It's clear that Offenses have a drastic advantage in today's NFL, based on the skyrocketing stats, player deals, and rules.
As a GM, you are faced with investing draft and salary cap resources either:
Evenly across O and D
Heavier investment on O
Heavier investment on D
Assuming you have a top 12 Quarterback and are relatively stable at that position....
Standard logic would argue that you might choose to split resources evenly to have a balanced team that is competitive. But if the rules, and therefore the game, is rigged heavier for Offense, an even allocation of resources is a losing proposition.
So I think it's really down to two choices from there:
Heavier investment on D to account for the disadvantage
Heavier investment on O to exploit the disadvantage
If you invest way more on Defense, you will be competitive in every game. Your Defense will keep the score low, and your mediocre Offense will have a chance to lead a game-winning or game-sealing drive in many games. You may have a competitive differentiator in that not many teams have good defenses. That said... you may be investing in a losing strategy.
Old logic dictates that Defense wins championships... but that was back then. It's a different game now. This was evidenced in the Chiefs' SB win over the 49ers.
If you invest way more on Offense, you should be able to win at a higher clip since you can outpace most teams. I think the winning formula is to match the tilt - 65-70% heavier investment on offense to 30-35% on defense.
As that relates to drafts, I imagine we will be taking Offensive players early for the foreseeable future, unless there's a can't-miss prospect available that falls in our laps or we have a gaping, bleeding hole at a core defensive position due to injury or FA.
I've pounded the table for so long in the draft on having to address certain positions, but I'm finally to the point where I truly just want BPA. I feel like the team has zeroed in on certain positions or players a bit too much without just sticking to the board. In 2017 & 2018 you have these huge reaches for Kpass and Speaks, resulting in very little positive contributions and still a huge hole at DE. In 2019 they zeroed in a particular type of WR in Hardman, leaving several more talented WR taken afterwards who contributed right away and have continued to be more productive than Hardman. Can't fault them too much for CEH this year, although safety is a bit of a weakness and Antoine Winfield Jr looks like the possible DROY. Also, Willie Gay hasn't shown any tangible growth and Jeremy Chinn was taken with the very next pick and looks like a baller. We're taking players that take way too long to develop or simply aren't the best value, leaving more holes down the road. Long story short, just take BPA and find other ways to fill the holes. [Reply]
Can't really argue with your logic. The game has changed in favor of offense, and the NFL keeps modifying the rules and their interpretation towards more offense, so that isn't going away any time soon. Scratch that. Ever.
Where once I would've adamantly declared that "defense wins championships," now I have to concede that this is no longer true, and probably never will be again. You have to have some defense, but a top-15 D will get you to the promised land so long as you have the offense you described in the OP.
Hell, even Gruden has seen the light apparently. He's spent the last two seasons trying to construct an offensive powerhouse while simultaneously deconstructing a defense that featured star-quality players.
And look at the coaching trees of the two best HCs right now. Belichick's "defense first," philosophy among his former staff has pretty much fallen flat on its face, while Andy's proteges have largely been successful.
I don't know if "offense wins championships," will ever catch on as a phrase, but imo it's the modern truism in the NFL today. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Can't really argue with your logic. The game has changed in favor of offense, and the NFL keeps modifying the rules and their interpretation towards more offense, so that isn't going away any time soon. Scratch that. Ever.
Where once I would've adamantly declared that "defense wins championships," now I have to concede that this is no longer true, and probably never will be again. You have to have some defense, but a top-15 D will get you to the promised land so long as you have the offense you described in the OP.
Hell, even Gruden has seen the light apparently. He's spent the last two seasons trying to construct an offensive powerhouse while simultaneously deconstructing a defense that featured star-quality players.
And look at the coaching trees of the two best HCs right now. Belichick's "defense first," philosophy among his former staff has pretty much fallen flat on its face, while Andy's proteges have largely been successful.
I don't know if "offense wins championships," will ever catch on as a phrase, but imo it's the modern truism in the NFL today.
I think modern rules ruined the "defense wins championships" model. The 49ers came pretty damn close though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
9ers would have done it if they wouldn't have ran into elite QB.
Thats the trump card.
This is true. A lot of our perception is based on Mahomes bias. If Mahomes didn't exist, or if he'd decided to be a baseball player instead of a QB, or if his knee injury had been season-ending, do the Chiefs win the SB? No, I don't think so.
Russell Wilson won his only SB when he had a great defense.
Aaron Rodgers.
Eli won, and he's not even great, but he had great defenses.
JC, Flacco won a SB, entirely because of that defense.
But now in 2020-2021 and beyond for the foreseeable future, to win a SB you need an elite QB a lot more than you need a great defense, because of Patrick Mahomes II. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
This is true. A lot of our perception is based on Mahomes bias. If Mahomes didn't exist, or if he'd decided to be a baseball player instead of a QB, or if his knee injury had been season-ending, do the Chiefs win the SB? No, I don't think so.
Russell Wilson won his only WB when he had a great defense.
Aaron Rodgers.
Eli won, and he's not even great, but he had great defenses.
JC, Flacco won a SB, entirely because of that defense.
But now in 2020-2021 and beyond for the foreseeable future, to win a SB you need an elite QB a lot more than you need a great defense, because of Patrick Mahomes II.
