Which is a better investment? Offense or Defense?

[LSHMEAB]

Just now, inaugural balls said:

 

To summarize: 

 

Good defense is critical for success.

Not really. Pass rushers, ballhawks, etc are where you want to allocate resources on defense. Good defense circa 2019 means creating turnovers and getting to the quarterback. Also need to get stops in the RZ which usually requires playmakers who can get TFL's, sacks, or even INT's. 

[stinky finger]

2 hours ago, H2o said:

The good thing about this team is the defense is already good enough to get it done. We have a lot of young core players who will continue to improve with some good vets sprinkled in at key positions. In our case it's obvious the offense is what needs tending to and mainly the OL. We get 3 good starters on the OL, a true #1 WR, and a good RB then this team is going places. Not saying Shady can't still get it done, but the end is near and we all know it. Both sides of the ball are equally important because they work in tandem with one another. 

 

Absolutely agree both sides of the ball are equally important. I differ with you on our D is good enough.

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

i guess we can now throw the old axiom, 'offense wins games, defense wins championships', out the window now.

 

Who's we?

3 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Not really. Pass rushers, ballhawks, etc are where you want to allocate resources on defense. Good defense circa 2019 means creating turnovers and getting to the quarterback. Also need to get stops in the RZ which usually requires playmakers who can get TFL's, sacks, or even INT's. 

 

So you don't disagree? This sounds like a good defense to me.

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, inaugural balls said:

... Who's we? ...

man, that tree of low hanging fruit is everywhere these days.

[LSHMEAB]

4 minutes ago, inaugural balls said:

 

Absolutely agree both sides of the ball are equally important. I differ with you on our D is good enough.

 

Who's we?

 

So you don't disagree? This sounds like a good defense to me.

Yes. It sounds like good defense circa 2019. The formula would have been a bit different 10-15 years ago. If a defense could stop the run and wasn't a liability in the pass game, they could really dominate. The inverse is true today, although it's virtually impossible to "dominate" with rule changes and advanced passing concepts. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

An offense that can outplay Brady and a defense that can stop Brady 

 

[iinii]

Good investments are about sustainability, which according to the article are easier to achieve on offense since “great” defense requires a degree of luck: turnovers, sacks, defensive touchdowns. Great offenses have a tendency toward pragmatism. Offenses act,  defenses react. An offense that can play down hill owns a defense. Look what NE has done in the playoffs. Down hill ball, backed by quality defense. Balance, but consistently driven by a franchise QB and a coach who knows how to exploit weaknesses. 

[LSHMEAB]

8 minutes ago, iinii said:

Good investments are about sustainability, which according to the article are easier to achieve on offense since “great” defense requires a degree of luck: turnovers, sacks, defensive touchdowns. Great offenses have a tendency toward pragmatism. Offenses act,  defenses react. An offense that can play down hill owns a defense. Look what NE has done in the playoffs. Down hill ball, backed by quality defense. Balance, but consistently driven by a franchise QB and a coach who knows how to exploit weaknesses. 

I agree with your overall assessment, but the one aspect of defense that I don't attribute to luck is sacks. You get elite pass rushers and you're likely to get sacks, which tend to increase your chances at those turnovers and defensive touchdowns. 

[PlayoffsPlease]

The title of this tread is not really the right question for a good GM to ask.   The right question to ask is "where can I get the return on investment for each decision".  For example, Khalil Mack for a first round pick and a rookie contract gives a much bigger return on investment then the return for a basket of picks plus 20 million per season.  Patrick Mahomes for a first round pick and 3 million per year is a much better investment than Kirk Cousins for 24 million per year.   

[JBacks]

It's all about the OL for me

. Plain and simple. Brees, Rivers, Rodgers etc can take no name WRs and make them known. Josh will be better his second year just for the fact he's got a years experience in this offense. Getting a really solid and efficient OL, IMHO, will be the best thing in Josh's development. You get the running game going. Being able to move the chains and eliminate alot of the 3 and outs in itself will help the defense. I would like to address the OL in FA as much as possible players who have veteran leadership and talent. Having said all that, you have to take the BPA regardless which side of the ball. You can not miss on your 1st round pick especially when you are picking in the top 10. I really like this Risner kid. I don't buy into the thought process that where we are picking is too high if you can get a plug and play starter especially with his versatility. Now, if one of the top rated defensive players drop, which always happens, you take him if he is rated higher. After all, you are always one injury away. You can NEVER have too much talent.

