Building Defense around the D Line

[Since1971]

At this point the draft will be over by this time next week, no more guessing/mocking/arguing. And as we know Bill will do what Bill will do and that will most likely be something no pundits have predicted.

One point i'd like to make is that when we had a good defense, Ty Law, Buschi, McGinest, Ted Johnson were already on the team. Not drafted by Belichik. Colvin and Vrabel were added through free agency.
The team was built around the d-line. TY Warren,Wilfork, Seymour and Jarvis Green all drafted by Belickick.

I am wondering if he might move in that direction again. We have some pieces, Spikes, Mayo, Chung, Fletcher, Ninko. These pieces are only as good as the d line in front of them. At one time Seymour and Company were the best in the NFL.

In the last 5 years or so, only Brace(2nd round) has been drafted fairly high.

I sort of wonder why Belichick got away from what seemed like his strategy in the early 2000's, building around the d-line.

If he goes after someone like Brockers or Cox, he is moving back towards that strategy. I'd like to see him build around Brockers like he did Seymour.

Thoughts?

 

[Since1971]

At this point the draft will be over by this time next week, no more guessing/mocking/arguing. And as we know Bill will do what Bill will do and that will most likely be something no pundits have predicted.

One point i'd like to make is that when we had a good defense, Ty Law, Buschi, McGinest, Ted Johnson were already on the team. Not drafted by Belichik. Colvin and Vrabel were added through free agency.
The team was built around the d-line. TY Warren,Wilfork, Seymour and Jarvis Green all drafted by Belickick.

I am wondering if he might move in that direction again. We have some pieces, Spikes, Mayo, Chung, Fletcher, Ninko. These pieces are only as good as the d line in front of them. At one time Seymour and Company were the best in the NFL.

In the last 5 years or so, only Brace(2nd round) has been drafted fairly high.

I sort of wonder why Belichick got away from what seemed like his strategy in the early 2000's, building around the d-line.

If he goes after someone like Brockers or Cox, he is moving back towards that strategy. I'd like to see him build around Brockers like he did Seymour.

Thoughts?

 

[Deus Irae]

I think he had Warren, Wilfork and Seymour, and didn't want to waste the picks on players who'd be on the bench. Lately, I think he's not seen anyone that he thought would be worth the value of moving up.

Would trading up for Jason Pierre-Paul have been worth it in 2010? Maybe, but it's tough to complain about what was done instead.

In 2009, there was no way he was going to trade up for Raji. Would trading up for Ziggy Hood instead of waiting on Brace have been a good move? Probably, but it would depend upon what would have been needed and done behind it. If trading to get Hood means losing Vollmer, it's not the same as if it means losing any/all of the rest of that draft.

In 2008, Mayo was the right player to take if you were going defense. The issue there is the rest of the draft. The Patriots would have been better served if they'd just traded the rest of their draft to get Brandon Flowers, because Mayo turned out to be the only 2008 Patriots draft pick worth taking.

 

[BradyFTW!]

At this point the draft will be over by this time next week, no more guessing/mocking/arguing. And as we know Bill will do what Bill will do and that will most likely be something no pundits have predicted.

One point i'd like to make is that when we had a good defense, Ty Law, Buschi, McGinest, Ted Johnson were already on the team. Not drafted by Belichik. Colvin and Vrabel were added through free agency.
The team was built around the d-line. TY Warren,Wilfork, Seymour and Jarvis Green all drafted by Belickick.

I am wondering if he might move in that direction again. We have some pieces, Spikes, Mayo, Chung, Fletcher, Ninko. These pieces are only as good as the d line in front of them. At one time Seymour and Company were the best in the NFL.

In the last 5 years or so, only Brace(2nd round) has been drafted fairly high.

I sort of wonder why Belichick got away from what seemed like his strategy in the early 2000's, building around the d-line.

If he goes after someone like Brockers or Cox, he is moving back towards that strategy. I'd like to see him build around Brockers like he did Seymour.

Thoughts?

I think that a lot of it has to do with the proliferation of 2-gap 3-4 defenses around the league. Wilfork, Seymour, and Warren would all be drafted by a team like KC at the very top of the first round if they came out today (see: Tyson Jackson). I'd be willing to bet that, if an elite talent was available at a draft position that seemed reasonable to Belichick, he'd be all over that pick.

