Rumors=bullcrap

[Stinger226]

Just seen an national article that stated THE BEARS PURSUE BYRD AND WARD.

 

There was an article in the SunTimes by Jahns that stated the Bears might be interested in going after those two because we had bad safeties last year.

So someone else uses that to write an article that states we are pursuing them.

 

Rumors get started on opinions and then they become statements. It is all bull crap.

 

Ill stick with Brad Briggs,and weed thru the rest.

[scs787]

Just seen an national article that stated THE BEARS PURSUE BYRD AND WARD.

 

There was an article in the SunTimes by Jahns that stated the Bears might be interested in going after those two because we had bad safeties last year.

So someone else uses that to write an article that states we are pursuing them.

 

Rumors get started on opinions and then they become statements. It is all bull crap.

 

Ill stick with Brad Briggs,and weed thru the rest.

 

 

But..but... Brad Biggs thinks we'll be in on Bennett/Johnson/Houston....=p just messin with you.

 

 

They'd have the money but that's not where they need to invest. Should be BS

[Stinger226]

But..but... Brad Biggs thinks we'll be in on Bennett/Johnson/Houston....=p just messin with you.

 

 

They'd have the money but that's not where they need to invest. Should be BS

I wasnt agreeing with it just tried to show on one person suggests something and another person considers it a fact.

[Mongo3451]

We could have Ronnie Lott and Ed Reed in their prime and they would suck with the front 7 we had on the field. If they are writing that, they are idiots. For Emery to pull that string, I'm excited knowing he has a plan for protecting them. Unlike what JA did when he thought Cutler was going to fix the OL and WR corps...

[AZ54]

I vote for trench warfare too.

[jason]

Everyone hear knows I'm a bit advocate of trench warfare considering my multi-year OL rant. On defense, however, I don't believe it's the same.

 

On offense, if the QB loses efficacy, the entire offense dies. So there is a premium on protecting the QB with a good OL.

 

On defense, there is no single player being defended behind the DL. It's entirely possible to have average players on the DL with a superior 2nd and 3rd level, and have great success. Upgrading the safeties allows the CBs to gamble more, which changes the timing on passing plays, which allows for the subpar DL to create more pressure/sacks. I believe a team with Ronnie Lott and Ed Reed in their prime would have so many crazy advantages in terms of play recognition and range that the defense could effectively send 6, if not 7, at the QB on just about every play, especially if you team them up with above average CBs like Peanut and Jennings.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

Everyone hear knows I'm a bit advocate of trench warfare considering my multi-year OL rant. On defense, however, I don't believe it's the same. On offense, if the QB loses efficacy, the entire offense dies. So there is a premium on protecting the QB with a good OL. On defense, there is no single player being defended behind the DL. It's entirely possible to have average players on the DL with a superior 2nd and 3rd level, and have great success. Upgrading the safeties allows the CBs to gamble more, which changes the timing on passing plays, which allows for the subpar DL to create more pressure/sacks. I believe a team with Ronnie Lott and Ed Reed in their prime would have so many crazy advantages in terms of play recognition and range that the defense could effectively send 6, if not 7, at the QB on just about every play, especially if you team them up with above average CBs like Peanut and Jennings.

 

The QB wouldn't have to do anything but hand off and watch the RB run 30-40 yards on every play. That's why our mediocre safety's and LB's looked terrible. Even Ronnie Lott or Ed Reed would look silly at times trying to stop a RB that is at full speed.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bears4Ever_34]

Brad Biggs is full of shit half the time he speaks as well.. Dan Pompei is the worst. I'm just going to wait and see what happens this year. I'd love for the Bears to sign both safeties this off-season and shore up the back end of the D in free agency. Then we can focus on the D-Line/CB positions in the draft.

[scs787]

The QB wouldn't have to do anything but hand off and watch the RB run 30-40 yards on every play. That's why our mediocre safety's and LB's looked terrible. Even Ronnie Lott or Ed Reed would look silly at times trying to stop a RB that is at full speed.

 

Ya, if we continue to play with 2 deep safeties they won't have much of an impact in the run game. If those guys cheat up then teams will exploit that over the top.

 

I still can't think of a team that had an "average" DL but a top notch secondary that had "great success".

 

Seahawks DL made over 30 million dollars last year.

