And it’s entirely possible to rush a QB and provide a spy to keep the QB in check. How did teams ever play Michael Vic, Randall Cunningham, or Cam Newton if that was the case? The obvious offense problems are being used as a scapegoat to ignore defensive issues by some here on the board. Look at Seattle last night WITH wilson and the receivers they have. A big deal was made out of how good the Saints defense was in shutting them down in bad weather with Geno starting. After what their offense looked like last night the Saints D shutting them down doesn’t seem impressive.

Agreed, it is entirely possible but also entirely foolish. What is your experience on the defensive side of the ball in pads and helmet?

If you are applying pressure to a QB that means you are going after him which also means he is going to bolt (one of the hardest things for new QBs to learn is to stay in the pocket)... Why would you waste a man watching to see if he runs when you are intentionally making him run?

Look up the definition of "spy" spys are used to cover a RB who may carry in a delayed play or a dual threat QB in case the routs break down leaving him no option but to run without open receivers. A spy is not to watch your other defensive players chase a QB. If you are trying to apply pressure to a QB you have at least one man dedicated to rushing him, adding a spy to watch the chase opens up a receiver because you cant cover a receiver and spy a QB at the same time.

You need to go back and watch how those QBs were played, each and everyone of them was more dangerous when pressured than when they ran due to coverage taking their routes away..

Those people that you say are ignoring things probably just recognize that when you are a top 10 defense in the league and tied for 5th in points allowed but 8th from the bottom in points scored, offense is why you are losing games. It is math, not science.