 

[VJCPatriot]

There are a number of defensive linemen who should be available in the late 1st. The question is does BB feel the value and the need are there? In last year's draft he skipped out on what was considered by many pundits to be one of the deepest DL drafts ever. JJ Watt, whom I loved in that draft, went at #11. So he wasn't even available for consideration without a tradeup. Watt looks like a monster in the making for the Texans btw.

The Pats took Solder at 17, passing on Cam Jordan. So far Solder looks solid and ready to fill in the big shoes left by Light's retirement so it looks like the Pats made the right pick for the future. Vollmer's early injury gave Solder the opportunity to give us a sample of what he can do and it looked good.

At #28 the Pats passed over both Muhammed Wilkerson and Cam Heyward to trade down with the Saints who selected Mark Ingram. Which is why we have the #27 overall pick this year. So we essentially moved up 1 spot in the first round of the 2012 draft plus gained Shane Vereen at pick #56.

In this year's draft there are a number of possibilities should BB target a DL late in the 1st - Reyes, Still, Worthy, and Thompson are possibilities. Poe has likely pushed himself into the top 15 with his recent combine performance. Cox and Brockers are also likely out of reach.

I would have my eye on Reyes or Still if we decide to go DE in the first round.

 

[AzPatsFan]

At this point the draft will be over by this time next week, no more guessing/mocking/arguing. And as we know Bill will do what Bill will do and that will most likely be something no pundits have predicted.

One point i'd like to make is that when we had a good defense, Ty Law, Buschi, McGinest, Ted Johnson were already on the team. Not drafted by Belichik. Colvin and Vrabel were added through free agency.
The team was built around the d-line. TY Warren,Wilfork, Seymour and Jarvis Green all drafted by Belickick.

I am wondering if he might move in that direction again. We have some pieces, Spikes, Mayo, Chung, Fletcher, Ninko. These pieces are only as good as the d line in front of them. At one time Seymour and Company were the best in the NFL.

In the last 5 years or so, only Brace(2nd round) has been drafted fairly high.

I sort of wonder why Belichick got away from what seemed like his strategy in the early 2000's, building around the d-line.

If he goes after someone like Brockers or Cox, he is moving back towards that strategy. I'd like to see him build around Brockers like he did Seymour.

Thoughts?

Nice idea but unworkable in the present context. You'd need three or more top ten or top five picks to do so. I don't expect the Pats to be in any such position any time soon. Now if Brady were gone suddenly, and you had three years of finishing fourth in the AFCE, then you could execise such a plan.

But I don't really think you would want this.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Nice idea but unworkable in the present context. You'd need three or more top ten or top five picks to do so. I don't expect the Pats to be in any such position any time soon. Now if Brady were gone suddenly, and you had three years of finishing fourth in the AFCE, then you could execise such a plan.

But I don't really think you would want this.

I would normally agree but not necessarily so - especially in this draft because:

1) Nick Caserio said this was a deep front 7 draft

2) Many offensive players might go off the board early in the first round (2-3 QB, 1-2 WR, 1 RB, a 4-6 Olineman) and then

3) Defensive players with high grades include 2-3 CB's, 1 ILB, 1 SS, - so some of the decent Big Beasties might fall within range of a trade up without exhorbitent cost (low -mid 20's).

Also as the NFL moves contstantly towards a 'pass to set up the run' league, seems backend help becoming more in demand. Finally, and most surprising to me, the # of all pro's selected in year range 2002 - 2011 was NOT predominently from the first ten picks in the first round! A surprisingly relatively 'flat curve' on where in the first round the All-Pros were selected.

Most All-Pros are found in first round of NFL Draft, but No. 1 overall isn't necessarily the best | cleveland.com

Also that articles research found that more All-Pros will be taken in the first round of the draft than in all the other 6 rounds COMBINED. Another reason I am not in favor of a trade out of first round this draft UNLESS we get a good deal -like the Saints deal last year (1st next year and a 2nd or high 3rd this year). Not in favor of trading one of our 1st for 2 second rounder or multiple late rounders. This is the year to forgo value and quantity and choose quality instead. Value of first rounders is MUCH better now after the new rookies salary cap (plus only first round gives you option of a 5th year).

For any Draftniks, the link above is definately worth a read from the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

 

[goheels22002]

Similar discussion with MoLewisRocks on the thread about trading one of the backup QBs and a pick to move up. #27 and #31 will present a lot of very good players for the defensive line, but not an elite guy like Richard Seymour who went #6 overall.

