DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Player News

Does anyone have a link that tells us that Stefanski and Woods went to Berry and insisted that they have the DTs we ended up with, or is this just yet another lie in a long list of lies that further a biased agenda?

I'll stand down if anyone has that link. However, I find it hard to believe that Berry is not in charge of the roster.

For a guy that has so many on ignore you surely do respond to a lot of posts that you don't read.

As for Lies and Agenda - we'll leave that to you. You are the king of both.

I guess there is no link and 888 is telling yet another lie.

Acting like a petulant 9 year old is a new low Vers. I guess I should have seen it coming after your day of spamming the board calling me "evil" repeatedly because of my opinion and then brining my family/kids into every post for a few days.

The back and forth could go on all day. But, once again...............no way do I believe that Stefanski and Woods are in charge of the roster. I think their input is probably valued, but it's pretty evident this is Berry's team. 888 just made that statement to further another one of his hair-brained agendas.

They're just making excuses why the Browns didn't do their best to win this year. Anyone willing to go back and look can see the very people in this forum knew before the season ever started that the DT position was a problem. So what did they do to address it during the preseason? Nothing. As soon as the season began it was painfully obvious how bad the DT position was. So what did they do to address it early on in the season? Nothing. So now, after the Browns ignored the position all off season, all preseason and even early on in the season..... They have no actual answer to why that happened. And anyone who can't see that if the Browns could have just slowed down their opponents run game they very likely could have won at least a couple more games.

Instead the FO punted until next year when come to find out that Brissett played well enough to have them in contention at this very moment. All they have are excuses why nothing was done at this point.

This just about explains it all - why the HC is so poor and why the FO appears to be calling all the shots.

Kevin Stefanski agreed to certain specific terms that limit his authority
Posted by Mike Florio on January 13, 2020, 3:58 PM EST

Head football coaches like to run the show. In Cleveland, the head football coach won’t be.

As explained by Steve Doerschuk of the Canton Repository, new Browns coach Kevin Stefanski showed during his interview a willingness to yield to certain expectations of part-time chief strategy office Paul DePodesta, including having someone from the analytics group wearing a headset and having access to the coaching staff on game days. Stefanski also agreed to owner Jimmy Haslam’s desire to engage in hours-long meetings with his head coach the day after games.

Dustin Fox of 92.3 The Fan in Cleveland added that the front office expects the head coach to “turn in game plans to the owner and analytics department by Friday, and to attend an end-of-week analytics meeting to discuss their plan.”

That was OK with Stefanski, or he wouldn’t have gotten the job. It’s unclear whether it would have been OK with Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels. By all indications and objective measurements, McDaniels is far more accomplished and experienced than Stefanski, who first became offensive coordinator late in the 2018 regular season and has only one full year in the job — a year that was necessarily undermined by the presence of assistant head coach/offensive consultant Gary Kubiak, who drew strong praise from coach Mike Zimmer as the best thing that had happened to the team since Zimmer arrived as head coach.

Mary Kay Cabot of Cleveland.com reports that the job came down to Stefanski and 49ers defensive coordinator Robert Saleh. Given that the Browns were determined to make a hire on Sunday, the truth in hindsight could be that they were ready to hire the loser of their round-of-eight showdown. Which, in hindsight, would make this decision fit well within the team’s recent history of ricocheting from one bad decision to the next.

It’s unknown whether Saleh would have taken the job if offered. On one hand, once the window opens it may not stay that way. On the other hand, the 49ers have a defense built to last, which means other opportunities may come along for Saleh that won’t entail excessive intrusions into his authority as coach of the team.

It’s quite possible that the Browns planned to hire a coach on Sunday because they guessed that the Vikings would lose, and that the hire would be the guy DePodesta wanted to hire last year. As noted yesterday, if hiring DePodesta’s preferred coach gets everyone in Cleveland on the same page, so be it. If it fails, however, the part-time chief strategy officer should have the same accountability as a full-time member of the football organization, whose jobs routinely hinge on whether or not the team thrives or fails.

Outside the self-chosen few on this forum, this has been noticeable by us others that the Browns have never actually had a HC. They hired a glorified OC as HC with zero authority as a NFL HC and limited everything he could do as a HC unless cleared through them. Funny, the players been trying to tell us this for the last 2-years yet the chosen few here bought into the misinformation campaign hook, line, and sinker and blasted any player questioning the true leadership of the team. This sure answers a lot of the questions as to why the Browns are where they are - bottom dwellers. This is the HC that some on here believe will take this team to the promise land?

mac, I will try to help you get the thread back on track despite the efforts of those who hijack every freaking thread on the board.

