In all seriousness, though, I wasn’t trying to suggest this would be the lasting impression of the Ruskell era. I was merely pointing out that this could very well be what we point to when trying to figure out how this core never won a Super Bowl.

I tried to keep it under 15 minutes, too, but I’m afraid I failed miserably. :-)

First of all, thanks for taking the time to respond in a reasoned, cogent manner. You’ve definitely opened my eyes to some aspects of this I hadn’t thought of.

For example, I’m a total stat geek — basketball is more my specialty — but I wasn’t even aware of DVOA. After spending the last 30 minutes or so researching it, it makes a lot of sense in terms of evaluating performance. I can now use that.

But at the risk of sounding like I’m just trying to stir things up — which I assure you I’m not; as a manager of a blog at SB Nation, I’m sympathetic to your desire to keep the knucklehead element down — I think you’ve also twisted at least one statement, and there’s another statement I feel the need to clarify because I don’t think I worded it clearly. Then, I’ll address the hubris thing.

I never said the 2005 front seven was dominant. I said it became “formidable.” Compared to where it was pre-2005, that’s an accurate statement. The 2004 DVOA for the defense was 6 percent worse than average — 22nd overall. In 2005, the defense was nearly 10 percent better than the year before — 3.5 percent better than average, and No. 15 overall.

Now, I suppose we could argue about whether that was due to the addition of talent or the fact that the offense was spectacular in 2005 — +23.4 percent, No. 3 overall, compared to just +2.6 percent in ’04 — taking the pressure off the defense, but the fact remains that there was a tangible difference between 2004 and 2005. The offense deserves some of the credit, but I choose to chalk the bulk of the improvement up to the talent Ruskell added in the front seven.

Lofa was a starter from day one, and to say that Darby was a “role player at best” ignores the fact that he started 14 games to Barnard’s six, and was important in that rotation. And while I did misspeak on Peterson — my bad — I neglected to mention Bryce Fisher and his nine sacks, which were added in 2005. LeRoy Hill did not make an immediate impact, but he became a force as the year went on and ended up starting nine games. That’s a pretty big difference from Kacyvenski, Huff, Simmons, Brown, Woodard and Okeafor.

So, if we go back to my original point, it’s hardly arguable that the front seven in ‘05 was certainly more formidable than it had been in ’04. If you consider “formidable” synonymous with “dominant,” that’s on you, not on my writing.

Second, I probably should not have used the “colossal failure” phrase twice, as I meant it more in the spirit of how I used it first:

That day came in the 2006 draft, when Ruskell would begin building his secondary, which can be considered nothing short of a colossal failure.

Of course it’s far to early to judge both as failures in the sense of the entirety of their careers. Both may end up being fine NFL players. But they’re not right now, and that’s what matters when we talk about this potentially closing window. (I suppose we could argue whether our window is actually closing, but that’s probably a post for another day. :-) ) In terms of what they’ve produced thus far for a team that we all believe has the talent to be a Super Bowl contender, that has been a failure. I understand that a guy cannot learn to be a starting corner in the league without being a starting corner, but the “learning curve” thing starts to ring a little hollow when a guy looks so frequently overmatched against mediocre receivers. On a purely subjective level, I just don’t see the athletic ability to compete at the highest level from Jennings. Perhaps I will be proved wrong over time.

And I think you’re a bit off base in just assuming that what we’ve got now (young, cheap and promising) is better than what we had (old, expensive and mediocre). It might be better in terms of the future — might — but it’s not doing a whole lot now, and I think a strong argument can be made that last year’s performance might have had as much to do with improved pressure on the quarterback as an improved ability to cover guys.

I’m arguing that Ruskell, as the general manager, should have been able to see that we still needed to add talent in the secondary. Again, maybe Jennings and Wilson will yet prove to be good starting cornerbacks this year. But it does not look good right now with the team in a 1-3 hole and those guys having gotten torched by every team not named St. Louis.

Finally, onto the hubris statement. Hubris is defined as an act of excessive pride. To me, the only reasonable explanation for him not doing more to upgrade the secondary heading into this season is an unshakable and flawed belief in the guys he drafted and signed as free agents. My statement was not meant to be an act of character assassination; because all all of us can be considered guilty of an act of hubris in our lifetime, I meant it more as a pointed observation of why I believe he didn’t do more to improve the secondary. You could argue that the use of the word “hubris” was over the top, and you’d probably have a good argument. But my point still remains that Ruskell should have known better, and I’m searching for explanations.

Anyway, thanks for hearing me out, and thanks for providing a place for us to talk about this stuff. I appreciate it. Hopefully, I haven’t ruined my ability to be heard out in the future.