 

Brandon Mebane- 5M

Chris Clemons- 7.3

Red Bryant- 7

Cliff Avril- 6.5

Michael Bennett- 4.8

 

 

[jason]

The QB wouldn't have to do anything but hand off and watch the RB run 30-40 yards on every play. That's why our mediocre safety's and LB's looked terrible. Even Ronnie Lott or Ed Reed would look silly at times trying to stop a RB that is at full speed.

 

I don't believe that's true. Your logic fails because in my scenario the LB and secondary are above average. The Bears last year were below average in all three levels of defense. You put last year's DL with Otis Wilson, Mike Singletary, and Wilbur Marshall and you'd have ENTIRELY different results.

[madlithuanian]

Yeah, but those guys are the like having the Avengers on your team...

 

 

 

I don't believe that's true. Your logic fails because in my scenario the LB and secondary are above average. The Bears last year were below average in all three levels of defense. You put last year's DL with Otis Wilson, Mike Singletary, and Wilbur Marshall and you'd have ENTIRELY different results.

 

[AZ54]

Ya, if we continue to play with 2 deep safeties they won't have much of an impact in the run game. If those guys cheat up then teams will exploit that over the top.

 

I still can't think of a team that had an "average" DL but a top notch secondary that had "great success".

 

Seahawks DL made over 30 million dollars last year.

 

Brandon Mebane- 5M

Chris Clemons- 7.3

Red Bryant- 7

Cliff Avril- 6.5

Michael Bennett- 4.8

 

 

You only get to do that when your QB is making less than $1mil. They got lucky last year in FA the way the market ended up. Reality is headed their way.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I don't believe that's true. Your logic fails because in my scenario the LB and secondary are above average. The Bears last year were below average in all three levels of defense. You put last year's DL with Otis Wilson, Mike Singletary, and Wilbur Marshall and you'd have ENTIRELY different results.

 

It's just difference of opinions. I believe having more talent on the front 4 will make a bigger difference than the back 4.

 

But the main key is balance and scheme. You can have players that a great a pressuring the QB, but they won't amount to anything unless you can stop the run first.

 

 

[Stinger226]

Brad Biggs is full of shit half the time he speaks as well.. Dan Pompei is the worst. I'm just going to wait and see what happens this year. I'd love for the Bears to sign both safeties this off-season and shore up the back end of the D in free agency. Then we can focus on the D-Line/CB positions in the draft.

I think he is full of information and is right most of the time, enlighten us with who you think is spot on for information? Other than you, I cant think of anybody else that is right all the time.

[madlithuanian]

I do agree.

 

Every talking head can't be wrong...games are won and lost in the trenches we've been told for eons.

 

It's like everything else...if you have great other parts, they make up for elements of the bad parts. But if you are in the QB's dish consistently or stuff runs consistently...the need for top tier LB's and DB's is lessened.

 

Just my thought, but I value the areas of D as such:

 

DL - A

LB - B

DB - C

 

Look at 85. Those were virtually the grades. We all love Fencik, Duerson, Richardson, etc. But they were not great. They were just good. I'm talking as a group. Having A+ on the Dl and LB corps, made a C+ group look like B's and A's every now and then.

 

Sure, every now and then great groups of DB's get coverage sacks, etc. But that happens less often than pure old fashioned pressure.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want all A's! But, if I had to choose, my preference would be in the order above.

 

It's just difference of opinions. I believe having more talent on the front 4 will make a bigger difference than the back 4.

 

But the main key is balance and scheme. You can have players that a great a pressuring the QB, but they won't amount to anything unless you can stop the run first.

 

[Stinger226]

Everyone hear knows I'm a bit advocate of trench warfare considering my multi-year OL rant. On defense, however, I don't believe it's the same.

 

On offense, if the QB loses efficacy, the entire offense dies. So there is a premium on protecting the QB with a good OL.

 

On defense, there is no single player being defended behind the DL. It's entirely possible to have average players on the DL with a superior 2nd and 3rd level, and have great success. Upgrading the safeties allows the CBs to gamble more, which changes the timing on passing plays, which allows for the subpar DL to create more pressure/sacks. I believe a team with Ronnie Lott and Ed Reed in their prime would have so many crazy advantages in terms of play recognition and range that the defense could effectively send 6, if not 7, at the QB on just about every play, especially if you team them up with above average CBs like Peanut and Jennings.