Wait.......actually, the thread was about Player News and now you want to talk about the Browns ownership and FO? Why not just start a thread entitled The Front Office, Edition 527? LOL......just kidding....kinda/sorta.

I'll give my opinion, but I won't state it as fact.

I think the Browns made an error in talent evaluation when it came to the DTs. Many, many posters complained all off-season about the DTs and WRs. I was one of the more vocal ones. bonefish, peen, and I had many conversations about it. Many others voiced their displeasure. I will admit I was somewhat wrong about the WRs. I don't think they have been a major problem. We could have used another WR, but it wasn't a glaring weakness. Obviously, the DTs are another story. They have been horrid. The organization made an error in not upgrading the position. No doubt about it. We can crucify them and use it as ammunition to champion that everyone needs to be fired. We can ignore it and say they made a wise decision. Or, we can acknowledge that they messed up and move on. I'm in the last group. I am not giving them a pass. They made a mistake.

My earlier points centered around two things.

The first being is that I responded to a poster who said the Browns didn't want to win this year. I counted by saying that I think the Browns want to win and I used the fact that they went out and put their necks on the line to acquire one of the best QBs in the league. I wasn't chastising the poster who made his claim. He's obviously right in that we were not going to win this year. I just think it's inaccurate to take what he said and infer that the Browns organization doesn't want to win.

The second point was that all these DTs have been signed after the trade deadline. They were sitting at home all year. The teams who signed them are legit Super Bowl contenders. They are looking for an edge in an area of need. The Browns had no shot at the Super Bowl when these recent moves occurred. Thus, I can understand why they did not sign them at the time other teams signed them. What were we at the time? 3 and 7? That does not absolve the team from making a mistake w/the DT position before the season. However, I can't get on them for not beating Philly or KC to the punch late in a season when our record was awful. All those guys are probably just a partial season fix and will not be w/the teams next year.

[quote=mac]Let me attempt to direct the thread back to the issue of FOOTBALL...[quote]




Sorry mac, couldn't resist.

My feelings on the way roster construction interaction between the FO and the coaching should work is that the coaching staff says: This is the scheme we we want to use. To make it work I need players art position X that can do this and position Y that does that ... Then the FO takes this information and looks at available players and the money implications associated with those players and comes up with the best roster of players that they can.

So why do our DT's suck? I can come up with the following explanations though there may be more:

1, The coaching staff wanted small fast players rather than big strong players

2, The players that fit the preferred requirements were either not available or were not available at the right price

3, The FO didn't listen to the coaching staff.


The consensus is that to run our defensive scheme successfully that we need at least one big stout DT. It's not that we have a bunch of big guys who suck so I doubt that the explanation is #2. Option 1 places the blame on the coaching staff and option 3 places it on the FO. I don't know which one it is, and we will likely never know. But I am hoping that it is option 1 because if it is than we can easily solve this with getting rid of Woods. If it is option 3 then this signals that we are still the dysfunctional organization we have been since 1995 and that is much more disturbing to me.

So, here's a couple honest questions for all my forum friends. According to the article Vers posted (thanks) for us to read, 4-2-5 Defense Football Coaching Guide, it says the following:

For the most part, the make-up and skillset of each of the players on the defensive line in a 4-2-5 defense are vastly different than in a base defense with four down linemen.

With one notable exception: The nose tackle.

The nose tackle in a 4-2-5 defense could be perhaps the most important position on the field. That’s because the nose tackle might be the only “big body” the defense has on the field.

All the other players could be on the smaller side, exchanging size for speed and athleticism.

The role of the nose tackle is to clog up the middle of the offensive line and take on literally as many blockers as he possibly can. His initial lining up position will be somewhere between the center and the guard.

It’s not necessarily important that the nose tackle put pressure on the quarterback or make any stops in the run game himself at all.

His responsibility is to take on blockers to create holes for linebackers to plug or for them to blitz into. That’s why it’s really important the nose tackle is a very big, strong player who can take a pounding.

The other defensive tackle in the 4-2-5 system will often line up on the outside shoulder of the other offensive guard.

This is because the nose tackle should be handling the center and the other guard by himself.

This other defensive tackle’s job is to create pressure from the down position, getting into either the A or B gap on his side of the center.


