First it was Pierce late last season saying he could not improvise/freelance when he KNEW the play the defense was calling. If there is anyone on the defense who 'knows,' it is Pierce.
Then we heard from Webster (and Madison) that the CBs were made to play off the WRs. They had to read and react, and play softer zone coverages instead of the more aggressive man-to-man at the line of scrimmage.
Then we heard from Wilson that the Safeties too were unable to be aggressive, that Lewis had them playing a conservative style which limited their playmaking.
Now we hear from Cofield, that Lewis had him playing NT with even less chance for performance because of his lack of any previous experience at the position. Cofield contends that he has the natural athleticism for his size that enables him to get in the backfield quickly... something the NT does not get to do (since NTs are to occupy both a C and G).
I am skeptical. Could ALL of this be true? Could the coach have been the reason why ALL of these players were underperforming? The only thing that supports such a conclusion is that Wilson and Pierce were performers before and became less so after. That would lend credence to these claims. Cofield as a rookie was actually extremely impressive. He got the snot beat out of him every game and his presence was still felt (altho by year end he was playing on fumes). We'll see. The one thing I do know is that Spagnuolo will be more aggressive, and that suits me fine. The best defenses always try to take the game to the offense. Whenever I hear Read-n-React I think of Rod Rust, the man who singlehandedly set Giants defense back 20 years until Fox could repair the damage many years later.