The first 26 picks will include an unusual number of offensive skill players this year with the proliferation of quarterbacks, at least two running backs, and a receiver or two early in the mix. Offensive line is a deep position this year meaning the Pats could get the fifth or sixth selected.

The defensive line for the Patriots needs one guy in this draft that may require trading up. That would be a good move and the Pats have players plus picks to get into the top 12 to get who they want. Add an elite rookie DL to Brace, Deaderick, Love, Wilfork, and Fanene, and you have a solid group.

 

[IllegalContact]

need to upgrade the LB unit more than the DL unit

 

[RayClay]

At this point the draft will be over by this time next week, no more guessing/mocking/arguing. And as we know Bill will do what Bill will do and that will most likely be something no pundits have predicted.

One point i'd like to make is that when we had a good defense, Ty Law, Buschi, McGinest, Ted Johnson were already on the team. Not drafted by Belichik. Colvin and Vrabel were added through free agency.
The team was built around the d-line. TY Warren,Wilfork, Seymour and Jarvis Green all drafted by Belickick.

I am wondering if he might move in that direction again. We have some pieces, Spikes, Mayo, Chung, Fletcher, Ninko. These pieces are only as good as the d line in front of them. At one time Seymour and Company were the best in the NFL.

In the last 5 years or so, only Brace(2nd round) has been drafted fairly high.

I sort of wonder why Belichick got away from what seemed like his strategy in the early 2000's, building around the d-line.

If he goes after someone like Brockers or Cox, he is moving back towards that strategy. I'd like to see him build around Brockers like he did Seymour.

Thoughts?

you can't invent those players. you need the player and the pick. I'd love to get a big DE Seymour type, but they have to be available. It's possible, even a trade up doesn't get us there.

What Belichick won't do is take the closest player to the prototype and try to wish him into being the right player, it just doesn't work.

Brockers?

 

[IllegalContact]

you can't invent those players. you need the player and the pick. I'd love to get a big DE Seymour type, but they have to be available. It's possible, even a trade up doesn't get us there.

What Belichick won't do is take the closest player to the prototype and try to wish him into being the right player, it just doesn't work.

Brockers?

brockers is more like marquise hill than seymour. seymour was/is actually very mobile

speaking of which, even though the pats did well with the pick (solder), letting seymour go was a mistake that the defense still has not recovered from.

be it through draft or otherwise, the pats were most successful when they were a defense-first team. the pats have achieved nearly as much with the like of reche caldwell and a 35 year old troy brown (2006) at WR as they did with anyone since.

 

[goheels22002]

brockers is more like marquise hill than seymour. seymour was/is actually very mobile

speaking of which, even though the pats did well with the pick (solder), letting seymour go was a mistake that the defense still has not recovered from.

be it through draft or otherwise, the pats were most successful when they were a defense-first team. the pats have achieved nearly as much with the like of reche caldwell and a 35 year old troy brown (2006) at WR as they did with anyone since.

I like Nick Perry out of USC - he's very quick in down position but also the right size to play outside linebacker in the 3-4. The scouts don't like his strength but that can improve over a year or two. He'll also be there at 31.

 

[WhiZa]

I think he had Warren, Wilfork and Seymour, and didn't want to waste the picks on players who'd be on the bench. Lately, I think he's not seen anyone that he thought would be worth the value of moving up.

That's a good point to bring up. BB is not going to draft a player in the first round to have them sit on their butts the first season. Are there any DL in the first round that could be starting day 1? Can we upgrade over Jonathan Fanene, Brandon Deaderick, Myron Pryor, or Kyle Love? Do we need to upgrade the position? Honestly I can say I would rather pick another position that doesn't have the same depth as DL, but this is a strong DL draft and I wouldn't be mad if the Pats decided to pick for value.

 

[Ring 6]

That's a good point to bring up. BB is not going to draft a player in the first round to have them sit on their butts the first season. Are there any DL in the first round that could be starting day 1? Can we upgrade over Jonathan Fanene, Brandon Deaderick, Myron Pryor, or Kyle Love? Do we need to upgrade the position? Honestly I can say I would rather pick another position that doesn't have the same depth as DL, but this is a strong DL draft and I wouldn't be mad if the Pats decided to pick for value.

