There is no question that we needed transition in the defense from that of 2006-2008.
SECONDARY
1) Clearly the secondary had been overhauled and this has been all for the good. Our group of four safeties is the best in awhile. We have three decent propsects at corner and a couple of top rent-a-players for transition.
LINEBACKERS
2) Belichick judged that it was time for Vrabel and Bruschi to go. That doesn't make 2009 Guyton/Alexander better than 2008 Bruschi/Guyton. Just because there was no choice doen't make Alexander a contributer. Also 2009 Woods/Banta-Cain isn't necessary better than 2008 Vrabel, even though the combo was judged to be better than a 2009 Vrabel. I would note that neither Woods nor Banta-Cain is signed past 2009 so the future is not part of the evaluation.
I am somewhat confused about our linebacker situation. If we are staying in the base 3-4 2-gap, then surely we need another ILB, an upgrade over Alexander. If we are shifting to a base 4-3 2-gap, then why didn't we draft one of the top 4-3 prospects. One of them should have projected to be more critical to the team over the next four years than Chung (who should be fine but we have two starters at safety).
In the end, I am fine with the linebackers with the addition of a veteran ILB to be signed next week, since I expect that we are still playing a base 3-4.
DEFENSIVE LINE
We have had the best 3-4 DL in the league (that is until last week). The deficiency in the pass rush was not the fault of the DL. They (especially Seymour and Green) were fine when Thomas was healthy and Vrabel was better. An adequate secondary also helps, being able to free up a blitzer occasionally. That being said, I am glad to see us add Burgess and Banta-Cain.
But by what stretch of reasoning can I conclude that the 2009 and 2010 patriots will not be significantly worse off without Seymour? Am I to believe that Belichick considers Brace and Pryor good enough to replace his production in 2009 and 2010? I don't think so.
And I've heard that we would never pay Seymour $14M to play, even in uncapped year. I'm not sure why this was a given for the patriots. And perhaps there was one other team in the league who would have been willing to pay him.
MY BOTTOM LINE
The 2009 defense was good enough last week to make us consensus Super Bowl favorites. After all, Belichick in the master of defensive schemes; we had improved the secondary and Thomas was back. Personally, I don't think the defense was good enough to afford to lose Seymour.
But just possibly, Belichick did not have much choice. Players indicated that they weren't surprised at the trade. We don't know what Seymour requested/demanded or what he threatened. I certainly wouldn't put it past Seymour to threaten to hold out a third time and expect it work yet again.
Belichick decided that it was time to move on. My guess that this was much easier than moving from Vrabel, Bruschi and Harrison. Bill cared about each of that trio.
I prefer to look at it a different way.
Im going to throw out 2005, because we had unique issues that season.
Since we last won a SB, 06-08 we played defense that was good enough to contend for a SB, but we did not win a SB. I think our defense can be considered an obstacle to winning a SB over those years.
So lets evaluate.
DL- We stood pretty much pat during that stretch. Everyone felt we had the best DL in the NFL. We did not win a SB. In 06 and 07 we allowed multiple late drives that lacked pressure on the QB. In 08 our run defense was the worst it had been in 6 years. Was the DL deteriorating? Was the heavy spending on it misplaced, because it did not bring rings?
LB- Bruschi and Vrabel remained constant, and aged and declined. If we hadn't played good enough D to finish the job in their primes were they part of the Championship equation now? We have transitioned from McGinest, Colvin and various aging ILBs to Mayo, and AD. We are not changing the other 2 aging pieces.
CB- The corner position was a consistent weakness from 06-08 especially in the biggest of games. We now have 2 second year corners with promise, who Ive seen no indication of failure from, a rookie in the same boat and have brought in 2 vets that appear solid, although during the transition many have been poor.
S-I dont know how anyone can think, compared to 06-08 having anyone starting at S instead of Rodney is a downgrade. His injuries, and diminished skills may have been one of the top causes of not winning back to bax\ck SBs in 06=07.
If you are comparing to our SB defenses, this years defense has some growing to do to not be a downgrade. If you are comparing to the last 3 years, we have eliminated players that BOTH were why we won SBs in the past and why we didnt since.
People are debating the trade them a year early rather than a year late concept with Seymour. OK. But with Vrabel, Bruschi, and Harrision we kept them a year too long. I dont get how young players who meet the high standards of BBs expectations is a downgrade to guys who were not their former selves/