but its better than being consistently bad. I think the addition of a couple of years more experience and a little more depth (fresh legs) may help the guys perform a little better on the road (crossed fingers).

As well as several missed sacks, 3rd and 20+ equalling a first down.

San Francisco was our only complete defensive game. That was dominant from start to finish.

The Cleveland game was the one that pissed me off the most. Not only because Holmgren was starting to do the insanity game (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results), but our defense made Derek Anderson look like a star.

On the bright side, I’m not sure that the disparity between home and away performance could be worse. Hopefully, couple more years of experience for Lofa, Hill, Tapp and Mebane, Babs and Wilson may help them play more consistently on the road.

Cory Redding is signed to this year and will perform for the first entirely Tim Ruskell defense. He is within his prime now, but, especially considering his recent knee problems, “pushing old” I.e. nearing a point in his career where we can be reasonably sure his production over the life of a contract will not match his production at the time of the contract’s signing. After this season, Ruskell can attempt to retain Redding or let him sign to another team and reap the compensatory draft pick.

Seattle swapped out Duckett for James midstream. The argument was: How much better is James likely to be this season compared to what Duckett could be for this season and however many seasons afterward. Duckett has had light use and suffered no major injuries. He is within his prime this season and could have an atypical prime. Whatever the case, he had some kind of future and certainly more upside than James. James is well removed from his prime and has proven such on the football field. James has less downside.

So it feels like you are scrutinizing words without context. I don’t think Cory Redding being in his prime but pushing old/nearing his decline in any way contradicts Duckett being in his prime and maybe having a late prime.

The chart has a sample bias. Running backs that have declined are used less and therefore represent a smaller portion of the chart. Zach Fein says exactly that.

In addition, if a guy is playing into his early-to-mid 30s, chances are he’s been productive late in his career; if a guy fades away at age 31, with, say, a drop of 500 rushing yards from his previous year, he’s going to get little carries the next year—if he isn’t retired by then.

I think that’s one reason why we wouldn’t grab a FA QB from another team (like a Brohm or a Campbell).

I just think that he wouldn’t necessarily take a pay cut to re-sign with us. If he performs really well, he might command more on the open market than we’d be willing to pay. If he plays like crap or gets injured, we may not want to re-sign him.

Less is more.

…I seem to take a step down. Takes more time to recover, with less stamina.

But I get what you mean. However, it just stands to reason that if a team can move the ball 90 some yards with ease, getting the extra few shouldn’t be all that difficult. I think the worse part about it is it leaves your defense on the field a lot, and your offense off the field, thus decreasing your chance of scoring and their chance of not scoring. It also gives your opponent more plays and with more plays comes more opportunities to score.

It’s all more complicated then this, of course, but I have my doubts of a bend but not breaking philosophy being all that effective.

that breaks the hell out of the offense, or at least bends the offense really really badly in ways in which they aren’t flexible….

killed us last year. You wana shut down offenses fast so your offense can get on the field and allow you the resting time (and/or momentum) to come out faster and harder on the next defensive series.