I'm not sure where you see the strength in the DL.
Wilfork is a stud, and Fanene is a solid player, however, I think his biggest role is going to be sub package pass rusher from inside. Deaderick is no more than average, and where is the depth? Pryor can't really stay healthy at all, and has not impressed me when he has.
Love can back up Wilfork or a 43 DT but really shouldn't be starting in any way.
Brace is a total enigma at this point.
We could easily find 2 starters out of this draft in the base, and we absolutely without question are paper thin at nickel/dime DT

 

[Kontradiction]

need to upgrade the LB unit more than the DL unit

That's not true if we're running the defense heavily out of the 4-3 like we did in 2011. And even if we go back to the 3-4 as a base D, DE is still the bigger need.

 

[Shockt327]

I'm not sure where you see the strength in the DL.
Wilfork is a stud, and Fanene is a solid player, however, I think his biggest role is going to be sub package pass rusher from inside. Deaderick is no more than average, and where is the depth? Pryor can't really stay healthy at all, and has not impressed me when he has.
Love can back up Wilfork or a 43 DT but really shouldn't be starting in any way.
Brace is a total enigma at this point.
We could easily find 2 starters out of this draft in the base, and we absolutely without question are paper thin at nickel/dime DT

I don't totally disagree, but hasn't Wilfork been a three-down-player for a couple of years now? I don't think it's going to be like the old days where it's automatically expected that he'll be subbed in pass rushing situations. And why should he be? At times (like against Balt) Wilfork looked utterly dominant getting after the passer.

So, in the Nickel, you'd have Wilfork and Fanene at DT. That's not bad. The DEs will be - if I'm not mistaken - a rotation of Carter, Nink, and now Scott.

There are question marks, sure. So it's fair to wonder if the DL is/isn't a strength. Carter's health, how Fanene fits in, if Scott returns to form from a few years past. That's all up for debate.

But strictly in terms of depth at DT? subbing in Love or Pryor for Wilfork or Fanene really isn't that bad. So I don't see why we're paper thin on the 4 man line when in Nickel. Better shape than last year, anyways.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't totally disagree, but hasn't Wilfork been a three-down-player for a couple of years now? I don't think it's going to be like the old days where it's automatically expected that he'll be subbed in pass rushing situations. And why should he be? At times (like against Balt) Wilfork looked utterly dominant getting after the passer.

He shouldnt HAVE TO be a 3 down player. He will be much more effective if he doesnt have to be out there for 60 snaps, and as a pass rusher he is not so great.

So, in the Nickel, you'd have Wilfork and Fanene at DT. That's not bad.

As I said Wilfork shouldn't have to be out there. If both of these guys are playing 60 snaps we will have zero pass rush by the 4th quarter.
At the very least we need 2 more guys to rotate in.

The DEs will be - if I'm not mistaken - a rotation of Carter, Nink, and now Scott.

Really? Carter isn't on the roster, and as of now not even able to walk without a limp. Nink is not a 'starting' pass rushing nickel DE. In fact he plays as much sub LB as DE, and he simply isn't that effective as a pass rusher only. Scott has 1.5 sacks in 2 years. This is as thin as it gets, even when you are counting on a guy who isn't even on the roster, or healthy.

There are question marks, sure. So it's fair to wonder if the DL is/isn't a strength. Carter's health, how Fanene fits in, if Scott returns to form from a few years past. That's all up for debate.

But based on your analysis everyone of those things has to go perfectly right for us to even field a potentially capable pass rush, not even a good one with depth.

But strictly in terms of depth at DT? subbing in Love or Pryor for Wilfork or Fanene really isn't that bad. So I don't see why we're paper thin on the 4 man line when in Nickel. Better shape than last year, anyways.

If we play a 34, Love backs up Wilfork, and that is fine, but DE is a problem both in the quality of starters and depth. (In the 43, those 3 spots still exist, and are in the same boat).
The DL in the sub right now has 1 quality inside pass rusher, and zero reliable, capable outside pass rushers. How much thinner does it get?
If your standard of inside rush is 'better than last year' the bar is way too low, because our inside pass rush last year, especially beyond wilfork was as bad as we have ever had.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's a good point to bring up. BB is not going to draft a player in the first round to have them sit on their butts the first season. Are there any DL in the first round that could be starting day 1?

Legitimate question, which only time will tell us for sure. Only looking back will tell us whether this year is more like 2010-2011 or more like the disappointing 2009 first round. I can only say that the buzz seems to be that this is another group more likely to be in the better (2010-2011) range.

Can we upgrade over Jonathan Fanene, Brandon Deaderick, Myron Pryor, or Kyle Love?

Easily. There's arguably not a decent starter in that group.

