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.
Originally Posted by kccrow:
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.
If Mahomes didn’t exist Jimmy Garropollo is a super bowl hero.
Peytons last one.
Brady’s last one.
Eli Manning fucking twice.
Big dick nick foles
Joe buttfucking Flacco.
These not great dudes disagree.
Or, Ryan Tannehill lifts the Lombardi . . . Thank God Mahomes was born so we didn't have to watch a SB featuring Tannehill vs. Garrapolo. We should all send a thank you card to Mr. Mahomes Sr. for impregnating Ms. Mahomes, 26 years ago and saving us from that horrific fate. [Reply]
If Mahomes didn’t exist Jimmy Garropollo is a super bowl hero.
Peytons last one.
Brady’s last one.
Eli Manning ****ing twice.
Big dick nick foles
Joe butt****ing Flacco.
These not great dudes disagree.
I should say-
You might get lucky once, but you're unlikely to have a sustained contender for championships without one. It's just not a very sustainable model. Each of those teams were substantially worse the next season.
If I was the owner for one of the teams with a non-elite QB, I'd be moving mountains to get one. If I had an elite QB, I'd be doing everything to help them succeed.
I don't think constructing a #1 defense is any easier than building a #1 offense when you can't touch receivers and can barely hit QB's and I don't think against a top flight QB you're going to win consistently with a middling guy. Every once in awhile, maybe.
That doesn't mean you can go with the #32 defense either. Of course you need to be competent in all phases.
I'd take The Chiefs and the #1 offense with their middle of the pack defense for sure.
I think some of you guys just argue to argue. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
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.
Okay, but Flacco didn't do anything that Alex Smith couldn't have done.
Yeah, BAL defense gave up 35 points; to a nearly prime Peyton Manning, who they kept under 300 yds, forced a pair of INTs, and caused two fumbles. They also held DEN to just 125 yds rushing on 41 attempts (3yd/att).
And one of those INTs was in the 2nd OT on the DEN 45, setting up Ray Rice, not Flacco who missed his only pass attempt, to run for 16 yards and set up the 48-yd FG.
Take Ray Lewis out, and Flacco loses that game. Give Flacco this year's BAL defense and it'd be a rout.
Flacco rode that defense to a $120 million dollar payday. Good for him I guess, but he was never worth that kind of money. They should've given it to the defense. Maybe they would've won another one. [Reply]
You might get lucky once, but you're unlikely to have a sustained contender for championships without one. It's just not a very sustainable model. Each of those teams were substantially worse the next season.
If I was the owner for one of the teams with a non-elite QB, I'd be moving mountains to get one. If I had an elite QB, I'd be doing everything to help them succeed.
I don't think constructing a #1 defense is any easier than building a #1 offense when you can't touch receivers and can barely hit QB's and I don't think against a top flight QB you're going to win consistently with a middling guy. Every once in awhile, maybe.
That doesn't mean you can go with the #32 defense either. Of course you need to be competent in all phases.
I'd take The Chiefs and the #1 offense with their middle of the pack defense for sure.
I think some of you guys just argue to argue.
Look, I’m not trying to be an assnozzle here, but it’s not just “go get one”. There are lots of guys that look elite but when they get to the league they’re shit. In fact most of them. You have a guy like Alex and you move mountains thinking you are getting Mahomes end up with a guy like Josh Allen, fuuuuuuuck.
And yeah, you can say trust the scouting, and I’m sure Ryan Pace did when he drafted Trubisky. It’s just hard man. Chiefs, whoever was responsible had GIANT BRASS BALLS to go get Mahomes. Not only did they give up a lot but there were a lot of question marks.
You pull that move and end up with QBing like Allen or Winston or Rosen or Bortles or EJ Manuel or Wentz and you’re undoubtedly fired. It’s why nobody dumps good not great QBs. Because it’s awfully enticing to take your shot with the gun you’ve got rather than search the battlefield for a better gun that may or may not be jammed.
It’s easy to say, tough to do. The fact that the Chiefs made it look easy doesn’t mean it does.
