Posnanski: You play to win the game

[Paniero]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200.../herm.edwards/


You play to win the game: In defense of the Chiefs coach in limbo

I like Kansas City Chiefs coach-in-limbo Herm Edwards. This has caused great consternation among friends and readers, but there it is anyway ... I like him personally, I like him professionally, I like his energy, I like his enthusiasm for football and life, I like that he might at any time go off on a "You play to win the game," rant, I like the way players seem to play hard for him.

Of course, I don't really like the way he coaches actual football games ... and, as they say in Swingers, there's the rub. The Chiefs went 2-14 this year, and while Herm and the guys will talk about games the Chiefs should have won (both San Diego games, the Jets game, the Bucs game), that is the loser's lament, and the truth is they SHOULD have lost the Oakland game*.

*And surely would had the Raiders not been the Raiders and tried a bizarre fake field goal where the holder actually attempted to flip the ball between his legs to a sprinting Sebastian Janikowski -- well, as close to sprinting as Sebastian Janikowski can simulate. The ball was fumbled, of course, the Chiefs returned it for a touchdown, that's a 10-point swing and one of the many times I have watched a Raiders game and thought that if I was Al Davis I would fire somebody at halftime. Preferably myself.

Anyway, in the NFL, close losses don't mean a thing, and you are what your record says you are, and the Chiefs were an awful and poorly coached football team. Michael Rosenberg and I have had an ongoing debate all year about the Lions and Chiefs -- which team is worse -- and he sent along this great statistic:

The Chiefs had 10 sacks*, lowest total in NFL history. Rosey points out that is 17 percent of the sack total of the league leader, Dallas, and it's about one third of the league average. Worth noting: You probably remember that the Chiefs knocked Tom Brady out for the season, but Brady was NOT sacked on the play when he got hurt. In fact, he completed a long pass to Randy Moss (who fumbled).

*Here, for posterity, are the Chiefs' sacks for 2008 (and I do break out what I call the "legitimate" sacks -- these would be sacks where the quarterback drops back and, before he can find a receiver, is brought to the ground by a defender. The Chiefs had, by my calculations, four-and-a-half legit sacks all year):

Week 1:Matt Cassel sacked by lineman Alfonso Boone on attempted flea flicker.

Cassel sacked legit by linebacker Derrick Johnson

Week 4:Jay Cutler sacked legit by Johnson

Week 8:Brett Favre sacked legit by Tamba Hali -- first legitimate sack by a defensive lineman. And it's Week 8.

Week 10:Philip Rivers ran around the pocket for what seemed like an an hour, took off running and was was dragged to the ground about an inch and a half behind the line of scrimmage by touted first-round pick Glenn Dorsey. Minus-1. This is Dorsey's season total of sacks.

Rivers sacked legit by backup defensive end Ron Edwards.

Week 15: Rivers has ball knocked out of his hands as Hali was running by. That counts as a sack.

Rivers has ball knocked out of his hands AGAIN as Hali runs by. Counts as a sack again. If not for Phillip Rivers, the Chiefs would have ... well, been even worse.

Rivers running around again, all day to throw, finally takes off and is dragged down by just-picked-off-waiver defensive end Justin Babin. Minus-2.

Week 17:Ryan Fitzpatrick steps up in the pocket and is sacked semi-legit by Babin. That's the half-legit sack.

The Lions, meanwhile, had four interceptions this year, and that is an NFL record as well.* As Michael points out that is 15% of the league-leading total (Baltimore) and less than one-third the league average. The secondary had one interception and, best I can tell, 14 passes defensed all season. You wonder how much worse the Lions would have been had they not played any safeties at all.

*The Houston Oilers had three interceptions in 1982, but that, of course, was the strike season and only nine games. Before that you have to go back to the St. Louis Gunners of 1934 -- they only had three interceptions, but this was in part because they were only invited to play three games that season after the Cincinnati Reds were thrown out of the league.

Michael's point being: There are basically two ways to stop a passing attack. You get to the quarterback or you hound the receivers. The Chiefs may have been the worst in NFL history at one way, the Lions may have been the worst in NFL history the other way.

Anyway, back to Herm Edwards. I think he was probably underrated as a coach before he came to Kansas City. He did take the Jets to the playoffs three times in five years ... and these are the NEW YORK JETS. They had been to the playoffs once in nine seasons before Edwards took over. The coach who has taken more Jets team to the playoffs than any other? Herm Edwards.

