why should the coaching be better? It's the same DC who I don't believe in, running a scheme that's not his forte, without the correct personel to run it, with gaping holes at certain starting positions (LBer/DE/completely unproven DTs that we're depending on), poor depth along the line (which has yet to prove a thing) and it's lost it's third most dependable player and leading sacker of a year ago (Okeafor). That's what makes me think they'll be worse. To me, that seems logical, not sure why you think I'd need a crystal ball to come to that conclusion.
In response to the coaching - I said that because Wiz has replaced Solomon, brought on some key staff to help Clancy. Plus wiz was around Dick Lebeau and schemed against him everyday so its likely he picked up some things doing that as well.
We have had gaping holes ALWAYS. In fact if you really go down every roster save a team or two I can argue gaping holes likely in every line of the defense. Lets look at the Niners for example. They are solid in alot of areas but have players on that D with little production, unproven, or that I have just never heard of at 3 - 4 positions on their defense. I would argue we have better playmakers.
And in a knee jerk sports community inudated with 'what have you done for me lately' and SportsCenter awashing replaying high lights in our heads we tend to forget what people have done previosuly. Did Clancy have a bad year last year? Absolutely. Did he have flaws in the two years prior such as giving up yards but not points and misdirection errors? For sure. Did we end up with good stats and win the turnover over battle more often than not in 04 and 05? IIRC Yes.
So while he probably was never as good as we thought when many were touting him back then, hes not as bad as he looked last year either. I don't blame his schemes as much as I blame the players quitting on the head coach and Pendergast getting less than best effort for much of the season. Sufficently motivated the D looked all world against Chicago in fact. You can argue well that was Grossman - but he looked great going in to that game. In fact his slide conicided with that performance.
As for Clancy not used to the 3-4. That is true but honestly I think he should have been a 3-4 guy from the beginning. He likes to bring guys up to stop the run and blitz from all angles. That is much more conducive to the 3-4 then it is a 4-3. Ask Dick Lebeau. It might take some adjustment time but I think eventually this defense was the right choice considering what our DC likes to do.
Okeafor is good but if that type of player make or breaks our entire defense we were going to be bad anyway. We should be able to replace his production at least some what.
Its likely a perspective thing. Kind of a glass half full - half empty kind of thing.
Guess we will find out Monday night.
