Are Cowboys over invested at receiver?

[MyFairLady]

The WR position is a perfect example of what is wrong with this team. As long as you have some sort of idea of what it is that you are and what it is that you are trying to do things will probably work out. A few years ago our position was that we did not need to invest heavily into the WR position. About 2 seconds after that we are trading a first round pick, paying out a 20 million dollar contract and using another first round pick to go along with a second round pick. Basically the entire team philosophy changes from black to white overnight. Personally I find that to be unsettling.

 

[Future]

The great offenses in the NFL today do not run through multiple WRs as it is not practical. KC is Kelce and Hill (mostly Kelce) and a great RB to match. SF is using a bum QB but is carried by Kittle. The Ravens run the ball and throw to a tight end. The Packers have invested basically nothing in their offense in 12 years. The Patriots at their best were Gronk and a slot WR or 2 TEs. The Saints offense is also 1 WR and 1 RB and that is it.

Sorry that reality does not jive with what you thought, but in the NFL having a lot of WRs is not conducive to a great offense and they are overpaid compared to the TE position and even the RB position in terms of value they provide.

KC, SF, and Baltimore are the exact opposite. They might not have great WRs, but they have speed at WR and use lots of horizontal movement to open up the middle of the field for the TEs to work, it's not the other way around.
The Saints have a bad offense, the Packers have been good when they had multiple productive WRs (i.e. Cobb, Jordy, Davante). Even the Pats depended on having WRs who won against man (Welker, Edelman) as their primary targets and RBs who can catch to force defenders to commit to the flat.

There's just never a case where a good offense is built around a TE.

 

[Adreme]

KC, SF, and Baltimore are the exact opposite. They might not have great WRs, but they have speed at WR and use lots of horizontal movement to open up the middle of the field for the TEs to work, it's not the other way around.
The Saints have a bad offense, the Packers have been good when they had multiple productive WRs (i.e. Cobb, Jordy, Davante). Even the Pats depended on having WRs who won against man (Welker, Edelman) as their primary targets and RBs who can catch to force defenders to commit to the flat.

There's just never a case where a good offense is built around a TE.

If you think the WRs of the Ravens are even remotely what that offense runs through than you are REALLY forcing this because it doesnt. That offense runs through Mark Andrews and the RBs (specifically Ingram last season but its more spread out this season so far). The fact that they occasionally threw to a WR does not mean that the offense ran through them. The TE lead that team in targets and receptions and TDs.

The Saints have HAD a good offense most of the past few years. The fact that Brees has finally hit a wall does not change that and it does not change the fact that their offense was Thomas and Kamara and literally nothing else so cant really be overinvested at WR when your investment is one guy.

The Patriots offense ran through Gronk and before his prison situation Gronk and Hernandez. Again there is no way to watch that team and think "man these other players who get 2-3 targets a game and get 25-30 yards if they are lucky are truly the focal point of this offense". The only exception is 1 slot WR, who is both far cheaper, and again 1 guy is not an overinvestment.

The Packers notoriously invested nothing into the offense. They basically let Rodgers carry the offense and you can tell because none of the WRs, who he clearly made relevant, were that good without him. Even now their highest skill position draft pick is a RB (who is very good but still a RB).

Rams and Chiefs are all about the TE except instead of the Ravens where they use their TEs to set up more running plays, the Rams and Chiefs use their TE as the primary threat and then use their 1 good WR to do everything else (again for both teams its only 1 good WR).

Teams do not invest at WR. They get 1 guy and a TE and invest on the OLine. That is the recipe. That has been the recipe and that will likely continue to be the recipe as that has basically been the constant over the past decade since the Patriots really made that trend popular (shocking).

 

[Future]

If you think the WRs of the Ravens are even remotely what that offense runs through than you are REALLY forcing this because it doesnt. That offense runs through Mark Andrews and the RBs (specifically Ingram last season but its more spread out this season so far). The fact that they occasionally threw to a WR does not mean that the offense ran through them. The TE lead that team in targets and receptions and TDs.

The Saints have HAD a good offense most of the past few years. The fact that Brees has finally hit a wall does not change that and it does not change the fact that their offense was Thomas and Kamara and literally nothing else so cant really be overinvested at WR when your investment is one guy.

The Patriots offense ran through Gronk and before his prison situation Gronk and Hernandez. Again there is no way to watch that team and think "man these other players who get 2-3 targets a game and get 25-30 yards if they are lucky are truly the focal point of this offense". The only exception is 1 slot WR, who is both far cheaper, and again 1 guy is not an overinvestment.

