It'll be interesting to watch this offseason unfold. We all know there are possibilities of upgrades in the D backfield (primarily corner,) as well as a need for depth and upgrades if available at LB. I don't think there are arguments there at all.
Let's take a step back and observe a couple of traits we all have. This isn't about any particular person, I think it's human nature. These are tendencies of thought to look out for, going forward:
1 - we tend to see a successful approach and envy/mimic it, and this tendency is emphasized when it is juxtaposed against a moment of crisis for the approach we ourselves take
2 - "the grass is always greener," in general. Any individual or any unit from another team looks better, because we notice them when they shine, and we focus on our own team w/a microscope.
3 - On the other side of the coin: The protective/conservative instinct. I've been noted for this one in the past. A sort of "In Bill We Trust," "Everything is fine" reaction.
At least we all can agree that everything's not fine, especially if measured against a dimensionless ideal ("perfection," anybody?) More to the point, there is always the possibility of improvement.
Now we seem to have developed two camps:
1. Stay fundamentally similar, and add upgrades; and
2. Think about re-working the system in general, and add what upgrades are required.
(1) provides us the luxury of action at whatever pace is available through draft/FA, and fits better with a system that is not in crisis.
(2) requires more radical shifts, both in personnel and scheme. Some argue that (2) is desireable now, and it is a very tempting argument. (See "greener grass" and "moment of crisis" points above.)
From my observation the last few years, our defense has been optimized to prevent scoring and take advantage of the offense's mistakes. Sounds like a very simple idea, but it's not a given. This D denies big plays, and has been characterized as "bend but don't break," by design. It should be noted that "bend but don't break" isn't anybody's idea of a perfect outcome or something to be hoped for. It is, rather, an
optimal outcome. It allows for good performance from good players to prevent high scoring, while still providing some big play (turnover/sack) potential. What it doesn't do, unless you get a huge ROI on your talent, is smother or decimate the other team. "The 85 Bears dominated you. The 2000 Ravens smothered you. The Patriots just beat you," is how I once heard it (I think, though the other teams cited may have been different.) Point is, if you're looking for DOMINANCE on D, you do pay for it. It's not that you don't want it, it's a matter of not being able to COUNT on that superior ROI, if you are not willing to unbalance the team (see Chicago, Baltimore) to achieve it.
Last Sunday we watched the Giants dominate the LOS. Then we saw three of our guys
not sack Manning when it counted;
not succeed in coverage against the final Giants drive; and
not make the big turnover (Asante's non-interception.) Simply put, it was a slaughter, a mis-match, a defense of young warriors on the part of the Giants, versus old hobbling husks for the Pats.
Uh, except that they only scored 17 on us. Emotional coloration is a funny thing. Am I envious that
we didn't get to Manning nearly 20 times, including sacks, knockdowns, and pressures? Sure. Is it necessary to do so, in order for this D to succeed? No.
Similarly, against the Colts, I watched guys fly around all day, and in the end, they couldn't finish on top. Granted, one of their best spin-in-a-circle guys was out, but the "greener grass" of a smallish, speed oriented Dungy D somehow did not measure up.
All that to say: yes, I believe we need positional upgrades. I do not believe we need to revamp either the defensive philosophy or the types of players we look for... perhaps with an adjustment to the big/fast tradeofff, when an Adalius Thomas is not available
Priorities, then:
Replace or (unlikely) retain Asante Samuel; assume a downgrade.
Remember the "greener grass" -- Asante Samuel is
good. I know he dropped one very important ball in one very important game, but also remember the "recent crisis" pitfall. As I saw Kosar say on NFLN, "There's a reason DBs are DBs - they can't catch." Asante is one who can catch, and can cover. Lots of fans of Asumogha here. Maybe he qualifies as "replace" level as our "#1 corner"
I'm also okay with Hobbs... but would like insurance.
Again, we have seen him play well, and we have seen him get torched. Most recently? Torched. Of course, there is the whole "on an island against a tall receiver" argument (leading to a whole medley of pleas for a tall corner.) Bring in options. First day pick options, say round 3, preferred. Then there's the oft-stated lust for Marcus Trufant or Asumogha... well that would be a dollars and cents business decision. Are we talking about to play instead of Samuel? Doable. Across from Samuel? That constitutes an overemphasis on the CB position, in my opinion. Eventually, you run into the Stephen Wrightism... "You can't have everything... where would you put it?" Or, more mundanely, how do you pay for it?
Address linebacker. BB, SP, figure it out. Lots of love for Gholston around here. Is that really superior to getting a #15 pick in this draft plus a first round in 09, or say a high second in 08? We know one of the better traits of our FO is draft pick alchemy. Bear in mind you pay FA money for the unproven, when it comes to top 10 draft picks. I know I know, "The guy is a beast." Or, the guy is a bust. Go ahead, claim to know which one he is. Then think about Robert Gallery or Chris Conte or Andy Katzenmoyer or whoever is your symbol for "high first round bust." Not ruling it out -- just saying I'd far prefer to
know I have a decent starter, than guess I might have an exceptional player. Control the risks.
We also know the preference for free agents in the LB corps. Can Colvin be restructured? Do you keep him if it means his current cap hit (north of 7M)? How about Briggs, Dansby, Hobson, etc. etc.? Granted, they cost money
now, but it's not like we have 2 first round picks (heh.) Either way, a high pick linebacker or a good-production "fit" for this defense will make 2 bodies in 2 years, and not at the "JAG" level.
The "Adjust for Speed" question. Eventually, one
has to adjust for age. But should we be looking at an average-speed 260, or a fast/hard-hitting 230? Obviously the combination, plus the smarts/versatility needed to play in a Belichick D, constitutes the trifecta (see AD). Out of that combination, will we see the gradual speed preference argued for above? I think the answer is that you get the puzzle-piece, if he fits at all, and then the puzzle gets adjusted to get the best pieces on the field. Needless to say, that constitutes the tweak form of adjustment, not the wholesale overhaul.
I think this off-season it's a matter of standing pat (or close to it) in terms of philosophy, steadily infusing relative youth/trustworthy play and potential at linebacker, and controlling the damage at cornerback, with Samuel's likely departure. We replace Samuel with a value addition, providing the coverage ability minus perhaps some big play ability. If there is a value upgrade to Hobbs, sure, do it. But Hobbs has been solid overall.
I don't need no true Tampa-2, I don't need no Blitzburgh or no New New York Sack Exchange.
I want to see a reinvigorated Homeland Defense, capable of playing blitz-heavy one week, and opportunisticly waiting for the other guy's mistake, while containing his options, the next.
Sorry if I write long, guys. Pick it apart at will!
PFnV
