No, that's not true. You're completely ignoring what I've been saying.
I've NEVER said that improving our defense isn't our #1 priority. I've ALWAYS been defense-first, and I've applauded the fact that we're finally added a long-needed infusion of youth, speed, and (hopefully) talent on defense. I would agree with you that as far as the defense is concerned, the secondary (first) and LB corps (second) appear to be greater areas of need than the defensive line. I'm hopeful that the defense will be improved over the 2005-2008 era and that once it gels we may see something special develop, but it's early days, and things may not come together. In particular, I have argued for a more aggressive and disruptive defense than in the past few years, which I think will be possible with the added speed and depth on defense. While I don't want to see us become Pittsburgh or Baltimore on defense, I think we have gotten a bit too soft defensively. So I hope to see a change not only in terms of speed (coverage ability, pressure) but in terms of attitude.
However, I disagree with those who think that the offense is completely set. Granted, with the return of TB and our potent receiving weapons we should see a return of the passing attack to near-2007 levels of proficiency. But where I differ from some on the board is that I am concerned that that is not entirely a good thing if it means continuing to become more of a finesse team and giving up some on the running game. I think that we need the capability to situationally run the ball in order to keep opposing D's off balance, wear them down, break their spirit, control the clock, give our defense a breather, and generally teach them that we are still the meanest toughest sons of b*tches on the block. I don't see any reason that that cannot be achieved while still being a "pass first" big strike offense. I'm concerned that we've become softer on both offense and defense since the SB years, and I'd like to see a bit of an attitude change on both sides of the ball, without taking away from our existing strengths.
As far as TB being the "wrong" QB for a balanced game plan, that's how he made his reputation. Peyton was the guy who put up the big numbers and set records, but TB was the money QB who managed the game, didn't necessarily put up as big numbers, but was money when it counted and always came through with the big play - and who won the SBs. Up to the AFCCG in 2006 (including all the SB years) that was their respective roles. It was only after we lost a shootout in the AFCCG - one in which our defense ended up exhausted and unable to keep up at the end - that we went on a shopping spree to get TB some very nice toys so that the offense went trigger happy. I'd personally be very content with the offense staying more balanced as it was in 2008, but with Brady at the helm instead of Cassel. Saying that Brady is the wrong QB for that kind of an approach is just asinine.
Sure, the defense plays better when its up 10-14 points. Any defense does. Being up 20-30 helps even more. But we won't always be up 10-14 (or more) points. I'm fine with having some 50-7 romps during the regular season when we don't have to run the ball and the defense gets a freebie. But when the games get close down the stretch and into the post-season, when the bitter cold and nasty weather conditions hit along with better defenses, I'd like us to be able to run the ball a little.
Anway, it's obvious by now (actually, it was obvious a long time ago) that we're not going to agree. So go ahead and stick your head in the sand in blissful ignorance that Brady-to-Moss and Welker will cure all. Time will tell whether that's enough to be the exception to history, or whether history repeats itself. I'd rather have a running game to complement our passing game (along with, not instead of, the defensive improvements) and not take any chances.