But, it's fair to say that people in New York do not see Herm in the same light. My buddy Vackie and I have had a longstanding argument about Edwards' time with the Jets ... he believes that Herm inherited a good football team from the Bill Parcells era and underachieved with them. I see a team that Parcells himself coached to 8-8 in 1999, then Al Groh coached to 9-7 before getting the hell out, a team with 37-year old Vinny Testaverde at quarterback, a team that had finished in the bottom half in points the previous two seasons, a team with, at best, a mediocre defense.

Herm took that team to the playoffs in 2001. Then he inserted Chad Pennington into the lineup and took them back to the playoffs in 2002. The second year his Jets obliterated the Indianapolis Colts in the wild-card round before losing at Oakland. The Jets were brutal in 2003 -- lost their first four, never recovered -- but then they were back in the playoffs in 2004, won a playoff game and should have beaten Pittsburgh to go to the AFC Championship*.

*I do realize that the loss to Pittsburgh - in large part because of Herm's conservative nature -- is actually a strong argument AGAINST Herm Edwards' coaching ability. But I'm not really discussing his coaching ability as much as saying that, all in all, I think he did a good job in New York.

The Jets had all kinds of injury problems in 2005 and were awful. Herm was traded to Kansas City in a rather nasty little transaction that left a lot of people in New York ticked off and/or grateful. Herm left behind a team good enough to go 10-6 under Eric Mangini the next year. At the time, people in New York were saying that this proved how bad a coach Herm was -- look at what Eric Mangini was able to do with the boys! I think now you can argue pretty persuasively that Mangini can't coach a lick.

So Herm came to Kansas City, and what he did not know -- what was hard to know at the time -- is that he was entering a DREADFUL situation. The Chiefs were, in my mind, the worst kind of team for any new coach. They were bad but nobody knew it yet. The offensive line, which had been the best in football, was crumbling (and before Herm coached his first game, the brilliant left tackle Willie Roaf retired). Their best player for years, Priest Holmes, was out with a strange neck injury and nobody had any idea when or if he would come back (he did not that year). The quarterback, Trent Green, was old and just about finished and also about to get knocked unconscious for 10 minutes in his first game. The Chiefs' best wide receiver was 33-year-old Eddie Kennison, and their second-best receiver was someone named Samie Parker.

The defense was absolutely abysmal and had been for five years.

But the expectation level was high because the Chiefs had gone 10-6 the year before in Dick Vermeil's farewell tour, thanks in large part to the emergence of Larry Johnson and the last moments of brilliance for a great offensive line. With the offensive line crumbled, with his starting quarterback on the bench (and Damon Huard playing much of the time), with more or less the same defensive players who had finished 25th, 31st, 29th and 32nd in yards allowed the previous four years -- the Chiefs and Herm rode Larry Johnson* to a 9-7 record and lucked into the playoffs, where they were promptly humiliated by the Indianapolis Colts.

*And I mean the RODE Larry Johnson. He carried the ball 416 times, an NFL record.

In K.C., people felt like that team should have done so much more -- in general, Chiefs fans have never liked Herm Edwards. He does have a way of ticking off fans. Still, I remain convinced that it was the best coaching job of Herm's career.

The next year, everything fell apart. The Chiefs tried one more time to raise the ghosts and play with the ancient offensive line (now Hall of Fame guard Will Shields had retired as well), with Huard at quarterback, with old guys everywhere. The Chiefs started the year 4-3, then lost their last nine ... and it was pretty ugly those last nine. It wouldn't be exactly right to say that Herm lost the team. That team was lost from the start.

Then, the Chiefs announced that they were going to start over, go young, play a bunch of rookies, create havoc with their energy and enthusiasm and speed. Sure, they would make some mistakes. Sure, they would have to learn how to win. But this was the way to go -- the Chiefs had to go back to the beginning, regain their football soul. They traded away Jared Allen, the NFL sack leader in 2007. They drafted a bunch of kids, invited a bunch more to try out, and they went into the season with a whole bunch of players nobody ever heard of. It was a noble effort.

Unfortunately, it flopped miserably. I like Herm Edwards enough to believe he was never really given a fair shot in Kansas City ... he was handed a Krypton team*, and he tried to pull off one of those Instant Rebuilding deals where you throw a whole bunch of young players out there, add water, and hope it works out. He really tried.

*A Krypton Team: A team that refuses to admit it's about to blow up.

