Which is a better investment? Offense or 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.