The Packers notoriously invested nothing into the offense. They basically let Rodgers carry the offense and you can tell because none of the WRs, who he clearly made relevant, were that good without him. Even now their highest skill position draft pick is a RB (who is very good but still a RB).

Rams and Chiefs are all about the TE except instead of the Ravens where they use their TEs to set up more running plays, the Rams and Chiefs use their TE as the primary threat and then use their 1 good WR to do everything else (again for both teams its only 1 good WR).

Teams do not invest at WR. They get 1 guy and a TE and invest on the OLine. That is the recipe. That has been the recipe and that will likely continue to be the recipe as that has basically been the constant over the past decade since the Patriots really made that trend popular (shocking).

I didn't say those teams run through the WRs, so I'm not going through all of that.

But the simple point is that TEs can't operate without WRs to draw safeties, or horizontal movement to pull LBers out of the middle of the field, so you can't run an offense through them.

 

[Adreme]

I didn't say those teams run through the WRs, so I'm not going through all of that.

But the simple point is that TEs can't operate without WRs to draw safeties, or horizontal movement to pull LBers out of the middle of the field, so you can't run an offense through them.

They get 1 decent guy, or in Baltimore's case a bunch of below average guys, and that is it. They do not invest in the role. No great offense has invested what the Cowboys have at WR, while putting nothing into TE. The entire post breaks down every team and why that is true.

 

[Future]

They get 1 decent guy, or in Baltimore's case a bunch of below average guys, and that is it. They do not invest in the role. No great offense has invested what the Cowboys have at WR, while putting nothing into TE. The entire post breaks down every team and why that is true.

Your entire post is mostly wrong, because your entire premise is wrong.

It doesn't matter what they invest in WR. It's that those WRs create an environment where a TE can be good, because they are fast. In Baltimore's case, the pass offense isn't even good outside of Lamar's legs.

 

[Adreme]

Your entire post is mostly wrong, because your entire premise is wrong.

It doesn't matter what they invest in WR. It's that those WRs create an environment where a TE can be good, because they are fast. In Baltimore's case, the pass offense isn't even good outside of Lamar's legs.

No I am right and broke down why and you were like "too much reading" because when facts are brought into play they make you look silly because your argument only works in 1 second segments and fails miserably when put up against even brief analysis of your claim.

It is a lie to say great offenses are built around WRs. It is a lie to say successful offenses invest heavily at WR. The only factual statement around WRs for good offenses is that teams do not have more than 1. The great offenses all follow the exact same trend: good to great OL play, good to great TE play, and at most 1 WR who is good. Teams do not invest the equivalent capital of 2 out of 3 first round picks and a 3 set of great WRs. It is just not a thing teams do.

 

[Future]

No I am right and broke down why and you were like "too much reading" because when facts are brought into play they make you look silly because your argument only works in 1 second segments and fails miserably when put up against even brief analysis of your claim.

It is a lie to say great offenses are built around WRs. It is a lie to say successful offenses invest heavily at WR. The only factual statement around WRs for good offenses is that teams do not have more than 1. The great offenses all follow the exact same trend: good to great OL play, good to great TE play, and at most 1 WR who is good. Teams do not invest the equivalent capital of 2 out of 3 first round picks and a 3 set of great WRs. It is just not a thing teams do.

No I didn't read it because your premise is that great offenses are built around TEs.

 

[thechosen1n2]

No. You can't over-invest at WR. The passing game matters far more than anything else in the modern NFL.

The secondary will look a lot better once the top two corners are healthy, and it's not like the resources put into WR have prevented them from getting a safety anyway.

Exactly. What Cedric Wilson did Sunday or drafting CeeDee did not cause the secondary problems. You also have to ask what CB or Safety was worthy of that pick..

 

[kskboys]

But it goes both ways. We can't fall victim to the "drafting out of need" rhetoric, especially when truthfully it's a large reason why some of these defensive picks haven't worked out..........

Poor analysis, overdrafting, taking too many small schoolers, passing on some excellent prospects due to height.

Truthfully, we don't understand DL drafting.

 

[kskboys]

Who? A team that has a top ten talent fall to them at 17 and has a new HC who prefers to go 3WR.

CD allows us to let Gallup walk in 2022, probably get a 3rd round comp pick for him, and still have two top ten talents at WR.