But it doesn't matter. The Chiefs went 2-14, and as the boys at Upon Further Review point out, there have been 13 coaches who have won two or fewer games in what was NOT their first season as coach.

1971: Harvey Johnson, Bills, 1-13. Fired.
1979: Monte Clark, Lions, 2-14. Retained for five more years.
1981: Mike McCormick, Colts, 2-14. Canned.
1981: Ron Erhardt, Patriots, 2-14. Sacked.
1983: John McKay, Buccaneers, 2-14. Retained, went 6-10, Fired.
1986: Leeman Bennett,Buccaneers, 2-14. Booted.*
1996: Rich Kotitie, Jets. 1-15. Axed.
2000: Mike Riley, Chargers, 1-15. Dismissed.
2001: George Siefert, Panthers, 1-15. Discharged.
2002: Dick Lebeau, Bengals, 2-14. Dissed.
2004: Dennis Erickson, 49ers, 2-14. Pink slipped.
2005: Dom Capers, Texans, 2-14. Downsized.
2008: Rod Marinelli, Lions, 0-16. Made redundant.

*Bennett actually went 2-14 his first season too, and they kept him on. The second 2-14 was too much, apparently.

As you can see, 11 of the 13 were fired on the spot. One, John McKay, was retained out of respect for what he had done for the Bucs through the years. He was fired a year later.

And then there's the bizarre case of Detroit's Monte Clark. He went 2-14 in his second year, that was 1979. The UFR guys put the word "Success" next to his name, and indeed he coached another five seasons after his 2-14 year, so I know exactly what they mean. But I'm not sure that's precisely the right word. Clark and the Lions went 34-38-1 over those five seasons. The Lions did go to the playoffs twice (once in that crazy strike season -- they had a losing record and got obliterated by the Redskins in the playoff game). But I suspect few in Detroit look back with longing to the Monte Clark years.

Point is, you go 2-14 once you've had a year or two to work with your team, you are done. And I suspect Herm is done too. In a way I wish the Chiefs would just let him go now rather than make him wait through the interminable process of hiring a GM and then asking the GM what he wants to do and making it hard on everyone. I guess it's possible he could survive for one more year, especially if the GM process gets messy and delayed. I'm pretty sure that would not be good for anyone.

I still like Herm Edwards, as both a man and a football coach. I don't think he's a football genius, but I don't think there are many of those running around. I think he's a solid football guy who can and has built and coached playoff teams. I think he's a good person who inspires young people. I remain convinced that he's a coach who in the right situation (college football like Pete Carroll?) could be a big winner.

But this is not that situation. Sure, I see what's obvious. You can't go 2-14. You can't set an NFL record for fewest sacks. You can't give up more yards than any Chiefs team ever -- especially with the preposterous defenses the Chiefs have had the last few years. You can't go 2-14. You can't go into a year hoping that Brodie Croyle will be a franchise quarterback. You can't go into a year hoping that Brodie Croyle will stay healthy for a full game, much less a season. Also, you can't go 2-14.

Joe Posnanski is a columnist for the Kansas City Star and the author of joeposnanski.com.

[FringeNC]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

I'm not sure that I agree with that. Quite a bit of Carl hate was absorbed by the more powerful and doubly sinister Herm hate....

If you could comprise an appropriate pie graph indicating where fault lies for the current Chiefs situation, it would somehow equate to 133% Carl's fault and 102% Herm's fault....

I disagree with that. I think Herm has gotten off easy. There seems to be this believe that Carl was obstructionist in the "rebuilding" effort, yet there is no real evidence that this is true. Ya know, the story that Herm wanted to blow up the roster a year earlier...blah blah blah...but conveniently forgetting that Herm nonetheless had a draft class from that year. Suppose Herm did blow up the roster a year earlier, who would he have put on the roster? Where can you get these good younger players from, other than the draft?

Given the good positions we picked from, and given the extra picks from the Allen trade, do the Chiefs really have more young talent than should be expected?

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

I disagree with that. I think Herm has gotten off easy. There seems to be this believe that Carl was obstructionist in the "rebuilding" effort, yet there is no real evidence that this is true. Ya know, the story that Herm wanted to blow up the roster a year earlier...blah blah blah...but conveniently forgetting that Herm nonetheless had a draft class from that year. Suppose Herm did blow up the roster a year earlier, who would he have put on the roster? Where can you get these good younger players from, other than the draft?