My question then is if the DT (aka NT) is considered the most important position on the field to successfully run the 4-2-5 defense, who on the Cleveland Browns made the decision to run the 4-2-5 defense almost exclusively without having the needed player(s) to run the defense effectively? Actually, the Browns don't have the needed player at either DT position. What HC in his right mind would trot out a defense without having a single player on the roster that could adequately fill the most important position needed to run the defensive scheme? It's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. I guess as a quick follow up question, as a GM or owner, wouldn't you question why the HC didn't or hasn't adjusted the defensive scheme if he knew, or at minimum seen that he didn't have the horses to run the 4-2-5 scheme?

I think the confusion surrounds who is at fault for this. You do bring up a couple of good points though we already know it will be labeled as somehow nefarious by at least one poster. One would think that if you don't have the proper personnel to run the 4-2-5 that you wouldn't be running the 4-2-5. So the DC it would appear is running a D scheme that is not suited with the talent of the DL. So at first glance one could blame the DC.

But then one would have to look at what the responsibilities of an NFL HC are. Sure being good at running an O and getting the most you can out of your QB are fine attributes. But those are the attributes most often attributed to an OC. While overseeing this is a part of a HC's job, his job also includes overseeing all departments of the team including the D and ST's.

But then I think one must also look at how first time NFL HC's are hired. In almost every case when a first time NFL HC is hired, it's with the understanding that he comes from an offensive background or a defensive background. Since never having been a HC in the NFL, the vast amount of his experiences is based on one side of the ball. From that point forward one has to look at the progress over time that a first time NFL HC expands on his ability to oversee both sides of the ball. You have to look at whether he has the ability to identify and hire the right people in the parts of the game where he may have shortcomings. Whether he can identify their shortcomings and put the best interest of the team over his loyalty to his staff. A first time NFL HC has to expand his ability from one side of the ball to both sides of the ball over time.

At the end of the day a HC has to be able to delegate responsibility to the people he has entrusted to run the O, the D and the ST's. At that point it's his responsibility to oversee the entire team and give adjustments to those working under him in all phases of the game. What it amounts to is if posters see this progressing in terms of Stefnaksi? Is he able to allow his OC to run the O so he can focus and concentrate overseeing the entire team in all phases? Has he been able to hold Joe Woods accountable and make calls to force him to change the scheme to fit the players?

As for something people seem to put so much stock into which I consider more of a buzzword than accurate is, consensus. Sure you can try to come to an agreement on team needs, what type of players at what positions and cap space. But the reality is the job of each department doesn't line up with the others. Managing the cap space doesn't line up with giving the coaching staff everything they want in terms of players. The two are so different any logical thinking person would have to understand that no matter how great the word consensus sounds, there are going to be times where they will not agree.

At that point someone has the final word, the final say. I'm not trying to say it's some chaotic process. Or that there isn't a great attempt to reach a consensus. I'm just saying that the responsibilities of those managing the cap won't align with the players the coaching staff may want and someone makes the final call. I'm saying that trying to reach a consensus based on the input of everyone in the equation is a fine goal to set for yourself and try to achieve, that will not always be the final result.

So this might end up being a bit like the conversation regarding Baker playing last year, and who was responsible for trotting out an injured QB who was clearly not playing well and appeared to many to be hampered by his injury . I realize this opinion of the injury impacting Baker's performance is not shared by the Forum Guru Vers - but it is shared by many including SB winning QB's the Manning Brothers and Kurt Warner among others. In THAT conversation everyone accepted that the medical staff first have to clear the player, then it comes down to who says he plays. And that - surprisingly lead to disagreement even though most would have thought the HC makes those decisions.

In this case - with a NT / oversized DT being a critical component of a successful 4-2-5 scheme ... Berry is the most obvious person who is responsible. The GM makes the decision to sign, cut, waive, draft players. However, as I have pointed out previously, the Browns front office currently works together in collaboration very well. Berry and Stefanski are very much on the same team. My belief (called a lie by the forum guru) is that Stekanski, Woods and Berry ALL own the issue with our DT's. There's no way that Woods and KS were kicking and screaming that our DT's were inadequate. . . . why do I say this?

1. Vastly more suitable players were available.
2. These players were available on short term contracts that don't jeopardize future cap space
3. We have lots of cap space today - and according to many on the board cap space is never an issue because you can always create cap room.
4. We are talking off-season, pre-season and early season when a decision could have been made --- this idea the nothing happened because we are out of the running is a simple excuse and deflection. If the upgrades had been made in the offseason or preseason - We would most likely be in contention.

