[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GridIron26

This is exactly my concern for 2010 season, I am confident our offense will improve alot.. But I'm not with defense, I really don't understand why we decided to change the defense, especially at this time when we need some improvements on offense? Our original defense always have been stout, but imagine with the additional aggressive attitude? Our defense would be awesome, especially when the whole D-line men had a year experience together.. Orakpo probably would be moved to DE full time, and not to mention Haynesworth and Carter would be more effective, as well.. But we decided to change the defense and then now, we have unhappy Haynesworth, Carter who already proved that he can't play 3-4 in SF and definitely is not going to rack up another two digits number of sacks next season.. And not to mention, we have some questions on LB positions..

I have to say, I would be surprise if the defense is still good..

Passing game driven league. Increasing the probability that the QB-involved play is more important than ever nowadays. You can't win the Super Bowl unless you stop the good QBs in the league, and the only way to do that is with a lot of pressure on the quarterback.
Blache also had absolutely ridiculously (in a bad way) predictable blitzes that were bound to be picked up. What's the point of blitzing if it's going to fail?
Also, the run D was starting to suck it up in the latter half of 2008 and the D was supposed to be focused on stopping the run. Haynesworth kind of remedied the problem of a bad short yardage defense and lack of pressure, but he's only one guy and he was contributing mainly because of his talent, not because of any help from a hyper-conservative scheme.

You could question why did they simply get a more aggressive 4-3 coordinator, but whatever the case, Blache's D was only good for stat-padding against bad teams, not for getting to and winning the Super Bowl.