Happy

He also had over 1200 yards rushing, averaging about 7 y/c and about 80 y/g. Better than some RBs

Belichick also isn't afraid to blitz when the situation is right. He isn't afraid to stunt the defensive line to get after the passer. He doesn't play vanilla up front and he tends to balance the front and back so one is not the focus over the other. His defenses are, at a minimum, very pesky and effective. Seattle was better on the back in 2013, that is true. They had Kam Chancellor and Earl Thomas at the safety spots, as well as Richard Sherman and Brandon Browner at the CB spots; quite the heavy hitter lineup. They were also 11th in the NFL in QB sacks that year, one out of top 10. Sounds to me like the Seahawk 2013 d-line outperformed ours this past year. Could the all-star backfield have something to do with that? Quite possibly, but they got after the QB. I hear you with the good talent argument, and agree. I do think you have to do a certain amount of balancing between the front and back, even if one has the majority of the talent. You can't go vanilla with the rush and count on disguised coverages; a good QB can still beat that.

Lamar Jackson got the MVP from his running abilities

This past season, no, they didn't. They didn't play any QB that could do that. They got run over by Philly, so Wentz didn't have to pass. Brady is a shell of his former self. In 2018 they did but that was a transition year so I wouldn't count that.

Gilmore was used in Rex's defense, which was pretty much a disaster all around. Most of us can agree on that. IIRC, Gilmore was used more in zone and he's a better man on man, which is how NE uses him. I thought he was pretty good, though was a bit surprised Belichick paid him that much. That usually doesn't happen in NE. I think our defense does a good job in coverage, even Belichick mentioned as much. I wish we would a better job at rushing the passer, though maybe the change at d-line coordinator had something to do with that. Trust who you feel comfortable trusting. Makes no difference to me. You have to do more than just cover, though. You won't beat Mahomes that way and you wouldn't have beat Brady or Peyton Manning that way, either. They'd carve you up.

You have to put resources in every position. As far as the d-line, we lost Shaq and Jordan Phillips so you have to replace them. I don't get what you're saying in the bolded part. The cap hit to a big contract CB is the same as a contract hit to a mid priced defensive end? I thought it was nuts that the Pats paid Gilmore, but it worked. His career took off in NE and he's a pretty good man to man corner. It also helps that NE can put pressure on the QB much better than we can. So everyone takes CB's early?

I would rather have a defense that is more line focused since that tends to put more pressure on the QB, who will get rid of the ball before he wants to as well as make errant throws. Playing a largely vanilla front and relying on coverage will only do so much since the NFL favors the offense (more defensive PI flags); you ultimately should do both - an aggressive, attacking front and disguised coverages in the back. I don't agree with a DB-focused defensive scheme. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to pay a DB big money, but would rather allocate resources to the d-line, first. If you pay Tre $16M per season, what are you going to sacrifice to do so? The other DB's? D-line? LB? I'd rather have higher paid/better DE's and DT's as they will make an average backfield look good. I've seen Tre get beat by a number of receivers in man coverage enough to think twice about paying him elite money. His big plays have been in zone situations, and I think he tends to struggle in man coverage with a lot of field behind him. In shorter field situations, Tre seems to be better in man coverage, which could explain him not giving up a TD. Other posters have pointed out that all CB's get beat, which I agree with; paying a CB big money doesn't make sense and I don't see it as a premium position...not in today's NFL.

The bold is a big problem. Putting pressure on the opposing offense backfield goes a long way to helping out our defensive backfield. I really don't understand the desire to go vanilla up front, though I do get the complexities in back such as disguising coverages which is a smart tactic. Supplement what you're doing in back with an aggressive front; you'll have the #1 ranked defense, then. You'll only be so good being DB-centric; you can't out cover the receivers to win in the NFL today, though it seems McD wants to do just that.

I have nothing against Tre, I think he's a fine player. To me, it seems like he struggles in man coverage in open areas; he may do better in shorter fields with man coverage, which could help explain the no TD stat. I just wouldn't pay him elite money, or really any other DB; the league approach to the game makes playing the DB positions harder than it should be. I'm also of the mindset that it is better to put more resources in the front seven rather than the backfield since getting to the QB and stopping the run is a better approach to defense. I suspect McD is the opposite, he seems to be more DB focused; he doesn't ignore the line, but rather views coverage as his preferred defensive approach as evidenced in the 3rd and 18 vs Texans. I'm aware there were execution issues, but if he went after Watson I bet they never get the first down and Buffalo wins the game.

Or the 2019 49ers model. Wasn't the 2018 Chiefs D susceptible to the run? I think he's an above average corner, in general. I do think he is susceptible in man-to-man, especially in space, which is what the stats seem to be pointing out. We do need to put more pressure on the QB which would help any DB on the field. It is my belief that you can't cover to victory because the rules favor the offense and they will get the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not here for the group think, but to offer my honest/humble opinion. You may or may not like it, which is fine either way. BTW, I'm not the only poster with this position, just they are in the minority.

Good zone CB, but is too susceptible in getting beat during man to man coverage. I don't think that is worth elite money. Put more money and resources into the d-line that will get after the QB in a more consistent manner, then you won't need to overpay a DB.

The bigger the better, and cooler you were back then

Points allowed followed by yards allowed. If those are low (good for the defense) then that means you've done everything else in support of those metrics right.

I don't see the point to having a secondary logo. Looks kinda dumb, though.

Great, trade up for a DB....no thanks.

Very tragic. RIP Tarvaris and may his family and friends receive consolation.

Looking like this is the case. NFL Europe and now XFL down the tubes. One thing though, relying on the NCAA as the only feeder program, the NFL has to take what the NCAA gives them. For example, there seems to be fewer drop back, pocket passer QBs and more spread offense QBs, so offenses are going to have to adjust when taking a QB like Lamar Jackson; Baltimore was smart in adjusting their offense rather than trying to make Lamar become a pocket passer. Going forward, I think teams will have to either mortgage several picks or trades to move up and draft the few good traditional-type QBs, or adjust their offense.

Where did anyone say we're bad at running the ball? We're ok, but could be a whole lot better, and having a complement to Devin Singletary who is a different style (i.e. short yardage) and size runner will go a long way to supplementing the running game. But what do I know since I apparently don't use critical thinking skills (as insinuated in your earlier post) and am a smug prick. This is logical and I'd be happy with another RB in the 3rd round. The position is very thin and they don't need another 36 year old FA vet on his last legs.

I think making Singletary an all down back, or pretty much any RB an all down back, isn't the best idea. For one, RBs take a beating; and two, it would be nice to have a different size and style RB for various situations, such as a Chris Henry type back for short yardage. I don't see Singletary as a do-it-all back.

To each their own, I guess.

Right, with all the depth we have behind Devin Singletary, who is not an every down back. Nice try. The Chiefs also started playing some good defense in the second half of the season. The early part, they struggled, but Steve Spagnolo got them in gear and they were very good throughout the late season to post season. Of course Mahomes and that offense put up some big numbers; he's going to be tough to defend against going forward.

As I'm sure you at least suspect, there are a number of posters who think teams don't need to run the ball or play defense. Sad but true.

I actually didn't mind Dan Fouts. Maybe it's just my admiration of him as a QB that has carried over to the booth, but again, he's not terrible. Better than Chris Collinsworth.

I don't recall seeing any screens called this past season. Either Daboll doesn't believe in them (which he should be fired, if this is the case), or as the previous poster pointed out, our offense (line) can't do a good job of executing a screen. Either way, it's a shame; if we can run a screen like the Pats do, those plays are usually good for close to 10 yards. Nice play to have in your arsenal.