Do we need to upgrade the position? Honestly I can say I would rather pick another position that doesn't have the same depth as DL, but this is a strong DL draft and I wouldn't be mad if the Pats decided to pick for value.

This takes me back to broken record "Draft these!" territory but, assuming BB were to keep 4 picks in the first two rounds, I'd most like to see a DT, DE, OLB and WR taken with those picks, not necessarily in that order.

 

[Shockt327]

He shouldnt HAVE TO be a 3 down player. He will be much more effective if he doesnt have to be out there for 60 snaps, and as a pass rusher he is not so great.

As I said Wilfork shouldn't have to be out there. If both of these guys are playing 60 snaps we will have zero pass rush by the 4th quarter.
At the very least we need 2 more guys to rotate in.

First off, I agree that having Wilfork out there for 60 snaps is pushing it. But the team does have pretty solid depth with Carter and Love. What else? You can't expect 3 starting caliber players in two DT positions.

Second, I'd totally disagree that Wilfork is an 'average' pass rusher. Especially in the playoffs last year. Way too disruptive. Offenses, even in passing situation, will have to double him.

Really? Carter isn't on the roster, and as of now not even able to walk without a limp. Nink is not a 'starting' pass rushing nickel DE. In fact he plays as much sub LB as DE, and he simply isn't that effective as a pass rusher only. Scott has 1.5 sacks in 2 years. This is as thin as it gets, even when you are counting on a guy who isn't even on the roster, or healthy.

Yeah, I certainly acknowledged these previously. I actually don't disagree over Nink either. Some are big on him. I think he was a weakness when used on a 4 man line. But I's suspect his role will be dramatically reduced, thanks to Scott, on the four man line. Which is good. Because I think Nink is quality depth with versatility...who was thrust into a position, for the bulk of the snaps, that was over his head.

But based on your analysis everyone of those things has to go perfectly right for us to even field a potentially capable pass rush, not even a good one with depth.

Woah, expecting everything to go perfectly right certainly wasn't my analysis. I acknowledge that there are question marks. I'm not arguing over that one way or the other. I just don't agree that DT depth is a huge issue. Wilfork and Fanene with Love and Pryor provide a good rotation.

If we play a 34, Love backs up Wilfork, and that is fine, but DE is a problem both in the quality of starters and depth. (In the 43, those 3 spots still exist, and are in the same boat).

I really can't answer this because it really doesn't seem as though they are pursuing 3-4 personnel.

The DL in the sub right now has 1 quality inside pass rusher, and zero reliable, capable outside pass rushers. How much thinner does it get?
If your standard of inside rush is 'better than last year' the bar is way too low, because our inside pass rush last year, especially beyond wilfork was as bad as we have ever had.

I already acknowledged that there are players with question marks. But if simply expecting them to play at their peak is disingenuous (and it would be)....then you are being equally disingenuous by dismissing them entirely, as though they aren't even there (like you did above by saying we only have 1 guy). Carter not capable? Yeah, he's injured. So, I'm not totally banking on him to return to '11 form. But acting as though it's definitive that he won't amount to anything is equally disingenuous. Scott has previously played well too. He's currently healthy and presumably won't be placed out of position; like his final days in Oakland. So I'm waiting to see. I'm waiting because it's not terribly far fetched to believe that these players will pan out nicely. So, I'm not outright dismissing them or acting as though there presence is something that shouldn't even be accounted for.

Wilfork is a good player; even in Nickel. Fanene will be in a role that suits him nicely. And again, Love and Pryor provide depth at DT.

It's really not nearly as hopeless as you are making it out to be.

 

[Ring 6]

First off, I agree that having Wilfork out there for 60 snaps is pushing it. But the team does have pretty solid depth with Carter and Love. What else? You can't expect 3 starting caliber players in two DT positions.

I'm confused.
What does Carter have to do with this? He is a DE, he is unsigned and he is not healthy.
If you are talking about a 43, then Love would START and there is no backup.
If you are talking about sub, Love isn't capable, and we have Fanane and Wilfork and no one else.

Second, I'd totally disagree that Wilfork is an 'average' pass rusher. Especially in the playoffs last year. Way too disruptive. Offenses, even in passing situation, will have to double him.

We will have to agree to disagree. Outside of a few examples Wilfork has never been close to a force as a passrusher.

