Don't the Eagles play a crazy variety of formations on D?

Good point.

No, they are pretty much a wide-9 team that used to incorporate a lot of fire-zone concepts. If Andy would be open to a fire-zone based 3-4 ala Washington, Pittsburgh, GB, it would be great IMO.

Yup.

THAT I'd be all on board with...

I'd rather see us stay in the 3-4 but with a more aggressive approach. Trying to fit Hali and Houston into a 4-3 would be much harder than changing the mindset of Jackson and replacing Dorsey.

If we do go back to the 43 id like to see us bring in Lovie Smith. His defenses are always outstanding.

I'd be down with that, but just doubt he's going back to a DC.

Now that would be a good hire.

Eh, personally i could do without him.

That read & react stuff is played out, lets set the tone with aggression.

Eh i tend to love defenses which value turnovers and scoring off them..

You need so much more elite level play nowdays to run the tampa-2 effectively IMO.

Your corners have to be outstanding in run support, physical to re-route WRs at the LOS and smart in understanding your gaps in zone and where soft spots are, for example.

Where did it get them?

Chicago has elite players for the T2 in both corners, Briggs, Urlacher, and Peppers. Shea isn't chopped liver and Roach is serviceable. You also have to have rangy safeties as they're responsible for 2 halves of the field for most of your base calls.

Bears defense is soo much more than just tampa 2. Also we have one outstanding corner who excels in run support in Flowers.

The bears always manage to just plug in corners opposite tillman as their scheme is corner friendly. Theyve had a bunch of guys who have had good years playing in Lovies D