brad7686 wrote:Isn't really surprising because we didn't have a good D-line in 04 or 05 either really. So I don't expect that to change much. No doubt the LB play suffered with the loss of Pierce, and Washington being hurt some, but now that has been fixed. Obviously the secondary was horrible last year, but when both the D-line AND the lb's aren't playing well, the secondary can't play well. I'm not sold that we had to take landry because our personnel is so bad, especially since we picked up half the free agent corners and safeties.
We picked up 2 CB's and no safeties, how that equals half is beyond me...
Statwise his theory makes perfect sense and explains the coaches stance on their beliefs.
The defiencies came from the LB's and DB's while the DL remained consistent. So they bolster the two problem areas to get back to square one and in the future we can improve the DL with players whom we feel are worth it.
It's that simple.
actually we picked up 2 safety's in landry and stoutmire and then we will have a healthy PP back next year
Well, there are some things in the article to make me think, but I'm not sure just how useful it is to look at each unit's stats in isolation like this. It tends to ignore the relationships between those units, and leaves us to fill the gaps with an explanation that fits the facts. Consequently, some will argue that injuries to the d-line caused the secondary to be exposed, whilst others will say that the injuries and poor play in the secondary left Williams unable to send blitzers and resulted in the d-line being exposed up front.
The truth will probably be somewhere in between. I think our problems last year were an increasingly fragile d-line and the injury to Springs coupled with poor depth in the secondary. Now, we've taken care of the poor depth in the secondary, but we're still left with the health of Springs, Griffin, Daniels and Salavea to worry about. We have mitigated against Springs' fragility by bringing in Smoot and Macklin, but nothing will stop me worrying about the line.
If Griffin and Daniels, in particular, remain healthy, then I do believe we have the makings of a top ten defence again.
UK Skins Fan wrote:Well, there are some things in the article to make me think, but I'm not sure just how useful it is to look at each unit's stats in isolation like this. It tends to ignore the relationships between those units, and leaves us to fill the gaps with an explanation that fits the facts. Consequently, some will argue that injuries to the d-line caused the secondary to be exposed, whilst others will say that the injuries and poor play in the secondary left Williams unable to send blitzers and resulted in the d-line being exposed up front.
The truth will probably be somewhere in between. I think our problems last year were an increasingly fragile d-line and the injury to Springs coupled with poor depth in the secondary. Now, we've taken care of the poor depth in the secondary, but we're still left with the health of Springs, Griffin, Daniels and Salavea to worry about. We have mitigated against Springs' fragility by bringing in Smoot and Macklin, but nothing will stop me worrying about the line.
If Griffin and Daniels, in particular, remain healthy, then I do believe we have the makings of a top ten defence again.
Agree totally. Also, I think some of us are a little too focused on pass rushing. Stopping the run was our real weakness in 06. If we get better at stopping the run, our sack and turnover numbers will rise in proportion.
brad7686 wrote:Isn't really surprising because we didn't have a good D-line in 04 or 05 either really. So I don't expect that to change much. No doubt the LB play suffered with the loss of Pierce, and Washington being hurt some, but now that has been fixed. Obviously the secondary was horrible last year, but when both the D-line AND the lb's aren't playing well, the secondary can't play well. I'm not sold that we had to take landry because our personnel is so bad, especially since we picked up half the free agent corners and safeties.
We picked up 2 CB's and no safeties, how that equals half is beyond me...
Statwise his theory makes perfect sense and explains the coaches stance on their beliefs.
The defiencies came from the LB's and DB's while the DL remained consistent. So they bolster the two problem areas to get back to square one and in the future we can improve the DL with players whom we feel are worth it.
It's that simple.
actually we picked up 2 safety's in landry and stoutmire and then we will have a healthy PP back next year