Yeah, I certainly acknowledged these previously. I actually don't disagree over Nink either. Some are big on him. I think he was a weakness when used on a 4 man line. But I's suspect his role will be dramatically reduced, thanks to Scott, on the four man line. Which is good. Because I think Nink is quality depth with versatility...who was thrust into a position, for the bulk of the snaps, that was over his head.

But you listed Nink and Scott as the 2 'starting' nickel/dime DEs. You are saying right here that is a big problem.

Woah, expecting everything to go perfectly right certainly wasn't my analysis. I acknowledge that there are question marks. I'm not arguing over that one way or the other. I just don't agree that DT depth is a huge issue. Wilfork and Fanene with Love and Pryor provide a good rotation.

Love cannot rush the passer and Pryor has played 11 games in 2 years and has a grand total of 2 1/2 sacks in his career. In other words in 3 seasons he has not had a sack, and has shared 2. I don't know how you see that as a good rotation in nickle and dime.
If Pryor, Love and Wilfork have to be our dominanting inside rushers, and Nink and Scott (who has 1 1/2 sacks in 2 yrs) have to be our outside rushers, you are asking fro everything to go perfectly for this to not be an area of total disaster. We would have the worst nickel/dime pass rush in the NFL if that is who we are relying on unless many of them rise to a level they have not shown ever, or at least for a long time.

I really can't answer this because it really doesn't seem as though they are pursuing 3-4 personnel.

Fanene is 34 personell. Scott is 34 personell. Carpenter is 34 personell. Those are the players they pursued while letting 43 player Anderson walk.

I already acknowledged that there are players with question marks. But if simply expecting them to play at their peak is disingenuous (and it would be)....then you are being equally disingenuous by dismissing them entirely, as though they aren't even there (like you did above by saying we only have 1 guy).

I don't know why you are using the term disingenuous. I do not see you trying to falsely hide from facts, nor am I.

Carter not capable? Yeah, he's injured. So, I'm not totally banking on him to return to '11 form. But acting as though it's definitive that he won't amount to anything is equally disingenuous.

Andre Carter isn't on the team. You not only have him as a Patriot, you have him in the DT rotation too?
As of the last update he cannot walk without a limp. He had a SEVERE leg injury, and even if he can recover, its a huge longshot to think a player whose game is based upon his legs can be close to the same after having a leg muscle torn from the bone. Getting on the field is questionable, having the same power and thrust in that leg is a big longshot.
How can it be disingenuous to not count on a guy who isn't under contract?
As of now he doesn't exist.

Scott has previously played well too. He's currently healthy and presumably won't be placed out of position; like his final days in Oakland. So I'm waiting to see. I'm waiting because it's not terribly far fetched to believe that these players will pan out nicely. So, I'm not outright dismissing them or acting as though there presence is something that shouldn't even be accounted for.

I am not dismissing him, I am counting him as what he is, a guy who has 1 1/2 sacks in the last 2 seasons. Do you not see the dilemma in your analysis that you are expecting the top 2 pass rushers to be a guy who isn't on the roster and a guy who has 1 1/2 sacks in 2 seasons, to support your argument that we don't need any pass rushers?
Can you name a team that has worse pass rushers than we do as of today? I can't.

Wilfork is a good player; even in Nickel.

Great player in the base, average player in the nickel.

Fanene will be in a role that suits him nicely.

What role do you have him in?

And again, Love and Pryor provide depth at DT.

If you are talking about a 43, Love starts, and he is not a quality starter.
Pryor? I don't know why I would have any confidence that he can do anything. I certainly hope that if he is being relied on a key part of the team that we draft some one in the first 4 rounds to compete, and likely take his job. 11 games in 2 years and 1 combined career sack isn't the makings of a guy we can't upgrade.

It's really not nearly as hopeless as you are making it out to be.

There are pieces, but if we do not add more, it actuallly is pretty hopeless, especially in terms of nickel/dime DL.
I think we can get by with what we have in the base D, but the fact that we have no depth at DE and OLB and would be projecting the only 2 above average DL we have to play every snap of every game, the base will suffer too.
You have named names, but the roles you are putting those names into are in many cases siginificantly greater than they have proven they can handle.



Here is an example. Last year we struggled in nickel/dime defense, as much from pass rush as coverage.
We have lost our top 2 pass rushers, and replaced them with 1 guy, who has 1 1/2 sacks in 2 years.
Losing your best 2 pass rushers and adding one who isn't as good as either on a defense that couldn't pressure the QB on 3rd down, is a substantial downrade of a defense.