On the flip side of that coin, none of those teams likely even make a Super Bowl without their QB.
One could argue many of those GB teams wouldn't have even made the playoffs without Rodgers, let alone made it to a Super Bowl.
Flacco and Eli, for all of their faults, QB'd teams that barely even made the playoffs (Giants 9-7, Baltimore 10-6) and then they went off in the playoffs. Eli had 9 TD's to 1 INT in his playoff run and Flacco was even better (11 TD, 0 INT's). [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
On the flip side of that coin, none of those teams likely even make a Super Bowl without their QB.
One could argue many of those GB teams wouldn't have even made the playoffs without Rodgers, let alone made it to a Super Bowl.
Flacco and Eli, for all of their faults, QB'd teams that barely even made the playoffs (Giants 9-7, Baltimore 10-6) and then they went off in the playoffs. Eli had 9 TD's to 1 INT in his playoff run and Flacco was even better (11 TD, 0 INT's).
Eh, we could play the supposition game all day.
SEA without Russell Wilson, insert any top 15 QB from 2014, that year might've gotten there anyway. Maybe not win, but gotten there.
The Packers in 2010 is harder. The QBs available after the top 4 or so is kind of thin. If I spent some time looking maybe I could find a couple QBs that could still lead that team to the SB. Outside of Manning, Brady, Brees, etc.
And no stack of stats is going to convince me that Flacco was ever a great QB. He was more lucky than good. Lucky that defense was all-world and gave him extra chances to score, if they didn't score themselves and just take the issue out of his hands. Lucky with some throws and some penalties. He was Tannehill with a much better defense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Eh, we could play the supposition game all day.
SEA without Russell Wilson, insert any top 15 QB from 2014, that year might've gotten there anyway. Maybe not win, but gotten there.
The Packers in 2010 is harder. The QBs available after the top 4 or so is kind of thin. If I spent some time looking maybe I could find a couple QBs that could still lead that team to the SB. Outside of Manning, Brady, Brees, etc.
And no stack of stats is going to convince me that Flacco was ever a great QB. He was more lucky than good. Lucky that defense was all-world and gave him extra chances to score, if they didn't score themselves and just take the issue out of his hands. Lucky with some throws and some penalties. He was Tannehill with a much better defense.
He was really good for like 6 games. Total fluke and all-time lucky timing, but he was good. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
He was really good for like 6 games. Total fluke and all-time lucky timing, but he was good.
Okay, but he wasn't $100 million good. Or lucky. He was a flash in the pan, that was lucky enough to be on a team that featured the best defense in the 21st century. Take Ray Lewis off the roster for any reason and no one even remembers Flacco's name today. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Okay, but he wasn't $100 million good. Or lucky. He was a flash in the pan, that was lucky enough to be on a team that featured the best defense in the 21st century. Take Ray Lewis off the roster for any reason and no one even remembers Flacco's name today.
Alex Smith - you can win one with him, but it has to be right.
Mahomes - Best I've ever seen.
If you have Alex, you focus high picks and dollars on Defense. Defense MUST perform because Alex will blow posessions. On offense, you swing for the fences on athletes, injury cases and high ceiling low floor guys. You need an OL, and guys that can go yard because Alex isn't going to get it there.
If you have a fucking GOD, then you spend picks and dollars on offense because it's driving the boat. You get a few difference maker type guys on defense and hope for the best. It needs to just steal a few posesssions, Mahomes has to do the rest. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Okay, but he wasn't $100 million good. Or lucky. He was a flash in the pan, that was lucky enough to be on a team that featured the best defense in the 21st century. Take Ray Lewis off the roster for any reason and no one even remembers Flacco's name today.
The problem is - again - that Flacco won those 3 playoff games and the Super Bowl. That historic defense gave up 35 points to the Broncos in the divisional round and needed OT to win.
Both Flacco and Manning threw 3 TD's. The difference is that Flacco threw zero INT's.
That defense doesn't get to the SB without Flacco. But Flacco never gets to the playoffs in the first place without that defense. [Reply]
Well, I think in terms of philosphical approach, you load the offense.
In terms of resource spending, I think you allocate draft capital to the most expensive positions on the field first, and that also is in line with the pillars of your team.
I think in today's NFL you kind of move towards a draft plan that will include:
RDE - You need a horse that can bring pressure off the edge, that remains a constant.
DT-3T - You need a penetrating and disruptive 3-tech DT these days that can bring immediate heat up the middle on today's quick-release QBs.
CBx2 - You need to have guys that can cover. You won't get as lucky as Veach consistently in this league with pulling guys off the scrap heap but you might get 1 and 1 in the draft and keep rolling it.
FS - You have to have a FS that can cover any part of the field and man cover slots.
OTx2 - Tackles on bot sides remain extremely important. Not that you ignore the interior OL, but if you have two talented tackles it eliminates a ton of issues for your team.
WR1 - You have to find a game-breaker at the position that can open up the rest of the offense. KC's offense is far more effective because of Hill commanding bracket/double coverage at all times.
TE - You need a good, reliable blanked for your QB and good TE opens up alot of matchup problems for a defense, which also takes some attention off your run game and other receivers.
Filling the above positions with the requisite talent in FA can be a fool's proposition because you will ALWAYS overpay. Instead, use FA to fill your other, cheaper positions. [Reply]