Wynn restructures

Well said, Big C!i 2nd that...

The coaches want to keep Wynn. That should be enough. They see more film then you do and are on the field up close. Plus add all of the practice time they evaluate how each person performs in practice.
You can never judge defensive lineman on stats.
Last year Wyn lost his starting job, we brought in a pure pass rusher #99 and we got less sacks and our run defense went to hell. Are you blaming that on Wynn? Why aren't you blaming # 99 who is making more money than Wynn and in the first half of the season was pushed around like a little girl.
I iwould rather give up on the pass rush DE # 99 who gots a few sacks last year and than be one of the worst run defenses. #99 better improve his run stopping abilities or he will be cut.

Then you have to make the argument that it might have been the person playing behind him... Why isn't Holdman still on the hook? It must be because he's already gone. :)

Again, like I think Matty said, it was just a down year for the entire D as a whole last year. But unlike some others have suggested, an ENTIRE team doesn't regress like in from one year to the next. It was key injuries and key losses (as well as "key" additions like AA) that made this defense poor.

We recouped Smoot, have some decent depth at DB and LB AND have a proven player in the middle, leaving Marshall to play back in his spot where he dominated in 2004.

Dont even get me started on Wynn and Daniels. They suck, plain and simple. They are very vocal in post-game interviews after a loss, and that's it. What has Daniels done beside the 5 sack performance against that rookie Dallas tackle in 2005? Same for Wynn - competing in wing-eating contests with Randy Thomas for Comcast Sportsnet and being media-friendly has been the extent of his performance.

That said, I'm comfortable with his restructuring and saving us cap room, but if we have to depend on him for sacks and pressure, then I'm pretty f...g far from okay.

Wynn and Daniels were part of a top 10 D for us. When Williams D works, the Dline clogs the run and keeps people off the LBs and safeties so they can bring pressure. So tackle and sack stats aren't central to judging what works in this D.

That being said, GW and co clearly decided the trouble was behind the line, not on it. I hope they are right, because we did nothing to help the line. Wynn taking a pay cut is good, because he was not worth it at his current salary. Let's hope they use the extra cap to get some help, though there isn't much around.

The coaches want to keep Wynn. That should be enough. They see more film then you do and are on the field up close. Plus add all of the practice time they evaluate how each person performs in practice.
You can never judge defensive lineman on stats.
Last year Wyn lost his starting job, we brought in a pure pass rusher #99 and we got less sacks and our run defense went to hell. Are you blaming that on Wynn? Why aren't you blaming # 99 who is making more money than Wynn and in the first half of the season was pushed around like a little girl.
I would rather give up on the pass rush DE # 99 who got just a few sacks last year and than be one of the worst run defenses. #99 better improve his run stopping abilities or he will be cut. He is making too much money to be a pass rush only guy.

The coaches wanted Adam Archuleta. The coaches also wanted Andre Carter. So you basically destroyed your own argument.

Thanks!

Again, like I think Matty said, it was just a down year for the entire D as a whole last year. But unlike some others have suggested, an ENTIRE team doesn't regress like in from one year to the next. It was key injuries and key losses (as well as "key" additions like AA) that made this defense poor.

See, I think they can. In 1992, we went from a dominating offense the year before to one that couldn't score a touchdown over several weeks.

Of course you can regress in one year.

See, I think they can. In 1992, we went from a dominating offense the year before to one that couldn't score a touchdown over several weeks.

Of course you can regress in one year.

I was 10, I don't remember. :(

Could you, or anyone else who remembers tell me if there were any weird factors that year that caused such a drop off?

I was 10, I don't remember. :(

Could you, or anyone else who remembers tell me if there were any weird factors that year that caused such a drop off?

Nope. They got old. Simple as that. Art Monk lost a step, Ryp wasn't on the same page with Sanders and Clark, while guys like Bostic, Jacoby, and Grimm had been there for 12+ years. That led to a stall in the running game when Byner stuggled to get past the 1000 yard mark for the season. The D was a little bit better, and really they guided the team to the playoffs that year.

But by 1993 the team had completely run out of gas. The window can close fast. Any player will tell you that. I've posted this before, but on a Redskins post game show last season Charles Mann was co-hosting. The subject came up as to how fast guys can go from being serviceable to old. When Mann signed with the 49ers, he said that he got old almost as quick as the flight from D.C. to San Fran.

I believe the same thing happened to the front four from '05 to '06. That's what scares me for this season.

The '92 team was old, hell the '91 team wasn't full of spring chickens either.

But I think in '92 they mostly suffered from the classic Super Bowl hangover.

Here they were a team full of vets who finally reached the peak of the mountain and in dominant fashion. The offseason after the SB was full of distractions, book deals, commercials, etc., and they simply were not as hungry the next year.

I think that hurt them more than age.