Given the good positions we picked from, and given the extra picks from the Allen trade, do the Chiefs really have more young talent than should be expected?

excellent post

[EyePod]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

Herm being nice is irrelevant...that's just part of his snow job

"Hey, don't look at my record, just come have a beer on me! Yuck Yuck!"

Herm's buying everyone a beer???

[EyePod]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

100% agree.

Herm is not the guy to take us over the top. But he was never given a truly fair shake at fielding a competitive team. And I think he was instrumental in a very important move for this organization to move to youth and a rebuild.

I know most would disagree. But there is a lot of talk about KC being a very attractive place for a GM like Pioli to go to, and it's because the Chiefs have a lot of cheap, young players, a lot of future-bright players, and a ton of cap space. And I don't think that would have happened without Herm Edwards.

I'm thankful for that contribution but, again, more than happy to move on.

Yes.

[lazepoo]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

I disagree with that. I think Herm has gotten off easy. There seems to be this believe that Carl was obstructionist in the "rebuilding" effort, yet there is no real evidence that this is true. Ya know, the story that Herm wanted to blow up the roster a year earlier...blah blah blah...but conveniently forgetting that Herm nonetheless had a draft class from that year. Suppose Herm did blow up the roster a year earlier, who would he have put on the roster? Where can you get these good younger players from, other than the draft?

Given the good positions we picked from, and given the extra picks from the Allen trade, do the Chiefs really have more young talent than should be expected?

I really think that the Chiefs have better talent than they've shown, but deficient coaching has kept them from getting better... with some better instruction, I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge improvement from this year to next.

Something else that's missing from this team is veteran leadership. There don't seem to be a lot of guys on the team that can mentor some of the younger players and help coax better performance from them, but I think that starts at the top with the real coaches and not drawing more on what the veterans can do to help contribute to coaching up young talent.

[EyePod]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

the roster he put together?

He wasn't making personnel decisions then. CP was. Very few of those players were Herms. He still needs to go.

[EyePod]

By the way, while reading through all of these threads I think of Seinfeld. Everyone has their opinion on Herm, and after they talk about him, they say that he needs to go. Whenever they like him as a person or like him as a coach, just in a different situation, everyone keeps throwing in at the end of their post "but he still needs to go." Even JoPo did it!!

This is just like Seinfeld when they talk about not being gay, but "not that there's anything wrong with it!"

[Fish]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

I disagree with that. I think Herm has gotten off easy. There seems to be this believe that Carl was obstructionist in the "rebuilding" effort, yet there is no real evidence that this is true. Ya know, the story that Herm wanted to blow up the roster a year earlier...blah blah blah...but conveniently forgetting that Herm nonetheless had a draft class from that year. Suppose Herm did blow up the roster a year earlier, who would he have put on the roster? Where can you get these good younger players from, other than the draft?

Given the good positions we picked from, and given the extra picks from the Allen trade, do the Chiefs really have more young talent than should be expected?

Herm has gotten off easy? Like he did in New York?

There were quite a few examples of Herm and Carl having different ideas for the future of the franchise. Hell, in the middle of Hard Knocks we saw Herm begging to play the rookie QB, and Carl overruling with the Huard choice because Huard "Gave them the best chance to win now".

This is the first google hit for "Peterson Edwards disagree"

Edwards and Peterson had a few disagreements in their three years together, the biggest being the direction of the franchise: Edwards reportedly wanted to rebuild the team through the draft from the start, Peterson wanted to wait.
The Chiefs finally went in Edwards' direction this past offseason, purging most of the older players and replacing them through the draft.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1748175~Peterson_s_resignation_no_surprise_to_Edwards.html

If you don't see that Herm and Carl wanted to go in different directions, then you're fooling yourself...

[Hammock Parties]

I hated the article.

I like Herm. Rehash of history. I like Herm.

Boring.

[Rigodan]

Originally Posted by lazepoo

I don't think that it's coincidence, either, that both the lions and chiefs defenses are from the cover 2 family. Herm's not a big time coach anyway, but all of the tampa 2 disciples have been struggling defensively. Without ridiculous talent in every position, the scheme fails.

