Soooo.... Who??

Gut, I'm going to make this fairly simple (still not brief) because I don't want to spend 2 hours debating every single little point...

Gregg Williams' defense only works if you have players who fit the system. You have to have guys who can get the the QB up front and guys who can cover in the secondary for when they don't. That's why, in 1998, Fisher backed off the 46 defense and switched to a more basic D during the season because they couldn't get enough pressure on opposing QBs and got burned too much. And by switching, they had a fairly solid D that didn't give up too many big plays.

On the flip side, look at this year's Redskins team. You'll notice that even playing Williams' aggressive scheme they were dead last in the NFL in sacks (19). And because they blitzed too much without getting to the QB, they also ranked last in the NFL in passer rating allowed (which is what happens when you allow the most TD and get the fewest INTs). When you blitz and you don't pressure the QB, you give up big plays. As for Archuletta, they knew his strengths and weaknesses when they signed him. Williams should be finding ways to use him effectively, not simply benching him. It's not as if their run D couldn't use him...

Schwartz hasn't had a defense that can successfully rush the QB consistently. Since Kearse left, KVB is the only decent passrusher we have had. But he isn't Kearse and he certainly can't do it on his own. And by blitzing more, they would no doubt up their sack total, but also give up a lot more big plays. Hell, we already have 2 DBs we complain about giving up big plays. Do we really need to give them more chances to get burned deep???

If the Titans want to be more aggressive, they need 2 things: better pass rushers and better DBs. I'm all for being aggressive on defense. I happened to love the 46 defense they ran during the 1999 and 2000 seasons. But we don't have a roster capable of pulling off those results right now. Teams like the Eagles and Ravens can still win playing aggressive D. But try comparing their rosters to the Titans. It's like night and day. You tried to gauge our defensive talent level before, try doing that same test with Baltimore's D...

As far as the general argument of defensive scheme, I'm not going to suggest that coaches can't out-scheme opposing teams. As an example, look at the schemes that Schwartz has rolled out against the Colts on 2 different occasions. In 2002 at Indy, he used a lot of 3-3-5 formations that had Peyton Manning on his heels (and, at times, his back). And this year, he schemed to keep the safeties deep, no matter what, and it held the Colts to 14 points at home (their lowest point total all year). And while it may seem like a simplistic approach, not only did it work but no one else had thought to try it...

My point on schemes, however, was that playing an aggressive, blitzing D is not the only way to win. You can just look at the winners of various Super Bowl to see that. Frankly, our D can't win like that. It can't be great no matter what, but they had to maximize their productivity. It's better to play a defense more suited to our collective roster. Yes, I think Bulluck would be better if he were allowed to blitz more. Thornton probably, too. But we'd still get killed as a team.

We do have some good defensive players. I'm not sure about their pro bowl credit (2 combined pro bowl appearances, only 1 voted in), but still good. We also have some seriously weak links: LT, Sirmon, Hill, and whoever they throw out at RE. The old saying is that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. There's something to that. Defenses can effectively cover up for just 1 weak spot, but 4? No. Can't be done.

-------------

* And by the way, Washington's D finished well behind us based on more complex statistical rankings than just total yards or total points (not that points isn't important).
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef.php