Quote Originally Posted by NC Raven View Post
It didn't, that's true. But we lost 6 starters/regulars from what was not that good a defense to begin with. I'm not sure what else they were supposed to do.

Going in the only losses on O were Birk and Boldin. Of course later the loss of Pitta came along. But most people would have agreed that the O would have been fine, the continuity should have been decent (Again, not foreseeing Pitta..) but the D needed a ton of shoring up after losing Ray, Reed, Pollard, Cary, Kruger and Ellerbe.

Really, I don't know what any one could expect the FO to focus on. We needed to replace SIX major contributors on that side of the ball, with a tight salary cap constraint.

And had to sign Flacco to a new deal.

I really don't see the point here -- I'd love to know what exactly they should have done on offense, and what part of the gutted defense they should have blown off to accommodate the offensive investment.
This.