IMO, you have to have one stud on the line, one stud LBer and a saftey and CB that have there shit together. Then and only then can you fill the rest of the defense with average players.

 

Example-Seattle 1-very good LB-1 excellent S-1-excellent CB, and a DL with a lot of good players. Talent wins out if you want top 10 type of D.

 

Your a very smart guy but if you think you can be all mediocre up front, you dont have a very good D.

[Lucky Luciano]

I do agree.

 

Every talking head can't be wrong...games are won and lost in the trenches we've been told for eons.

 

It's like everything else...if you have great other parts, they make up for elements of the bad parts. But if you are in the QB's dish consistently or stuff runs consistently...the need for top tier LB's and DB's is lessened.

 

Just my thought, but I value the areas of D as such:

 

DL - A

LB - B

DB - C

 

i have to disagree somewhat on this.

 

although the DL is a high priority, in my opinion you need at least ONE good + to very good/excellent corner that can play man coverage. this is the difference between a good defense and a killer defense (you could even add one good + safety to this equation).

 

we have seen the results of a lack of high quality corners since the mid 80's (and actually before that). if a qb has a quick release there is nearly no way to stop him unless you can play bump and run off the LOS that gives your DL time to reach the qb. remember game 13 in 1985? remember the lovie days with his 10 yard cushions even with a good DL?

 

i have been expounding this concept for nearly a couple of decades.

 

Look at 85. Those were virtually the grades. We all love Fencik, Duerson, Richardson, etc. But they were not great. They were just good. I'm talking as a group. Having A+ on the Dl and LB corps, made a C+ group look like B's and A's every now and then.

 

again i somewhat disagree. especially on your take of gary fencik. fencik was one of the best safeties to ever play in chicago's modern era of football. although lacking speed, he was extremely smart and one of the best open field tacklers i have ever seen. agree by 85 his career was winding down but to say he was only "good" is to me a misstatement.

 

mike brown was a safety in a very similar vein. what he lacked in speed he used football smarts to make up for it and played the position at the highest level.

 

now on to the others... richardson was a good player as you say and had flashes of better. in my opinion leslie frazier was highly underrated and i believe he could be labeled as good +. if that idiot ortego hadn't contributed to ending his career the bears would have done a lot better post 85.

 

Sure, every now and then great groups of DB's get coverage sacks, etc. But that happens less often than pure old fashioned pressure.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want all A's! But, if I had to choose, my preference would be in the order above.

 

as i said, with a quick release qb you NEED a good + bump and run CB and at least one good to good + safety.

[madlithuanian]

I follow your takes. And I really don't disagree. My overall thought is very "broad brush stroke". However, I just want a b=pretty good defense right now. Killer isn't an option with what we have. A lot of your complains on the quick release have more to due with scheme. Recall Ditka screaming at Ryan to change it up...

 

***

 

Fencik was one of Chicago's best. Not an all time best. I love me some Fencik! Don't get me wrong. He was smart and a hard hitter. I think Plank was better. He was great. But, I'll give you Fencik was great...but I think I'm only doing so because I'm a homer and love that team too much to disagree!

 

I actually think Mike Brown was better. But injuries killed a potential HoF career.

 

*******

 

Overall, I still stand by my thoughts.

 

When starting from scratch, you want the most bang up front. Then the next level at LB, and then lastly on the last line of defense. A SB can't be poor in any of those areas. But w/o being great on the line, there is not chance at all. So, that's my my eggs are in that basket. I can easily flip flop B & C between the LB and DB corps. And at every level, there needs to be a good solid B player. So even a corps of C level DB's, there needs to be one Solid B. OUr DB's last year were not C average. They were D. Tillman was a C (he wasn't on the filed enough) and Jennings didn't play at that great of a level either (C+). It's just that Wrigth and Conte played at F levels.

 

I look at grades as A having HoF calibur players. B haveing pro bowl calibur level players. And C being just decent starter guys that will make a play and get burned 50/50. Average.

 

I see SEA last year as an A-/B+ on the DL, an A- at DB, and about a B- at LB. That's damn excellent. We, on the other hand were about a C-/D+ on the DL, about a C- on LB, and about a D on DB. Overall a D+. Our record and stats show it. Until we get to a solid B average, we won't win it all. That means isf we get lucky with some signings and the draft our DL needs to get to a C+, LB goes to a B, and CB goes to a C+. Then, we have a shot.

