Quote:I understand completely, my point is we don't have the playmakers/talent on defense to run man, cover 2, Tampa 2, cover 3, cover 4, zone blitz, man blitz etc.... We'd struggle in any defense, there isn't one guy on this defense offensive coordinators have to scheme around, and that's a problem in the NFL.

 

I think the FS is a problem (we don't have a natural FS, much less one with great range). Why didn't we address it? There were several players available (Jenkins, Byrd, Clark, etc) who would have been upgrades? Probably because they weren't a "fit" for this Seattle scheme we're "trying" to run. We had a LB who can cover, and after one injury despite being an iron man for his entire career, we let him go because we wanted to "get younger". There were veteran options at LB too, but we chose the "young" route with Hayes (last year) and Watson (this year).

 

Regardless, even with the team we have now, a Cover-2 concept would be an improvement. Not every team has an Antonio Gates or Jimmy Graham that would destroy us. For many years, our defense used variations of Cover 2 concepts and kept offenses in front of us. It usually resulted in us getting dink-and-dunked to death in a bend/dont-break deal. I rather us see that than get constantly gashed by big plays.

---