I'm not so sure about that. Herm's 2007 defense was pretty good imo. #1 in 3rd down defense, #2 in red zone defense, #5 pass defense, #5 in 1st downs allowed. If the offense could've actually stayed on the field for longer than 3 plays at a time they would have been even better. Also if they didn't have shit for a D-line. They definately didn't have ridiculous talent at every position. But since Carl traded away the most important element for a Tampa 2 defense, the pass rush, they were horrific this year.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by FringeNC

I disagree with that. I think Herm has gotten off easy. There seems to be this believe that Carl was obstructionist in the "rebuilding" effort, yet there is no real evidence that this is true. Ya know, the story that Herm wanted to blow up the roster a year earlier...blah blah blah...but conveniently forgetting that Herm nonetheless had a draft class from that year. Suppose Herm did blow up the roster a year earlier, who would he have put on the roster? Where can you get these good younger players from, other than the draft?

Given the good positions we picked from, and given the extra picks from the Allen trade, do the Chiefs really have more young talent than should be expected?

Here's my argument for why Peterson clearly obstructed the rebuild even if there's no direct proof. You can choose to take it or leave it. Your opinion.

#1 - http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...yer_main.aspx?
That's one of many sources that indicate CP's refusal to rebuild

#2 - All personnel decisions have to be cleared with Peterson. If Herm wants a player and Carl says no, tough shit. If we believe that to be true, then take a look at the personnel decisions made in 2006 and 2007. He signed Ty Law in 2006, Napoleon Harris, Huard and Damion McIntosh in 2007. None of those guys are free agents you sign during a rebuild. Those are older players with a 2-3 year window that you plug in to reload, not to rebuild. If Peterson is the final say in signing those guys, he had the power to support/veto such moves. He signed LJ and Gonzalez to HUGE contracts, even though they don't fit into long-term plans. The fact that he didn't make an effort to sign younger players and that he supported moves for older players is definitive proof that Carl Peterson did NOT want to rebuild in 2005 and 2006.

#3 - Carl Peterson has a 20+ year history of not rebuilding. He has a history of reloading teams to be just good enough to barely squeak into the playoffs, which fills seats. Knowing that, would it surprise you if Peterson wanted to reload instead of rebuild in 2006-2007?

#4 - Believe what you want to believe, but I think it's really fishy that Herm badly wanted Croyle to start in 2007 and then Huard ended up starting. Maybe Herm was lying, but it seems more likely that Peterson demanded Huard start in order to give the Chiefs a chance to be more competitive in the short-term

#5 - Again, if Peterson was truly passionate about a rebuild, he was the final decision-maker. And he did not cut guys like Wiegmann, Welbourn, Wesley, etc.... Now, maybe Herm had input, but I know one thing. When most coaches walk into new jobs, they want their own guys. I'm sure if Herm had his choice, he would have loved to have immediately cut all the old Vermeil guys and bring in Herm guys. The fact that the Chiefs clung to Vermeil guys seems like a strong indication that Peterson was the guy who wouldn't let them loose.


Again, choose to believe or not. None of that evidence is direct. But that's strong evidence that Peterson did in fact hold back the rebuild.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by lazepoo

I really think that the Chiefs have better talent than they've shown, but deficient coaching has kept them from getting better... with some better instruction, I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge improvement from this year to next.

Something else that's missing from this team is veteran leadership. There don't seem to be a lot of guys on the team that can mentor some of the younger players and help coax better performance from them, but I think that starts at the top with the real coaches and not drawing more on what the veterans can do to help contribute to coaching up young talent.

I think the Chiefs' talent could definitely be coached up. But the argument is that while Herm has to work with Taco Bell meat, most new coaches get to work with Filet Mignon.

Herm Edwards had to build almost an entire team through draft picks with 3 years of experience or less (nevermind that it usually takes 2-3 years to develop). And those draft picks were crappy, mid-round picks (you get crappy mid-round picks like #20 when your GM insists on building mediocre teams that consistently get you 9-7 records). The one stud they had on defense? The GM chased him away! So most of Herm's players are scrap players or players who are raw and need another year or two to develop.

Guys like Mike Smith... he walked into a situation where he was given solid free agent talent like John Abraham, Milloy, Michael Turner, and Eric Coleman, in addition to long-term talent like Keith Brooking and Todd McClure. In their last 5 drafts, they had a top 10 pick THREE TIMES. And in those drafts, they brought in solid players like Roddy White and Michael Jenkins (who have had more than 3 years to develop), and recent players like Sam Baker, Matt Ryan, Jamaal Anderson, and Chris Houston.