[stinky finger]

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

man, that tree of low hanging fruit is everywhere these days.

 

Fair - my point being that defense should not be dismissed nor devalued.

[Elite Poster]

5 hours ago, wiskibreth said:

The answer is BALANCE.

 

Neglecting one in favor of the other will always get you a loser.

 

Ya know, I wouldn't really call the #1 AFC seed this year that lost because they had a guy lined Offside a "loser"...

[mannc]

21 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Hell yeah it would!!!  KC seems set up to be a favorite to reach the AFC Champ Game a lot over the next handful of years to say the least.  Their best players are all relatively young.  

 

I really think Buffalo is on that doorstep in the same way the Rams were after Goffs rookie year (although no one knew it yet) and the Bears were after Trubisky rookie year (although no one knew for sure yet).

 

In both those cases, they had some key defensive personnel in place and just finished a season with a rookie QB with little else on the offense around said rookie QB other than RB's.  Both teams completely overhauled the offensive personnel in one off season, especially at WR where both teams entered the next season with 3 new WRs atop the depth chart.  They also added some key changes on the OL too.  Yes both got new HC's, but our issue isnt at HC, so we are fine there.  

 

If we can put some talent around Josh this year and shore up the OL, this team very well could be this next years surprise young team that makes a leap to double digit wins and a deep playoff run.  Especially the way Josh has multiple times now made big strides in small windows of time.  Him having a full offseason as the unquestioned starter, a year in the system now, more weapons and protection and I think he is poised for a breakout season next year.

 

Except for the fact last year, all 4 teams were ranked #1, #2, #4, and #5 in scoring defense.  One season doesn't make a trend, and the most prolific offense KC is at home because their D sucks. 

KC is home because their offense had a subpar day vs NE and because they lost a coin flip.  Mahomes had a bad first half, and they really miss Kareem Hunt.  KC’s defense was lousy all year and yet there they were, hosting the AFC championship game.  Now you could argue that KC’s offense had a subpar day because NE’s defense played very well...

Edited January 27, 2019 by mannc

[wiskibreth]

9 minutes ago, Elite Poster said:

 

Ya know, I wouldn't really call the #1 AFC seed this year that lost because they had a guy lined Offside a "loser"...

 

 

I don't think I would either; however, NE had the better defense that day and kept the chiefs from scoring at will, which had been their M.O. all season.  NE kept the game close enough that they could exploit that crucial mistake.  Had KC been way ahead at that moment, that mistake becomes meaningless.

 

Point being, you can't always rely on a high-powered offense to win the game for you.  You can get away with it to a point, but when you come up against the likes of NE, then you'd better be ready to play on both sides of the ball.

 

That's Balance

 

[JBacks]

6 hours ago, MJS said:

Honestly? I feel like the success of your team relies on having a few elite players. One of those has to be a QB. Having another on offense helps a lot too, like a WR or RB.

 

Then you need to have a couple elite guys on defense too, like an elite pass rusher, elite MLB, CB, or even Safety (Troy Palamalu type).

 

Having a few elite guys that break the game plans of the opposing team is the key. Guys that MUST be double teamed to deal with, that require extra game planning against.Then you build around those elites on offense and defense.

 

That's my way of saying both, idealy. If you can only have one, it's offense, but it better be like the top 1 or 2 offenses in the league to make up for a bad defense. Most good teams are good, or at least have the potential to be good, on both sides of the ball.

 

I think our potential elites currently on the team are: Josh Allen, Trumaine Edmunds, Tre White, and Lesean McCoy (past his prime). The first three aren't there yet and McCoy is probably not elite anymore. Here's to hoping our new crop develops.

I recall an undefeated SB team in the 70's who won with the "No Name" defense. Just saying

 

[MJS]

8 minutes ago, JBacks said:

I recall an undefeated SB team in the 70's who won with the "No Name" defense. Just saying

 

 

Well I wasn't born in the 70's. That game has no bearing on myself or the current NFL.