As to the rest of your post, I agree. But most teams aren’t looking for a dynasty. They’re looking to get in the playoffs and hopefully make some noise and. Get lucky enough to bring home a title. We should know. We did it for decades. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
Look, I’m not trying to be an assnozzle here, but it’s not just “go get one”. There are lots of guys that look elite but when they get to the league they’re shit. In fact most of them. You have a guy like Alex and you move mountains thinking you are getting Mahomes end up with a guy like Josh Allen, fuuuuuuuck.
And yeah, you can say trust the scouting, and I’m sure Ryan Pace did when he drafted Trubisky. It’s just hard man. Chiefs, whoever was responsible had GIANT BRASS BALLS to go get Mahomes. Not only did they give up a lot but there were a lot of question marks.
You pull that move and end up with QBing like Allen or Winston or Rosen or Bortles or EJ Manuel or Wentz and you’re undoubtedly fired. It’s why nobody dumps good not great QBs. Because it’s awfully enticing to take your shot with the gun you’ve got rather than search the battlefield for a better gun that may or may not be jammed.
It’s easy to say, tough to do. The fact that the Chiefs made it look easy doesn’t mean it does.
As to the rest of your post, I agree. But most teams aren’t looking for a dynasty. They’re looking to get in the playoffs and hopefully make some noise and. Get lucky enough to bring home a title. We should know. We did it for decades.
Well yeah, and how'd it work out for us?
You're right in that most teams are just struggling for relevance; I guess my argument is that if your goal is dominance, and by that I mean consistent contender for championships, you've got to have an elite QB and surround him with offensive talent. Especially when you consider that QB is a position where you can expect them to play well far beyond 30, unlike any other position in football. Drafting an elite QB can give you a 10-15 year window of contention if you land one. An elite defense tends to give you a year or two window. Too much has to go perfectly I guess.
Anyway, the question posed is what's more important, offense or defense? And I'd say absolutely, offense is. The league has skewed the rules to favor scoring points.
You're totally right about teams whiffing on elite QB prospects of course, but I'd say they whiff on defensive players too. I'm not sure it's all that much safer to try to build an elite defense than to find an elite QB and build an offense around him. Either way you have to trust the scouting and trust your coaching.
anyway, you don't have to dump the middling guy, you've just got to continue looking for the elite guy. I mean, really, you need to do exactly what the Chiefs did. And you need to be right when you pull the trigger. But I sure wouldn't pay...like Kirk Cousins a bunch of money.
The mental processing is so much of the game with QB's. It's clear that across the league they haven't figured out how to best quantify that. Until they do, Trubisky happens. [Reply]
It's fucking hard as shit to build a "dynasty" especially in a capped league. You can't have that expectation. You try to build in waves and hope the down years are 10/11 wins and go from there.
Always being flexible is key. When shit happens, move to another thing.
I used to be all about trying to get that franchise QB at all costs. But it's such a scarce resource, that while you're always looking, you've gotta start with competency. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
It's ****ing hard as shit to build a "dynasty" especially in a capped league. You can't have that expectation. You try to build in waves and hope the down years are 10/11 wins and go from there.
Always being flexible is key. When shit happens, move to another thing.
I used to be all about trying to get that franchise QB at all costs. But it's such a scarce resource, that while you're always looking, you've gotta start with competency.
sure. You get yourself an Alex Smith, and then you go looking for your Mahomes. [Reply]
Eh, I'd rather be bottom of the barrel and drafting first/early for a few years than being stuck with a mediocre QB. Those Cassel years were the worst. Too good to get key players in the draft, too bad to win important games.
If you do it the Chiefs way, with Alex, you have to be able to find a gem with serious concerns that isn't going top 5, like Patrick or GB did with Favre/Rodgers. If you whiff, you're screwed. [Reply]
Drafting at the end of the first rd isn’t really a disadvantage if you know how to draft.
There’s always very good players taken in the 2nd rd. Recently it’s been receivers like Dk, Brown and Claypool, but Darius Leonard, Braden Smith, Nick Chubb, etc. Hell we got Mecole and Thornhill and they are good players.
We’ll keep sticking talent. I think Veach and Andy will continue to thrive. [Reply]