 

 

 

i have to disagree somewhat on this.

 

although the DL is a high priority, in my opinion you need at least ONE good + to very good/excellent corner that can play man coverage. this is the difference between a good defense and a killer defense (you could even add one good + safety to this equation).

 

we have seen the results of a lack of high quality corners since the mid 80's (and actually before that). if a qb has a quick release there is nearly no way to stop him unless you can play bump and run off the LOS that gives your DL time to reach the qb. remember game 13 in 1985? remember the lovie days with his 10 yard cushions even with a good DL?

 

i have been expounding this concept for nearly a couple of decades.

 

 

 

again i somewhat disagree. especially on your take of gary fencik. fencik was one of the best safeties to ever play in chicago's modern era of football. although lacking speed, he was extremely smart and one of the best open field tacklers i have ever seen. agree by 85 his career was winding down but to say he was only "good" is to me a misstatement.

 

mike brown was a safety in a very similar vein. what he lacked in speed he used football smarts to make up for it and played the position at the highest level.

 

now on to the others... richardson was a good player as you say and had flashes of better. in my opinion leslie frazier was highly underrated and i believe he could be labeled as good +. if that idiot ortego hadn't contributed to ending his career the bears would have done a lot better post 85.

 

 

 

as i said, with a quick release qb you NEED a good + bump and run CB and at least one good to good + safety.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

I follow your takes. And I really don't disagree. My overall thought is very "broad brush stroke". However, I just want a b=pretty good defense right now. Killer isn't an option with what we have. A lot of your complains on the quick release have more to due with scheme. Recall Ditka screaming at Ryan to change it up...

 

i understand your point but i will still reiterate... you HAVE to have at least one good + cornerback. it is critical in this day and age of the rules giving the offensive passing game a high advantage. a HOF guy would be great but a guy of the quality of woodson would go a LONG way in a quest for a superbowl WIN.

 

 

Fencik was one of Chicago's best. Not an all time best. I love me some Fencik! Don't get me wrong. He was smart and a hard hitter. I think Plank was better. He was great. But, I'll give you Fencik was great...but I think I'm only doing so because I'm a homer and love that team too much to disagree!

 

I actually think Mike Brown was better. But injuries killed a potential HoF career.

 

again in my opinion you are not correct on this. i watched fencik and planks entire careers. their combo was one of the MOST feared defensive back duo's in the entire nfl in the 70's. plank made the cover "Hitmen of the NFL" i believe in sports illustrated during that era (late 70's?).

 

doug plank was a freaking maniac. he never would have been allowed to play in today's nfl due to the helmet hits that was his forte'. this guy had no fear and would stick a guy going full tilt for devastating hits. the problem with that is he suffered a lot of, in those days, "getting his bell rung". in other words he was getting a ton of concussions. thus his short career.

 

planks biggest problem was he was a poor tackler or at least used tackling as a last resort if he thought he had the shot. if the ball carrier didn't drop when plank hit him at a hundred miles an hour he would be free to move down the field for extra yardage.

 

this is where fencik came in. i can't tell you how many times i saw fencik come in and make a beautiful open field tackle on a guy plank didn't knock down or add to planks hit. it was beautiful to see and made them the deadliest most feared duo in the nfl at that time to any receiver coming over the middle.

 

that is NOT to say that fencik was not a hard hitter either because he was. but he was smart enough to know where and when to put the big hit on.

 

fencik finished his career with 38 interceptions, which he returned for 488 yards and a touchdown. He also recorded 2 sacks and recovered 14 fumbles, returning them for 65 yards.

 

fencik missed very few games in his NFL career. He made the pro bowl in 1980-1981 and was voted all pro in 81.

 

he was a field general and one of the best i have seen over the years play in the nfl. he may not go to the HOF but that certainly does not diminish his accomplishments as a top tier free safety in the nfl.

 

When starting from scratch, you want the most bang up front. Then the next level at LB, and then lastly on the last line of defense. A SB can't be poor in any of those areas. But w/o being great on the line, there is not chance at all. So, that's my my eggs are in that basket. I can easily flip flop B & C between the LB and DB corps. And at every level, there needs to be a good solid B player. So even a corps of C level DB's, there needs to be one Solid B. OUr DB's last year were not C average. They were D. Tillman was a C (he wasn't on the filed enough) and Jennings didn't play at that great of a level either (C+). It's just that Wrigth and Conte played at F levels.

