So who here still believes that in today's NFL that Defense is second fiddle to Offense? We just watched Seattle destroy Denver. We might have greater needs at Offense, but we still have some needs on defense too.
I've read it and heard it that defenses no longer wins championships. I think even Warren Sapp said as much recently? That myth was blown out of the water last night.
So who here still believes that in today's NFL that Defense is second fiddle to Offense? We just watched Seattle destroy Denver. We might have greater needs at Offense, but we still have some needs on defense too.
The only spot that offense > defense is at QB. You must get right at QB. Once you do that your pass rush is your second most important group of guys on the team follow by your pass blockers. The shiny toy spots on offense RB, WR don't matter all that much but everyone always want to draft them really high - well ok, RB people have finally given up on that.
So who here still believes that in today's NFL that Defense is second fiddle to Offense? We just watched Seattle destroy Denver. We might have greater needs at Offense, but we still have some needs on defense too.
The only spot that offense > defense is at QB. You must get right at QB. Once you do that your pass rush is your second most important group of guys on the team follow by your pass blockers. The shiny toy spots on offense RB, WR don't matter all that much but everyone always want to draft them really high - well ok, RB people have finally given up on that.
Yes. No matter what you MUST have a good QB. THE most important player on the team, obviously. Incidentally, Russell Wilson ushered in the new wave of mobile QB's as Super Bowl winners, didn't he? That's my biggest gripe about mike Glennon, his almost TOTAL lack of mobility. That matters in today's game.And yes again, defense still wins championships if you can score some points. The Buccaneers are on their way to having a damn good defense. Should be a very interesting off-season!
I don't think Wilson's mobility in this game was all that much different than what Aaron Rodgers or Ben Rothlisberger has shown over the years. Yes he moved around to make throws but so do those guys. Is wasn't something wildly new based on what I saw.
So who here still believes that in today's NFL that Defense is second fiddle to Offense? We just watched Seattle destroy Denver. We might have greater needs at Offense, but we still have some needs on defense too.
I don't think it's out of the question to say Seattle had an All-Time Top 10 defense this season. So yes, All-Time great defenses can still win the Superbowl. This is the first time a defense-led team has won the Superbowl since the 2002 Buccaneers. It's the exception to the rule, not the rule.
Biggs3535, I think the 2012 Champion Ravens would disagree with you. I do agree that a QB is very important, but I would not reach for one. Russell Wilson was drafted in the third round. I also agree that a mobile QB helps, but being an accurate passer is more important. At our 7 spot, I see no worthy QB's in my opinion. I would go with BPA with one of our needs to choose from that would not be a reach. We are not the Seahawks as we have many needs..
While Flacco isn't a great QB he was playing great. You can always hope to muddle into the playoffs and hope to get your Dalton/Flacco type QB hot but having a guy who is good is a much more likely route to victory. I don't know that a QB is or isn't worth the 7th pick or if we even think we need one right now. If we need one and we think one is a guy capable of winning don't worry about where to draft him. Just get him.
The point is NOT that you choose between a QB and a defense, the point is it is a TEAM sport . . . and also that it is EASIER to build a good defense than to have a Peyton Manning. You grab a potentially great QB when you have the opportunity, but you have to build the team because "great" QBs are rare and when you miss (Freeman) you really set yourself back if you have over-focused on the QB ("its all about #5")
Biggs3535, I think the 2012 Champion Ravens would disagree with you.
They can disagree all they like, because Flacco led them to that Superbowl by having one of the best postseason runs in the history of the game, not the defense. That defense was ranked 17th overall during the regular season, and allowed more than 30 points twice during their 4-game playoff stretch - including the Superbowl.
The point is NOT that you choose between a QB and a defense, the point is it is a TEAM sport . . . and also that it is EASIER to build a good defense than to have a Peyton Manning. You grab a potentially great QB when you have the opportunity, but you have to build the team because "great" QBs are rare and when you miss (Freeman) you really set yourself back if you have over-focused on the QB ("its all about #5")
Well you do choose, the opportunity cost on draft picks and the zero sum game of cap space. The question is do we have a QB who can play well enough to make the playoffs and win. If Glennon is that guy then you roll with him. If not and we think one of the QBs in the draft is that guy you take him. Obviously taking a bad player is bad, that sort of strawman argument is silly. If you think you have a Romo/ Ryan level QB - not all time greats in other words - sitting there in the draft and you don't think you have that level of a QB already on the roster you take him without worrying about what else is on the board.