Anyway - I think most can see this. I think there might be one or two that want to deflect any possible criticism away from the FO and especially KS. It is what it is. Onwards and upwards. We have what might be a top 3 QB starting this weekend, he might be rusty but he might be ushering in a new era of uber success for the Browns with an offseason to fix the D. We can only hope.

Man, 888 lies about his lies.


I have never met anyone in my entire life who lies more than 888. It's constant. Day in and day out. Most of his lies are when he is trying to get others to join in attacking me. It's freaking pathetic that someone can be that obsessed w/another poster. Seek freaking help.

Nice football post. OH, no, it wasn't. Do what you preach, or quit preaching.

This is what you said. We're on a discussion board all expressing opinions. The "show me a link" is a kindergarten response.

You are more and more pathetic.

I am only admitting that in your head, Mac.

Why we didn't go after Suh early on I couldn't say. I may have been the first to mention his name early on. It's possible we did reach out to Suh's camp and they didn't get back. I am not saying we did, but I am not going to say we didn't. If you know the story maybe you should be a reporter.

I am not going to go look up names, but we have brought in DT's. I am not going to say they have turned out to be any good, but it's not like we didn't try to improve.

Why did the FO let Tyeler Davison go to the Chargers? AKA why wasn't he on the 53 after a month on the PS? Well...Joe Woods said Davison wasn't "ready". An 8 year vet who is 6'2 309 lbs wasn't "ready" after a month? Ok. That same not-ready vet - whose bio sounds a lot like that big NT we so desperately need - was scooped up by the Chargers...who had just cut Tillery...who we put a waiver claim on.

Within a day or two, the Browns signed Ben Stille (5 yr vet) from the Dolphins practice squad...putting him READY and directly on the 53. He's 6'4" 296 lbs.

If there truly IS collaboration between the FO/HC/DC, then they ALL should be fired for continually not having the players needed to run a scheme AND/OR continuing to run a scheme without the players to do so.

The roster-builders have a plenty of small, supposedly-quicker LBs on the roster and even the PS...a fixture for the scheme. So they know what the scheme requires? Then why no giant NTs then? Roster building incompetence? Poor player evaluations? Hard to deny.

The FO asked Elliot to bulk up this year...presumably to man the NT position. That experiment has been a bust. Tommy Togiai has been a huge disappointment as he fits neither "need" at DT/NT.

We've wasted roster spots on: Felton (not a WR or RB) and Mond (a play for next year...because they've thrown in the towel on this year) / Dobbs rather than stealing a developmental, true NT from ANOTHER PS ...not that he would/could be ready for the 53

In the end, the is A LOT more to the issue than just not signing older DT vets looking for a playoff run in mid-season...A LOT more.

You have hit the nail on the head...and struck the nerve based on the resident, Board-liar's response. It's his M.O. Any stink-eye directed at the FO or HC scares the hell out of him because it "might" reflect that our former QB wasn't the only problem in '21. Any rational-thinking fan already knows that we had - and likely still have - issues that go/went beyond whomever was/is under center.

His next M.O.? He will post some links to other sites and proclaim that HE is the deliverer/barometer of "football posts". Even though he attacks you personally and is completely unable to refute your post that triggered him.

League leader in sacks is Judon at 13.

Myles is fairly far down the list by his standards, after yet another off season of him chirping about winning DPOY.

The QB was the problem. You guys need to get out of your head that Baker in any way, shape, or form is a good qb who was being held back by Stefanski. There is not even 1% truth to that. Let it go. If Baker was even decent you would have seen it this year. He was bad and the primary reason for the Browns failures last year.

Stefanski has his own issues but they have nothing to do with Baker.

Great points - here's a slight rebuttal for discussion. If the idea is that Berry is responsible for the decision-making process (sign, cut, waive, draft), who's responsible for the decision of the scheme the team is going to run? I would think that it's unlikely that when hired, Berry told Stefanski that the Browns have to run the 4-2-5 scheme. In fact, would anyone on this forum want to confirm that as a prerequisite to being hired, Stefanski was told he could only run the 4-2-5 defensive scheme?

Stefanski isn't stupid, I would be confident that he was well aware that the most important position (as detailed by Vers posted article) would be the DT's particularly the NT.