[JBacks]

I actually agree what the poster said. To make it more current and it kills me to say it. Look at some of the talent that BB has won with. Not what I would consider elite by no means on the defensive side of the ball. Just saying, it can be done

 

[TigerJ]

Buffalo is going to be skewed toward spending on defense for a while unless they spend some big money on free agent linemen and receivers.  Except for Shady and Ivory, they have a very young offense now:  Five starters are former draft picks on their rookie deal.  A couple more one, Robert Foster and Jason Croom are UDFAs, also on their rookie deal.  The only real veterans besides Shady and Ivory who saw much of any time on the field were linemen who may be gone:  Russ Bodine, John Miller, Jordan Mills.  One or two of them are likely to be replaced by rookies.  Unless Beane signs a lineman or WR to an exhorbitant contract, the offense is going to continue to be low priced until the youngsters prove their worth AND get renegotiated or get a second big money deal.  That will happen eventually, but not this season.

[The Jokeman]

Ultimately as we saw with the 90s Bils, the greatest show on turf (against the Pats), the almost undefeated Patroits and the KC Chiefs a week ago that if can't stop the opposition it doesn't matter how great your offense is. Give me a great defense and I feel have a greater chance to win most of the time.

[Augie]

29 minutes ago, JBacks said:

I actually agree what the poster said. To make it more current and it kills me to say it. Look at some of the talent that BB has won with. Not what I would consider elite by no means on the defensive side of the ball. Just saying, it can be done

 

 

To be fair, we don’t all get a Tom Brady. 

 

 

But if we could divide him up into 32 equal pieces.......sorry, no....that would be a felony. 

 

 

[JBacks]

I actually agree what the poster said. To make it more current and it kills me to say it. Look at some of the talent that BB has won with. Not what I would consider elite by no means on the defensive side of the ball. Just saying, it can be done

I was referring to the defense

[Formerly Allan in MD]

Both

[iinii]

3 hours ago, mannc said:

KC is home because their offense had a subpar day vs NE and because they lost a coin flip.  Mahomes had a bad first half, and they really miss Kareem Hunt.  KC’s defense was lousy all year and yet there they were, hosting the AFC championship game.  Now you could argue that KC’s offense had a subpar day because NE’s defense played very well...

One might also posit that KC is at home thanks to a phantom roughing the passer call, when Tommy’s helmet got “bumped”, for lack of a word that is suitable in this forum.

[iinii]

2 hours ago, JBacks said:

I recall an undefeated SB team in the 70's who won with the "No Name" defense. Just saying

 

• KC: 8-6
• HOU: 1-13
• MIN: 7-7
• NYJ: 7-7
• SD: 4-9-1
• BUF: 4-9-1
• BAL: 5-9
• BUF: 4-9-1
• NE: 3-11
• NYJ: 7-7
• STL: 4-9-1
• NE: 3-11
• NYG: 8-6
• BAL: 5-9

Combined record: 70-122-4 (0.367 winning percentage)

They played only two teams above .500 all season, and both of them only 8-6. Nobody in their schedule made the playoffs. 

 

 

[#34fan]

The best investment by far is coaching... Get the best, and expect the best results.

[Augie]

Backup long snapper. 

 

Can’t have too many of them! 

[GreggTX]

It's not like defense is completely irrelevant. Just ask the Chiefs after that AFC Championship loss. Still, offense seems to be the way to go and that is clearly where we need the most help -- especially on the OL.

2 hours ago, #34fan said:

The best investment by far is coaching... Get the best, and expect the best results.

 

I'd put coaching in a tie with scouting and a solid GM. Gotta have the horses to win the race.

[RoyBatty is alive]

17 hours ago, wiskibreth said:

 

 

I don't think I would either; however, NE had the better defense that day and kept the chiefs from scoring at will, which had been their M.O. all season.  NE kept the game close enough that they could exploit that crucial mistake.  Had KC been way ahead at that moment, that mistake becomes meaningless.

 

Point being, you can't always rely on a high-powered offense to win the game for you.  You can get away with it to a point, but when you come up against the likes of NE, then you'd better be ready to play on both sides of the ball.

 

That's Balance

 

the Pats though did relay o a high powered offense at the end of the game, final three drives marched down the field three consecutive times.

[wiskibreth]

1 minute ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

the Pats though did relay o a high powered offense at the end of the game, final three drives marched down the field three consecutive times.