CD was an A+ pick. NFL ready WR. Complete jackpot at 17.

There wasn't even a credible alternative. We might have picked Diggs with our 1st, and we got him in the 2nd anyway.

Jackpots for us in the draft all day long, and CD was the *biggest* jackpot of them all.

Yeah, I would have rather had a top 10 DT fall to us. But let's not bemoan the universe not handing us an even *better* gift than CD.

I'm fine w/ Lamb. However, drafting him does push the real problems further down the road. It ensures that we're another year away from contention. As I said, I'm OK w/ that. But, until we fix the DLine, Lamb won't matter.

 

[kskboys]

Exactly. What Cedric Wilson did Sunday or drafting CeeDee did not cause the secondary problems. You also have to ask what CB or Safety was worthy of that pick..

Yeah, we've been doing that for years and it's led to a crapp Defense.

What you really have to ask is how each and every pick fits into a long term plan. Taking it pick by pick to analyze the draft simply doesn't lead to an accurate evaluation. Fans have been making excuses for our poor/odd drafting using the "well who was better" reasoning for a while now, instead of asking the real question, what do we need to compete for a super bowl.

 

[CouchCoach]

But not signing him would've made the trade even more ridiculous than it already was.

That is what Booger was thinking. I think he was wrong and should treated that 1st he traded away as a bust, just like Charleton.

Cooper was better than most thought he was going to be coming to Dallas but 20M for WR when they're paying 15M for a RB and 31M+ for a QB is ridiculous. No team can do that and fill out the rest of the team with quality.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I certainly don’t recall rhetoric on an official rebuild . Do you have any link to support this?

Are you watching it? You saw how much turnover they had on defense? AnD they will have even more next season.....

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

It’s not necessary. The basis for the broader point remains.

No it doesn't. You can't say the Cowboys should've drafted Patrick Mahomes when they never had a shot at him. It easy to sit here and say what they should've done without factoring in what they realistically could've done. That's easy.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Agreed

Hell they just replaced there departing 1st round Corner (Byron) with a cornerback in Diggs that had a fringe round 1 grade............

Investment isn't the issue, it's just these defensive players have stunk. Brown/Lewis/Chido never developed, both there top 35 pick linebackers (Jaylon/LVE) are either injured or underperforming, both there DE's that where once again both top 35 picks are awol (Taco and D-law). Safety is really the only defensive position that they've under-invested

Yep. I agree 100%. You can argue about the safety situation and I'd be right there with you. They goofed with that and have been. There have been guys there for years. They are sucking now because of scheme and having to learn it. It will get better but safety play won't. At least I don't see it getting better.

 

[Diehardblues]

No it doesn't. You can't say the Cowboys should've drafted Patrick Mahomes when they never had a shot at him. It easy to sit here and say what they should've done without factoring in what they realistically could've done. That's easy.

My broader message is we could have used our pick for weaker positions or greater needs than WR. It’s not up to me to state individual names or players. Much like I’m not singling out Lamb. Just his position.

 

[Adreme]

No I didn't read it because your premise is that great offenses are built around TEs.

Because when I broke down how they were you closed your eyes and pretended that information did not exist because if we use facts in this argument you would look silly

It is a fact that the Patriots best offensive weapon was Gronk. The second best was Hernandez and then after him the slot WR and the offense was not built around the slot WR which is why they were able to switch out who it was so easily.

The best offensive weapon for KC, Balt, Rams, and SF is the TE. This is also a fact (you could probably make an argument for the Rams but certainly not for the other 3). Being afraid of the facts is only something one does when they know that their argument has no basis in reality.

 

[Diehardblues]

Are you watching it? You saw how much turnover they had on defense? AnD they will have even more next season.....

This defense was touted as potentially improved , not rebuilding.

 

[Future]

Because when I broke down how they were you closed your eyes and pretended that information did not exist because if we use facts in this argument you would look silly

It is a fact that the Patriots best offensive weapon was Gronk. The second best was Hernandez and then after him the slot WR and the offense was not built around the slot WR which is why they were able to switch out who it was so easily.

The best offensive weapon for KC, Balt, Rams, and SF is the TE. This is also a fact (you could probably make an argument for the Rams but certainly not for the other 3). Being afraid of the facts is only something one does when they know that their argument has no basis in reality.

The breakdown doesn't matter because the premise is wrong.