1. Safe to assume that the defensive scheme to run then was selected by Stefanski and only Stefanski.
2. Woods has the responsibility of deploying Stefanski's chosen scheme. Does anyone on this forum believe that Woods has the capability to switch to a 3-4 base or a 4-3 base defense without Stefanski's approval? Does anyone believe that Stefanski is limited or prohibited from running any type of defensive scheme he chooses, or must he have a Berry blessing before making any type of scheme change?
3. So, if we are to assume that the scheme choice is Stefanski's, why would Stefanski continue to mandate that scheme be run by Woods when you don't have the most important piece in place to be successful?
4. Is Berry incapable or refuses to get the proper players or is he just unaware?

This all falls in Stefanski's lap. It's his scheme, he has refused to adjust the scheme, and there must be a miscommunication between Berry and Stefanski for not addressing the most important part of the scheme. If you don't have the players - you must adjust the scheme to the skill set of your players and Stefanski has refused to do that for any part of the team since he's been the Browns HC.

I honestly don't know if KS chooses the scheme. The way that he essentially has nothing to do with Woods and coaching the D leads me to think he leaves it entirely up to JW. But you're right, the front office should know what schemes being run in acquire players to suit... Or they adjust the scheme to suit the players they have. The idea that we end up with DT's on the team that the coaching staff didn't want his ridiculous. Sure they prefer Donald or one of the NFL's leading stars, but upgrades were available and not made.Period.

I never made that ^ claim...ever. Baker dealt with a lot of crap...Baker created a lot of crap...he had some success in an environment of crap...he played like crap at times...and he had a serious injury for all but 1.25 games last year.


I agree...that's what I said ^^...and numerous other times on this board. Baker was part of the problem last year...not all...but part...and we still have problems this year.

Which is where the problem lies. Mayfield had his issues and shouldn't have been playing no matter what he thought. To give Stefanski a total pass and point the finger a a single person was and always has been BS. IMHO, to make things even worse, some try to compare Mayfield's performance on a team with a third of the talent the Browns possess as a ratification that it was all Mayfield. However, that team with a third of the talent has just as many wins as the Browns do in 2022 while the relieved from Baker Browns are 2 games worse at this stage of the season as they were last year. Now the "hatred Boyz" can blame 2021 all they want on Mayfield, but a fair-minded person might be asking why a team with the talent of the Browns roster has continued to get worse with the "cause" eradicated? Just a thought, maybe the cause is actually still here..........but you're refusing to admit it!

It's amazing how posters keep saying that everyone but me has moved on from Mayfield, but they bring him up over and over and over again on threads that have absolutely nothing to do w/him. Phony as hell.

YOU are the one that constantly brings up the ex browns qb. CONSTANTLY, as if it makes you feel good.

Actually, it's you who keeps bringing up Mayfield in every one of your posts as a justification for last year because of the team with one third the talent he's playing on this year. You constantly refer back to Mayfield in every post that questions this year's team without him that is currently 2 games worse than last year's team at this point in the season. We have actually moved on from Mayfield and are questioning what the hell has happened to this team now that he's gone, and we are performing significantly poorer. Your response to any questions about the continued regression of the team is that it's just the "Baker Boyz" trying to cause an argument. The fact is and has been, Mayfield is gone, but the Browns are a worse team and Mayfield has nothing to do with that FACT! The only phony in this forum is you and Mayfield is gone, and the team is performing worse - FACT!

Just a thought......

When he does, posters could not respond to those instances and simply let the post die on the spot instead of perpetuating the conversation and his need to bring it back up again.

The problem is, however, posters have taken this topic personally. Posters that doubled down on BM don't want to take the L. Either ignore the comments about him or take the L and move on to other issues re: The Browns. It's that easy. And my post isn't directed at you....I'm not sure where you stood on the issue, it's just what I see.

For the record, I was a Baker fan. But it slowly became evident that his sample size led to him not being the answer. Even during his injury last year, and people wanted to give him a pass, it was clear he wasn't the future. It sucks, but it's the truth. The fact we were able to quickly pivot to Watson was a good thing but we'll see what happens.

The Browns are performing worse this year based on a multitude
Of reasons.
In 2021 3 of the last 4 wins were against backup
QBs in the league. Anytime the Browns faced
A high powered offense in 2021 like the Chargers or Chiefs
They failed.
The Browns had good fortune in facing rookie QBs
In 2021. Makes the defensive numbers look better than what they are
Funny thing this year , the Browns QBing is better than last year
Yet there is 2 less wins. The defense is worse than
Last year's defense. The Browns are among the leagues worst tackling teams
No one is creating turnovers

The special teams is struggling. There no complimentary football
The Browns had A cupcake schedule in 2021.
If Baker was the starter this year the Browns would have 2 wins max.
He is not a winner nor a difference maker.
The Browns have a much harder schedule 11 games in.