 

and again...  KC didn't have the defense to stop them.  Illustrating the need for balance once again.

[RoyBatty is alive]

26 minutes ago, wiskibreth said:

 

and again...  KC didn't have the defense to stop them.  Illustrating the need for balance once again.

Lets put it another way, until their is on offense which is truly "unstoppable" or a defense which cant be scored upon, there wil always need to be a balance. 

[Socal-805]

On 1/26/2019 at 2:57 PM, Chandler#81 said:

None of the Top 5 Defenses played the last 2 weekends. Case in point, we were the 2nd ranked D and we sucked. The times they are a changing. Try to obtain Pass rushers and DBs, but spend heavy on O.

 

Buffalo was 2nd in yards / game defense.

 

But 19th in points / game allowed.

 

And 30th in RED zone TDs allowed.

 

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-red-zone-scoring-pct

 

Basically , Buffalo stopped NOBODY inside their own 20.

 

 

[ctk232]

On 1/26/2019 at 5:22 PM, LSHMEAB said:

 

This is spot on. There are anomalies like Green Bay where they were so atrocious offensively that even an Aaron Rodgers can struggle, but for the most part, the QB makes the offense tick. If you have a franchise QB, all you really need is a decent supporting cast.

So I'd actually offer a different opinion and say it's the OL for the most part.

 

If we're removing and ignoring the context of the offensive scheme in place for each team/OC, to me, the QB is mainly, if not only, responsible for the success of the passing game. While he can call out alignments and adjustments at the line on run plays based upon what he sees, his greatest impact on the offense comes in the passing game as he is directly responsible for delivering accurate, timely passes. With the perceived shift in offensive philosophy to incorporate college passing concepts, and the increased emphasis placed on the passing league, it's easy to see how the impact on offensive performance can be determined by the passing game. But even teams like the Chiefs and Rams needed the stout run game to establish any kind of offensive success - hell, the Pats beat the Chiefs because they ran the ball and the Chiefs couldn't. While I don't mean this to dispute the impact a franchise caliber QB can have on an offense's success, the ability of the run game is no commentary on the QB.

 

What more greatly reflects on and determines the success of an offense is much more at the foundation with the OL. While the impact in the run game is obvious, they still need to establish effective protection and blocking adjustments to allow these franchise guys the time to read the field and deliver that accurate and timely pass. Even Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, or any other established QB would have struggled behind the OL and our skill position personnel this year, regardless of their franchise capacity, The irony being Allen's ability to scramble and extend drives with his feet, this is not the type of run game an offense should primarily rely on to complement the passing game (albeit effective as hell this past season). 

 

Last I checked offensive success was predicated on both the pass and the run and the QB can only really impact one of those two things, no matter how pass happy the league has gotten with it's spread/air-raid concepts. Both are needed, but if you want to identify what primarily reflects on an offense's success, it has to start up front before you can move anywhere else.

Edited January 28, 2019 by ctk232

[LSHMEAB]

15 minutes ago, ctk232 said:

So I'd actually offer a different opinion and say it's the OL for the most part.

 

Appreciate the detail. Completely agree that the OL is the most important component outside of the QB. If you've the QB and the OL, you really only need the receivers to be adequate. Now it's a bonus if you happen to have great "weapons," but it's not nearly as essential as the OL for sustained success. A byproduct as you stated is that you can impose your will on a defense in the run game if need be. 

 

I'm of the opinion that the value is at DL at pick 9, but the top offensive priority would be OL over receiver. There happen to be quite a few receivers I like in this draft that will go in the 3-5 range. If we go DL with the first pick, the second pick would preferably be OL followed by receiver. I think you adjust BPA once you get past the first round.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

On 1/26/2019 at 5:43 PM, machine gun kelly said:

We’ll spend 80% on offense between the two, and 20% on defense.  Hopefully it makes a difference.

 

...count me in bud.....sure there are the "wrong Josh.......terrible accuracy.....big arm ONLY....." naysayers out there.......but how many anticipated this kid's speed and agility for his size, moxy, work ethic, brass bawls, leadership skills, etc that he displayed in 2018?....think maybe he has a shot to be the long awaited "real deal"?....and we should reverse the percentage to 80% D/20% O so he's surrounded with garbage?....why Jauron Ball when we may have that "real deal"?.......