The point is NOT that you choose between a QB and a defense, the point is it is a TEAM sport . . . and also that it is EASIER to build a good defense than to have a Peyton Manning. You grab a potentially great QB when you have the opportunity, but you have to build the team because "great" QBs are rare and when you miss (Freeman) you really set yourself back if you have over-focused on the QB ("its all about #5")
Well you do choose, the opportunity cost on draft picks and the zero sum game of cap space. The question is do we have a QB who can play well enough to make the playoffs and win. If Glennon is that guy then you roll with him. If not and we think one of the QBs in the draft is that guy you take him. Obviously taking a bad player is bad, that sort of strawman argument is silly. If you think you have a Romo/ Ryan level QB - not all time greats in other words - sitting there in the draft and you don't think you have that level of a QB already on the roster you take him without worrying about what else is on the board.
You choose the path you go on, but its not a mutually exclusive decision as some portray it here or else what you would do as a team is intentionally lose until you got the top pick in a year where there was an Andrew Luck. As for this comment - "Obviously taking a bad player is bad, that sort of strawman argument is silly" -- its not a silly strawman because the MORE you take an "its all about 5" approach the more you stick with a bad choice. If Free didn't have external issues and was just simply inconsistent, the Bucs likely sign him to some deal this year and continue down the path for year 6, 7 and maybe 8. I don't think you see that same approach with a RB or a TE, as an example. I agree with your Romo/Ryan example though, but the Romo/Ryan example is not really what you read on these boards, its more the Andrew Luck (Brady/Manning) example. In other words, some seem to take the approach that you cannot win without an Andrew Luck (Manning, Brady etc.) so anything short of that is wasting time. The reality is those players are so few and far between that the key is developing an efficient offense with an efficient QB (see Wilson) while not ignoring things that many here say are almost irrelevant such as the running game and a top flight defense, both of which by definition are easier to build and less risky because they involve multiple players.
I think we've gotten cross ways on you reading me as needing a Luck level guy and that isn't the case. There are right now somewhere around 10-15 QBs who are play off calibre guys. All that means to me is that they are capable consistently having a team be a threat for the playoffs. Obviously some of those guys have to miss in any given year but you know looking at those QBs that their teams have a chance as opposed to having the Ponder/Henne type guys. Any of those playoff capable guys is Super Bowl capable to me. Having Dalton or Flacco is a disadvantage compared to having Manning or Rodgers but obviously the Eli, Flacco, Wilson level guys have won their share of big games recently. I agree that you need to be very honest in evaluating if you have the guy. You can't keep rolling year after year with a might be dude because you fear the unknown. I said plenty wi Freeman, he should make the team better the team shouldn't need to get better for him.
I am not saying not to take a QB in the first round; just that it is reach except for Bridgewater at that spot. Trading down to the mid to last in the first round sure allows us many more options. I believe that Glennon is adequate and we have other needs address.
I think we've gotten cross ways on you reading me as needing a Luck level guy and that isn't the case. There are right now somewhere around 10-15 QBs who are play off calibre guys. All that means to me is that they are capable consistently having a team be a threat for the playoffs. Obviously some of those guys have to miss in any given year but you know looking at those QBs that their teams have a chance as opposed to having the Ponder/Henne type guys. Any of those playoff capable guys is Super Bowl capable to me. Having Dalton or Flacco is a disadvantage compared to having Manning or Rodgers but obviously the Eli, Flacco, Wilson level guys have won their share of big games recently. I agree that you need to be very honest in evaluating if you have the guy. You can't keep rolling year after year with a might be dude because you fear the unknown. I said plenty wi Freeman, he should make the team better the team shouldn't need to get better for him.
Dal, I don't think you say "Luck or nothing," so to speak; I was speaking more to the general comments you read on these boards. I do think you overemphasize passing and deemphasize passing defense and running and the sort of ball control strategy we saw last night, but you may be right on that, at least over the long-term. I just don't think we are there yet.
