Jets tried to trade for Betts

Bottom line, we already saw what these four guys were able to give us last year. What would give you the impression that there's some sort of magical turn-around in store?


This statement could apply to any group on the defense. We just disagree about who's more to blame, I guess. My perception was that the DTs played at about the same level they had in 04 and 05 when we were great against the run. I thought the drop off was at LB and DE - mainly because Carter had trouble against power and Holdman just lacked talent. I wish the fact that the coaches seem (and I emphasize SEEM) to agree with me were more reassuring than it is. Your analysis could well be the correct one. I think we all could agree that Tackle will have to be dealt with next year if not this.

My bottom line is that I think we're better off with Golston and Griffin than we are with Daniels and Carter. Carter MAY be a bust and Daniels is DEFINITELY getting up there in age.

I would also say that the Stubblefield/Wilkinson argument is not wholly irrelevant. We must have learned something from that. I think the lesson is that improving the DT position is not a silver bullet that will improve the play of other positions - which is one of the main arguments you hear from the Branch faction. Can't we also say that having Adams will improve the play of Golston? Also, there are reports that Branch may have some Stubblebutt-like tendencies. (weight, poor work habits, etc.)

This statement could apply to any group on the defense. We just disagree about who's more to blame, I guess. My perception was that the DTs played at about the same level they had in 04 and 05 when we were great against the run. I thought the drop off was at LB and DE - mainly because Carter had trouble against power and Holdman just lacked talent. I wish the fact that the coaches seem (and I emphasize SEEM) to agree with me were more reassuring than it is. Your analysis could well be the correct one. I think we all could agree that Tackle will have to be dealt with next year if not this.

My bottom line is that I think we're better off with Golston and Griffin than we are with Daniels and Carter. Carter MAY be a bust and Daniels is DEFINITELY getting up there in age.

I would also say that the Stubblefield/Wilkinson argument is not wholly irrelevant. We must have learned something from that. I think the lesson is that improving the DT position is not a silver bullet that will improve the play of other positions - which is one of the main arguments you hear from the Branch faction. Can't we also say that having Adams will improve the play of Golston? Also, there are reports that Branch may have some Stubblebutt-like tendencies. (weight, poor work habits, etc.)

From everything I've read, reports indicate that coaches seem to be more taken with Adams and Anderson rather than Branch. So my argument, and my sig might just be moot.

Certainly, if what they're saying about Branch is true, then stay away from him. Take the best player available at the position your weakest at -- in our case, defensive line. I like the pickup of London Fletcher. I'm fine with Marshall back to the outside, Marcus Washinton at the other end, and hopefully Rocky will make a push.

Now, back to Stubby and Big Daddy -- if anything, we learned that free agent busts are part of the game. But that doesn't mean we never draft or pick up anymore defensive tackles ever again! It just means you have to do better homework and hope the guy you select flourishes in the system you have.

By the way, I'm not under any delusions that the pass rush is A-OK with Carter and Daniels. I've never been impressed with either one. And Renaldo Wynn should thank his lucky stars he's been invited back season after season for the last 4 years. He's been a complete waste. We need help there too in a drastic way.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you can have your choice of a dominant defensive end or defensive tackle, (we'll use Jevon Kearse in his rookie year or Warren Sapp at his peak) I've always thought that the D-tackle will improve both your pass rush and your run-stopping ability moreso than the other way around. Adding a sack master at the end will help you pressure the QB, but to depend on him to shed the pulling guard or the fullback and make the stop would be a bit too much to ask. It just seems like the benefit of the D-tackle gives you a slight edge in overall improvement.

But, like I said, reports indicate that we're leaning towards DE anyway. If he's the better pick at #6 and the next best defensive tackle isn't nearly as valuable, then you obviously pick the better guy.