[ctk232]

47 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Appreciate the detail. Completely agree that the OL is the most important component outside of the QB. If you've the QB and the OL, you really only need the receivers to be adequate. Now it's a bonus if you happen to have great "weapons," but it's not nearly as essential as the OL for sustained success. A byproduct as you stated is that you can impose your will on a defense in the run game if need be. 

 

I'm of the opinion that the value is at DL at pick 9, but the top offensive priority would be OL over receiver. There happen to be quite a few receivers I like in this draft that will go in the 3-5 range. If we go DL with the first pick, the second pick would preferably be OL followed by receiver. I think you adjust BPA once you get past the first round.

Agreed within the context of the draft for this year - at 9 the value would more than likely fall defense/DL, which I'm totally okay with...for the right guy of course. Our DL could use another disruptive talent.

 

But my current hopeful/dream situation would actually be us trading back, landing Risner and Butler with our first two picks for commensurate value, and hopefully having another 2nd from the trade to do more damage w/ BPA/TE/WR/OL in no particular order.

Edited January 28, 2019 by ctk232

[SirAndrew]

7 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

the Pats though did relay o a high powered offense at the end of the game, final three drives marched down the field three consecutive times.

This ^ There is most certainly still a need for balance, but there is no denying the fact this league is quickly becoming based on offense. I’ve seen a lot of discussion regarding the Pats/Chiefs AFC championship game that seem to be missing one key point imo. The last team to have the ball was going to win that game. How confident are we that the Pats defense was going to prevent the Chiefs from scoring a TD had the Chiefs won the coin toss? I don’t think that game is a very good example regarding the importance of defense. 

[LSHMEAB]

6 minutes ago, ctk232 said:

Agreed within the context of the draft for this year - at 9 the value would more than likely fall defense/DL, which I'm totally okay with...for the right guy of course. Our DL could use another disruptive talent.

 

But my current hopeful/dream situation would actually be us trading back, landing Risner and Butler with our first two picks for commensurate value, and hopefully having another 2nd from the trade to do more damage w/ BPA/TE/WR/OL in no particular order.

It takes two to tango, which is why I'm pretty focused on the 9th pick. I would have no problem trading back and landing Risner/Butler. The only Olineman I DONT want is Jonah Williams. Just not a fan. In your dream scenario, I'd like them to get a Tyre Brady(my favorite second tier receiver), a TE, but also an athletic type edge player who may be under the radar. Haven't done enough research. We're gonna have to find a RB somewhere. I would have no problem with them signing Hunt, but doubtful of that actually happening.

 

 

 

 

[BillsfaninSB]

For the Bills, offense!  Our defense is solid.  A better offense will make them look even better.    More points, less turnovers, less 3 and outs and better field position will take so much pressure off the D.  And less injuries to boot.  

 

First 3 rounds should be nothing but offense. 

[ctk232]

1 hour ago, LSHMEAB said:

It takes two to tango, which is why I'm pretty focused on the 9th pick. I would have no problem trading back and landing Risner/Butler. The only Olineman I DONT want is Jonah Williams. Just not a fan. In your dream scenario, I'd like them to get a Tyre Brady(my favorite second tier receiver), a TE, but also an athletic type edge player who may be under the radar. Haven't done enough research. We're gonna have to find a RB somewhere. I would have no problem with them signing Hunt, but doubtful of that actually happening.

 

 

 

 

No doubt - weirdly enough, even though it's my dream scenario, say a trade back with Washington occurs - I still feel that may be too high for Risner, but only just. He's rising up some boards at the moment and in my non-expert opinion is right in the 20-32/early second round value range, but a lot of time b/t now and then. Definitely agree with you on Jonah, too. I need to look at Brady some more, admittedly haven't looked too far into 

 

Depending on FA and the first couple of rounds, RB could be had in the 3rd or 4th. To be honest, I'm not sure that there is an RB worth taking this year depending on who else may be available in those rounds at our picks, and we can likely prioritize this addition next year just as effectively. I'm of the opinion that Shady has enough left to give behind an improved OL for at least this next year.

[Tatonka68]

 

 

[Warcodered]

Your video resolved your title.