Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca
If you built a team that way, you'd basically stop the run and then get killed by teams that could throw the ball...
It was a great theory when it wasn't a passing league, now that it is, the highest valued defensive players are, pass rushers.
I think his theory is ok other than I think he's overvaluing some positions that you can get by at with an alright player.
|
Problem with that point is that the Chiefs, in the last 20 years, had two of the most dominant pass rushers of their day in DT and Jared Allen. Some success in the DT period, none in the JA period.
I fully understand the importance of a decent pass rush, but a good pass rush has to be married to a stable solid defense up the middle. Otherwise, that dominant pass rusher doesn't mean doodlely squat. It's about proper balance. About getting quality, and not necessarily the most dynamic player, but the most fundamentally sound, well rounded player at each position. The sum of the whole is greater than the individual parts. It's why you don't pay Albert Haynesworth like the Redskins did, but instead get good players at a multitude of positions. It takes 11 guys to win a game - on both sides of the ball. I just think building stability up the middle (both sides) is a better way to achieve it than building with the glamour positions. I value a middle linebacker over a ROLB because of that. The MLB might not get the oohs and aahs that a OLB would, but the middle linebacker is doing all the other stuff - supporting the run, calling the defense, dropping in coverage, etc. A very good one will cover a lot of sins by the rest of the defense. However, a bad one or even a mediocre one will cost you a boat load of games because he is required to do so much and a good offense will exploit that a lot more than just having a full back or extra tight end help the LT on a really good pass rusher.
That's just how I see it. There's a lot of different ways to build a football team, and most of them have worked in some capacity.