I don't dispute your post at all. It's just, 1 person constantly brings up the EX qb of the Browns. Over, and over, and over. Guess who it is?

I think I would have preferred Dobbs over Mond as a backup going into next season, but maybe it won't matter if we do a late round QB selection. I'm assuming any picks we have left earlier than that will be defense. Mond vs draft selection for competition in 2023 camp?

Not trying to be rude or start an argument but I and others have read a multitude of posts that the reason the Browns were so bad last year was Mayfield. Mayfield had a bad year and was injured but having a bad year has been admitted by the vast majority on this board. The team has moved on and I have not seen a single person on this entire forum ever make any type of comment disputing that getting Watson was an upgrade at the position. The way it was handled, his off the field baggage, and failure to acknowledge any fault - yes, that has been a concern. Now with Mayfield gone, there has been mountains of posts about how good the Browns would be even with Brissett playing QB. If I didn't read it once, I read it 50 times about how the Browns had a top 5 defense. I also know for a fact - A FACT - the Browns had the weakest opening 4-game schedule in the entre NFL. In week 2, the Browns lost against the Jets and their backup QB. In week 6, the Browns got blown out by the Pats and their backup QB. In week 11, the Browns won against the Bucs with the "Goat" having the worst year of his entire career (a mere shadow of the player he used to be).

Now let me make this clear, Mayfield has been blamed for the regression of the team in 2021. You guys can all hang your hat on that opinion and that's fine with me. Mayfield is gone in 2022 and by all indications on this forum the QB play has been better, but the team is worse. I don't care why they are worse because guys like you and others swore that once the QB play got better we'd be a guaranteed playoff team. That has not happened and you still want to talk about Mayfield. You can get on this forum and dish out as many opinions (excuses) as you want but the fact still remains - Mayfield is gone as per your wishes, QB play improved by your calculations, and the team is worse than it was last year at this time. Finally, if the defense was actually bad last year as you state it was then why wasn't that addressed during the off season? More importantly, if the defense was bad last year and equally bad or worse this year, where the hell is the HC that should be making some type of adjustments over the last 2 freaking years? Wait, oh damn, Mayfield is gone so we'll have to blame it on Woods now.

For the record, I was one of the few who felt this defense and team
Overall was very over rated going into the 2022.
You ask why wasn't the defense addressed in the 2022 off season?
Because those Poindexters Berry and Depodesta looked
At that top 7 finish by the defense and said " why add any
Difference makers , look how the D performed down the stretch"
Berry and Depo had so much faith in players making
That leap in their 2nd year...JOK, Green, Delphit, Togei,Phillips
But those guys read their own press clippings and thought
They were already great this off season.
My eyes told me the Browns defense in 2021 was the beneficiary
Of playing back ups and rookies. When it played
A QB that had a resume of seeing every defense known
To man, the carved up the Browns
You can have good to great QB play and still have a sub .500
Team. Ask Watson about that.
The Browns defense is actually worse this year.
The tackling , the missed assignments, the scheme
Is easy to figure out. Let's face it, this defense lacks teeth.
Nobody plays with physicality. There are no hard hitters.
The best players on this D is a sack artist and 1st year CB.
Ward got payed. He's not hungry.
There are no tempo setters on the D side. It's a bunch
Of me players. Not team. Look at the Steelers and Bengals
Those are team defenses

That is what many fans think.

I never thought the D was a strong unit. I thought they were OK, but not strong.

Many of your arguments on Baker might hold more weight had Baker played well in Carolina now that he is healthy. Much of his support was he was playing hurt last year.

Is he still hurt this year?

I would be in agreement with you had Baker played well, but he didn't, so I don't.

As for the D tackles, they have been poor, but I think the scheme has been a big part of the problem. I saw a change last week. They seemed set on holding position where in the past they seemed eager to get in the backfield.

I will be interested to see if this trend holds. I think Woods desire to support the D backs with a pass rush up the middle came at the expense of stopping the run.

In attempt to move on from Baker and the endless fighting on the subject, how about we get back to the topic of the thread? Player News.

This dude was the 12th overall pick in the draft despite that horrible injury.