a quality contributor and well respectedObsiWan is a quality contributor and well respectedObsiWan is a quality contributor and well respected
Default Re: What is the Defense Missing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polo View Post
Are you implying that if our DB's played differently they'd be better ?

If so, I disagree.
My question was posed to illustrate who puts the defense in position to make plays. Does a DB decide individually whether he's going to jam a guy at the line or is that the D.C. call? If the D.C. is telling the CBs to play back off the WRs 5-7 yds, well any quick curls or outs the offense gets is on the D.C. isn't it? That call basically gives the offense a free 5 yds because well timed outs or curls will beat passive coverage like that EVERY TIME. And that call is on Richard Smith.
Maybe they wouldn't "play better" but could they be used smarter?

However, after thinking about your arguments, perhaps you're right; maybe Richard Smith is doing the best with what he has.

We all know that, without Dunta, we don't have anything close to a true shutdown CB let alone a set of two. Nor do we have a ball-hawking safety with great range. So perhaps we should have spent those 1st round picks on pro bowl potential cover guys instead of "stud" linemen. Maybe a DL full of Cochran and Bulman and Maddox types (with a Mario thrown in) could get to the QB if we have stud DBs who can cover for a full 3-4 seconds. Or maybe if we had stud CBs who could go step-for-step with the WRs and take away the hot routes our blitzes would be effective.

Maybe Smith is handicapped by lack of "stud" personnel. OTOH, I don't see any evidence where Smith is demanding guys with certain skill sets to fit his "scheme" either. Gibbs didn't waste anytime getting who he wanted. Richard Smith has been here 3 yrs. Can any of us point to any of our picks and say, "Richard Smith brought so-and-so in for his system"? Perhaps you can. I can't.

So all that to say, I'll partially concede your point; maybe getting more studs on defense is the answer.
I will concede that outside of Fletcher and Dunta, we don't have a single day-one DB. So if we're short of "studs" anywhere its there. gee, what are the odds that our sucky secondary is chock full of 2nd day picks and UDFAs.
Its just that part of me thinks he could be doing better with what he's got or making more of a stink about getting some upgrades.

Edit:
I know what bugs me about the "he needs more studs" argument.
It just sounds waaaay too much like the "If David Carr had a stud O-line, a stud RB, and someone besides Andre to throw, he'd be a better QB" argument.
Three 1st-rounders (5 if you count Dunta and Fletcher), two 2nd rounders (DeMeco, Weaver - 3 if you count Chaun Thompson), and a third rounder (Greenwood) ought to be enough talent to do something with. If Richard Smith can't motivate Weaver, et. al. to get off their duffs or puts them in a system that they can perform well in or won't recognize some of them have nothing left, then, again, that's on him.
...or Kubiak.

Last edited by ObsiWan; 08-26-2008 at 04:08 AM.
ObsiWan is offline   Reply With Quote