The Falcons rebuilt through 5+ years of solid drafting (with top 10 picks), veterans, and free agent acquisitions. The Chiefs rebuild through 3 years of drafts (with mid-round picks), no decent free agent acquisitions, and veterans who were 1-2 years away from retirement. So when we talk about "coaching up", we have to realize that the saying is completely true that the Chiefs clearly were working with chicken shit. Much easier to coach up a top 10 pick than it is an undrafted rookie.

[lazepoo]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I think the Chiefs' talent could definitely be coached up. But the argument is that while Herm has to work with Taco Bell meat, most new coaches get to work with Filet Mignon.

Herm Edwards had to build almost an entire team through draft picks with 3 years of experience or less (nevermind that it usually takes 2-3 years to develop). And those draft picks were crappy, mid-round picks (you get crappy mid-round picks like #20 when your GM insists on building mediocre teams that consistently get you 9-7 records). The one stud they had on defense? The GM chased him away! So most of Herm's players are scrap players or players who are raw and need another year or two to develop.

Guys like Mike Smith... he walked into a situation where he was given solid free agent talent like John Abraham, Milloy, Michael Turner, and Eric Coleman, in addition to long-term talent like Keith Brooking and Todd McClure. In their last 5 drafts, they had a top 10 pick THREE TIMES. And in those drafts, they brought in solid players like Roddy White and Michael Jenkins (who have had more than 3 years to develop), and recent players like Sam Baker, Matt Ryan, Jamaal Anderson, and Chris Houston.

The Falcons rebuilt through 5+ years of solid drafting (with top 10 picks), veterans, and free agent acquisitions. The Chiefs rebuild through 3 years of drafts (with mid-round picks), no decent free agent acquisitions, and veterans who were 1-2 years away from retirement. So when we talk about "coaching up", we have to realize that the saying is completely true that the Chiefs clearly were working with chicken shit. Much easier to coach up a top 10 pick than it is an undrafted rookie.

I don't think that many people would agree with your assessment of the Falcons' talent at the beginning of the year. Most every pundit was talking about how bare the Falcons' pantry was and that it would take years to recover, but they did the best with what they had and turned it into a playoff appearance and a solid season. That's what coaching up is. A top ten pick should play like one, always. It's getting the second day picks to play like first and second rounders that makes the difference. A sure sign of our coaching is a look at how our high draft picks are playing: Pollard isn't good judging from what we've seen, Hali and McBride look shitty, and even Dorsey -a can't miss prospect- performed well below expectations this season. It doesn't help an argument that Herm is doing the best with what he's got, especially when these guys are his hand-picked cream of the crop.

Also, the Chiefs were hardly devoid of talent when Herm arrived. Herm got a future HOfer in Gonzalez, solid contributors in Waters and LJ, and young talent like DJ and Allen. I don't think that the players you listed that were already on the team prior to Smith arriving in Atlanta were much better than what Herm had on the roster when he arrived here, especially when you consider that prior to this season most people would have agreed that Atlanta's top draft picks for the last few years were busts. He wanted to clean out the roster and go all youth, and this was the result of Herm having it his way.

[Hammock Parties]

The next coaching staff is going to show everyone just how ****ing incompetent Herm and his parade of clowns really were.

[lazepoo]

Originally Posted by Rigodan

I'm not so sure about that. Herm's 2007 defense was pretty good imo. #1 in 3rd down defense, #2 in red zone defense, #5 pass defense, #5 in 1st downs allowed. If the offense could've actually stayed on the field for longer than 3 plays at a time they would have been even better. Also if they didn't have shit for a D-line. They definately didn't have ridiculous talent at every position. But since Carl traded away the most important element for a Tampa 2 defense, the pass rush, they were horrific this year.

I can't argue that Carl traded away our pass rush, because he did, but I don't think that Allen was going to stay here, so it made sense to get what value we could for him. Our defense was ok, but not great, and a lot of Tampa 2 teams have been equally mediocre this year. The only real success I can think of is in Minnesota, and they have the benefit of arguably the best defensive line in the league.

My biggest problem with tampa 2 is it's a one-trick pony without top tier talent (like the williamses). We still couldn't stop the run in 07, and our defense still folded whenever it mattered because at its crux, tampa 2 is a reactive defense that is only truly effective when you have a stellar pass rush from your front four and your opponent is in a pass only situation. Compare that to a consistent performer like Dick LeBeau's defense that wants to impose its will on the offense and dictate the flow of the game regardless of circumstance.