In Today's NFL - How much more important is O vs. D?

[Dante84]

65% / 35%?

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.

Thoughts?

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

All of your arguments beyond this are valid for sure. The guy was never worth franchise QB money because he wasn't a franchise QB, you're right.

However, the very first sentence of your argument is wrong.

In the Denver game he had a 60 AND 70-yard TD pass and just shy of 10 YPA. That doesn't happen with Alex Smith. Ever.

I can't remember those plays now. Were those 'air yards,' or no?

Not that it matters that much; i agree with you in that Flacco, in what you could call his prime, had a much stronger arm than Alex ever did. I just wrote that first line to try and spark some heat. Stir the pot a little. Plus, Flacco just irritates me for some reason.

[Megatron96]

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.

This.

It's a fact that building a dynasty has to begin with getting a generational-type QB. But finding one in the draft is like trying to find needles in haystacks.

What actually happens is that franchises get pure-D lucky, period.

Everyone thought Marino would win multiple SBs. But no.

No one seriously believed that Montana would eventually be considered the GOAT or win 4 Rings.

No one thought Brady would win 6.

And so on.

Otherwise, the blueprint is pretty simple: One, build a team that can consistently post a winning record. Two, consistently win your Division. Three, consistently win playoff games. Four, win your Conference Championship game, and put your team in a position to win the SB. Every team is trying to do that. They aren't trying to build a dynasty until they get stupidly lucky enough to light upon a generational QB. Because 99% of teams will never find that guy to build around.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

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.

We’re pretty much in total agreement. Other than the fact that for some teams what we did just isn’t in the cards. Simple truth is that in Today’s NFL, most teams don’t have the stones to do what we did, because they’re unwilling to accept the risk of what happens if it fails. No owner wants to be the Jets, Browns or Jags, and if you’re going to dump the middling guy it’s a possibility. And a lot of GMs think they have a better chance at not getting shitcanned by keeping the middling guy over getting a Trubisky. GMs aren’t looking for a dynasty, most of them are looking to not get fired this year.

So I’ll stick with my original answer. In Today’s NFL it really depends on your existing personnel, mostly at QB, and your tolerance for risk. If you’re going to run a middling guy you have to have a good defense because it has to win possessions because your middling guy is going to dump some possessions.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

This.

It's a fact that building a dynasty has to begin with getting a generational-type QB. But finding one in the draft is like trying to find needles in haystacks.

What actually happens is that franchises get pure-D lucky, period.

Everyone thought Marino would win multiple SBs. But no.

No one seriously believed that Montana would eventually be considered the GOAT or win 4 Rings.

No one thought Brady would win 6.

And so on.

Otherwise, the blueprint is pretty simple: One, build a team that can consistently post a winning record. Two, consistently win your Division. Three, consistently win playoff games. Four, win your Conference Championship game, and put your team in a position to win the SB. Every team is trying to do that. They aren't trying to build a dynasty until they get stupidly lucky enough to light upon a generational QB. Because 99% of teams will never find that guy to build around.

Most of your blueprint is totally unrealistic without elite QB play.

You're not consistently winning play-off games without one, for example. You might win one here or there, but you're not going to win consistently without a top five type guy. Or at least a guy that's having a top five type season; now we've seen guys do that but not be able to do so consistently, like Matt Ryan for example.

[Oxford]

It's really about complimentary football. If you have PMII, you construct your roster to play defense through your offense, more so than if your QB is Alex Smith. So it is all about the QB, which is why we seem to be biased towards drafting offense.