Well thanks for the nice words. As I have said many, many, many, many times when there is something positive to say I will certainly post it!
It helps when you use proper sentences and capitalisation. The abbreviations and lower case talk can be irritating and cause people to argue/object regardless of the validity of the point being made.
Yes it is; that is why you don't pass up on 3-4 defensive prospects like players like Mark Anderson (6-4 255 lbs 4-3 DE/3-4 OLB) and Anthony Montgomery (6-5 315 lbs 4-3 DT/3-4 DE) in the draft for the likes of Schlegel and Eric Smith.
In order for a 3-4 defense to be most effective, you need more than just solid play out of your OLBs.
The answer to this entire debate is simple...either compromise the defensive scheme to at least be hybrid to allow some of our top talent to shine..or rid ourselves of square pegs while their value is peaked. Mix in 4-3 looks to not only give the O another look but also to allow Vilma, Rhodes and Barton to use their speed and D rob to penetrate. Give unique fronts that will allow D rob to stunt and allow Vilma to roam. If that is not the plan. If we truly are switching to a full time 3-4, move Vilma while he's still valuable...and decide once and for all if D rob has a spot on the DL which will highlight his skill..if the answers no...move him as well.
Losing ferg was not a big deal, Robertson made him look good not the other way around. in '05 Dewayne was hurt, he was healthy again last year and performed very well although playing out of position. Ferg hasn't done much since leaving us, we could have found another DT to play alongside Dewayne. We were and still are better suited to play the 4-3. Vilma, Robertson and ellis(along w/ Rhodes) are the 3 most talented guys on our D s you want a D to play to their strengths not to play towards lesser talented players strengths. We have always heard how flexibility is what Eric wants but we havn't seen him be as fexible as he needs to be. We don't mix in enough 4-3.