 

I look at grades as A having HoF calibur players. B haveing pro bowl calibur level players. And C being just decent starter guys that will make a play and get burned 50/50. Average.

 

i am not disagreeing with DL being the key in any defense. but if you want to win the big ones with any consistency you HAVE to have a good + group of DB's and that includes especially a cover corner. he has to be able to play bump and run and have the speed to enforce that type of play downfield by staying with his assignment.

 

look at the mid to late 80's. we had maybe the best DL in nfl history. our problems arose in the playoffs against good + QB's who got rid of the ball before our ends and tackles could disrupt them. vestee jackson? lemon head? etc. just couldn't play man coverage (i know our offense, qb especially, was not good but the key to our defenses demise was pass coverage).

[scs787]

Good CBs? Absolutely. Good safeties? Debatable.

 

I'll always come back to the 2012 team when it comes to the safety argument.

[madlithuanian]

Bottom line, is I really can't argue against your points. All seem valid (Epsecially on Fencik...hell, I think you may have just convninced me he was better than Plank. Almost)

 

I just look at successful SB teams, and they are the ones that get to the QB consitently. Ones that have long sustained drives utilizing smart QB play and good running. The reason our 80's Bears teams failed was because of the O after McMahon's injury, not because of the D. Also, that they ran up agasint great teams like the Giants, SF, and when the planets aligned for the Redskins. It's easy to say we should have won more, but we weren't the only good team in the NFC. Our D did decline, but in 1986, it was actually ranked better than 85. And it declined slowly. It's the lack of QB and WR that killed us.

 

We have the O right now. But we are miles away on D. To bridge that gap fast...the best way, in my opinion, is on the DL. You try to get better everywhere on D, but you place the big bet on the DL.

 

 

i understand your point but i will still reiterate... you HAVE to have at least one good + cornerback. it is critical in this day and age of the rules giving the offensive passing game a high advantage. a HOF guy would be great but a guy of the quality of woodson would go a LONG way in a quest for a superbowl WIN.

 

 

 

 

again in my opinion you are not correct on this. i watched fencik and planks entire careers. their combo was one of the MOST feared defensive back duo's in the entire nfl in the 70's. plank made the cover "Hitmen of the NFL" i believe in sports illustrated during that era (late 70's?).

 

doug plank was a freaking maniac. he never would have been allowed to play in today's nfl due to the helmet hits that was his forte'. this guy had no fear and would stick a guy going full tilt for devastating hits. the problem with that is he suffered a lot of, in those days, "getting his bell rung". in other words he was getting a ton of concussions. thus his short career.

 

planks biggest problem was he was a poor tackler or at least used tackling as a last resort if he thought he had the shot. if the ball carrier didn't drop when plank hit him at a hundred miles an hour he would be free to move down the field for extra yardage.

 

this is where fencik came in. i can't tell you how many times i saw fencik come in and make a beautiful open field tackle on a guy plank didn't knock down or add to planks hit. it was beautiful to see and made them the deadliest most feared duo in the nfl at that time to any receiver coming over the middle.

 

that is NOT to say that fencik was not a hard hitter either because he was. but he was smart enough to know where and when to put the big hit on.

 

fencik finished his career with 38 interceptions, which he returned for 488 yards and a touchdown. He also recorded 2 sacks and recovered 14 fumbles, returning them for 65 yards.

 

fencik missed very few games in his NFL career. He made the pro bowl in 1980-1981 and was voted all pro in 81.

 

he was a field general and one of the best i have seen over the years play in the nfl. he may not go to the HOF but that certainly does not diminish his accomplishments as a top tier free safety in the nfl.

 

 

 

i am not disagreeing with DL being the key in any defense. but if you want to win the big ones with any consistency you HAVE to have a good + group of DB's and that includes especially a cover corner. he has to be able to play bump and run and have the speed to enforce that type of play downfield by staying with his assignment.

 

look at the mid to late 80's. we had maybe the best DL in nfl history. our problems arose in the playoffs against good + QB's who got rid of the ball before our ends and tackles could disrupt them. vestee jackson? lemon head? etc. just couldn't play man coverage (i know our offense, qb especially, was not good but the key to our defenses demise was pass coverage).

 

[Lucky Luciano]

Good CBs? Absolutely. Good safeties? Debatable.

