Originally Posted by steelfury02
I totally agree with you - the offense didn't hold up its part - and that was even more exposed as the defense had a terrible year in terms of wreaking havoc - forcing turnovers means extra possessions and better field position. You're right - the defense cannot be dominant every single season - just don't rely on rankings - lack of turnovers took this team down another notch and helped shine some light on an offense - especially as the year went on and we were more banged up. This is not an O that can consistently march the field over the course of the Arians era. I'd argue they were showing promise going into the KC game. Just some food for thought - Not saying its the D's fault - but, it heightened everyone's awareness to what it really takes to win a SB - if you aren't creating turnovers - its that much harder on a struggling O.
so would running a 4-3 create more turnovers ? would ike taylors stonehands magically transform into venus fly traps ? remember the argument here is switching to the 4-3.
how many missed opportunties for turnovers and even pick sixes were there ? i recall several.
my point is the players failed the scheme, the scheme didn't fail the players.
the bears ran the same D they did last year but nobody was using them as an example to switch to the 4-3 , so why now just because the ball bounced there way more than usual are they the poster child for switching to a 4-3 D ?
could the players have had anything to do with their new found success ?