Jordan and Hicks look like they may turn out to be better than average though.

So the question then becomes why is it that the front office seems to be able to find hungry above average talent on the offensive side of the ball, but not so much on the defensive side? What kind of goggles are they wearing?

Great post. Agree with virtually all of it.

There were only 2 starters that graded in the top 100 in the league at their position, Bunkley (28th DT) and Jordan (66th DE).

Hicks (29th DT) and Johnson (42ndDT), Casillas (59th OLB), Quddus (42nd S), Galette (19th DE), Wilson (33rd DE) graded out OK as reserves though.

Every other starter was worse than the 100th ranked player at their position.

Lofton (104th MLB),
Vilma (100th OLB),
Ellis (118th DT),
Hawthorne (102nd OLB),
Greer (118th CB),
Robinson (193rd CB),
Harper (167th S),
Jenkins (168th S)

I put that directly on Spags.

I agree with this. I would have never thought Lofton would be ranked 104th. I do know that Harper and Jenkins graded out as the two absolute worst safeties in the league. In no way am I saying this is all their fault and they are the problem, but numbers are hard to argue with, and that is disheartening.

The fact that basically this same group of players averaged middle of the pack in 3 years under Gregg Williams tells me it's not the players. No one can tell me there are 103 MLB's in this league better than Curtis Lofton. And there aren't 100 OLB's better than Vilma. There are NOT 117 CB's better than Jabari Greer.

Obviously we cold use a few impact players along the front seven, but this roster isn't that damn bad.

We certainly hit on more offense than defense in the draft. Our defensive players aren't that bad, but none are elite, or even great.

We have a roster full of average and a few below average, but no difference makers. Jordan and Hicks look like they may turn out to be better than average though.

Actually only two 3-4 defenses were in the top 5. Pittsburg and 49ers.
Denver, Seattle and Bears run 4-3.

Denver has superstars on their defense. And very few teams ever run the 3-4. Why is it that those who do, are so highly ranked? I've well said that you can be successful with great players under any system, but I'm more impressed with coordinators who can make any group of players at least decent. With four linebackers, you can cover more people over the middle, and you can move them up when necessary. There isn't much size difference between an outside linebacker and a defensive end.

You seem to believe that defensive rankings from one season mean that my point means nothing, when the fact is that almost no one runs anything but a 4-3 anymore. And it is my opinion that this should change, unless we come up with some great players real soon.

Green Bay isn't highly ranked, the cowgirls aren't highly ranked and they run 3-4 scheme. Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight here but if our current defensive players can't learn Spag's zone scheme, they damn sure can't learn 3-4 schemes which employ some of the same zone schemes. First off, who are the 4 LB's?
Vilma couldn't play the 3-4 for the Jets that's how we got him. Lofton is a MLB also. Your LB's have to be able to rush the passer and also play coverage. The idea of the 3-4 is that you can change up the LB that blitzs so they have to be fast and strong. I don't think we have any LB's that fit that description. We also don't have a NT to take a double team. What would be our line up? I just don't think we have the personnel to switch to a 3-4.