 

I'll always come back to the 2012 team when it comes to the safety argument.

 

if you are saying you don't need a good + safety i have to disagree.

 

you can cheat with one lesser quality player at both positions but you are in trouble if both players at CB or S are less than good.

 

you can get by with one average CB if you have a good + one who can cover man. but you need at least ONE good + safety and preferably a free safety thus for his help covering a weaker cb's man or covering a 3rd receiver.

[Lucky Luciano]

I just look at successful SB teams, and they are the ones that get to the QB consitently. Ones that have long sustained drives utilizing smart QB play and good running. The reason our 80's Bears teams failed was because of the O after McMahon's injury, not because of the D. Also, that they ran up agasint great teams like the Giants, SF, and when the planets aligned for the Redskins. It's easy to say we should have won more, but we weren't the only good team in the NFC. Our D did decline, but in 1986, it was actually ranked better than 85. And it declined slowly. It's the lack of QB and WR that killed us.

 

We have the O right now. But we are miles away on D. To bridge that gap fast...the best way, in my opinion, is on the DL. You try to get better everywhere on D, but you place the big bet on the DL.

 

we are not really that far apart in our thinking but you have to realize this... in order to give your DL time to get to the qb you HAVE to be able to cover the wideouts off the LOS. it takes any lineman X amount of time to get to the qb unless there is a glaring mistake by an offensive tackle or guard. this is the time you need to cover that receiver to prevent the easy dump off for 4-8 yards and extending drives.

 

i agree with the mcmahon senario. qb was our biggest problem in that era along with ditka. but if you remember watching the playoffs our defense was picked apart by teams scheming for the quick release (example west coast offense by the 9ers). we had nobody to jam them at the line to disrupt the timing and cover them long enough for hampton and dent to make a play. this is one of the same problems we had with lovie for 9 years.

 

so yes, we need a lot better DL but to go further we also need to be able to nullify to some degree a passing attack, short OR long and stop these god awful 7 and 8 minute drives by our opponents keeping our offense off the field.

[scs787]

if you are saying you don't need a good + safety i have to disagree.

 

you can cheat with one lesser quality player at both positions but you are in trouble if both players at CB or S are less than good.

 

you can get by with one average CB if you have a good + one who can cover man. but you need at least ONE good + safety and preferably a free safety thus for his help covering a weaker cb's man or covering a 3rd receiver.

 

The 2012 team had Conte/Wright and still ranked 5th defensively.

 

Good corners are an absolute must, esp. in todays NFL. I don't even think it's wise to have 1 average one, a lot of good duos out there.....

 

Speaking of rumors and WR duos Detroit is rumored to be highly interested in Sammy Watkins. That's fuckin scary. Watkins probably won't be there but if they still decide to take a WR like Mike Evans those guys can be really scary.

[madlithuanian]

Agreed.

 

I'm not saying in my example that the DB's be awful, they just need not be great. Part of that is also scheme. And there I have big concerns as well.

 

I do think a lot of our failing in your examples on D in the 80's was scheme related. It certainly was under Smith. I can't remember how many times I yeled at the TV saying to get up the damn LOS only to see the opponent connect for a 6 yard completion!

 

Agreed. We need improvement in all 3 areas. To that, I'm in 100% agreement. I think we only disagree in the value placed on the 3 segments. I'm placing more on the front and you're placing more on the back. Neither of us are discounting any segment...just placing greater value on one segment over another.

 

 

we are not really that far apart in our thinking but you have to realize this... in order to give your DL time to get to the qb you HAVE to be able to cover the wideouts off the LOS. it takes any lineman X amount of time to get to the qb unless there is a glaring mistake by an offensive tackle or guard. this is the time you need to cover that receiver to prevent the easy dump off for 4-8 yards and extending drives.

 

i agree with the mcmahon senario. qb was our biggest problem in that era along with ditka. but if you remember watching the playoffs our defense was picked apart by teams scheming for the quick release (example west coast offense by the 9ers). we had nobody to jam them at the line to disrupt the timing and cover them long enough for hampton and dent to make a play. this is one of the same problems we had with lovie for 9 years.

 

so yes, we need a lot better DL but to go further we also need to be able to nullify to some degree a passing attack, short OR long and stop these god awful 7 and 8 minute drives by our opponents keeping our offense off the field.