If the Cowboys want to add to strength instead of fixing weakness, then they have to consider Kyle P

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,690
Reaction score
91,134
Did you not see the Bucs defense run Mahomes all over the field? Yes they were missing two tackles, but the defense still has to make plays, it's not like the Chiefs signed some guy off their couch to play. Chiefs converted nearly 50% of their 3rd downs during the regular season, only 23% in the SB. I guess the Chiefs' receivers all fooled us all season, they really can't catch the football?

It's not the same every time, sometimes offense does win SBs. But defense does as well...

Tend to agree.

Put it this way, how would our defense have done against Mahomes? Probably much worse. Much, much worse.

Not that I buy into this notion that defense wins championships. But this talk about how basically defenses doesn't really matter as long as your offense is really good is a bit of an exaggeration IMO.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,157
Reaction score
17,675
Is there such a thing as too much offense in the NFL? It’s an interesting question in a league that has become dominated by pass-happy offenses that have too many weapons for defenses to cover.

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/202...ing-weakness-they-have-to-consider-kyle-pitts
OMG....what. then you want to have to score 40 points a game to win games...we need defense. no more shinny stuff that sell jerseys. give me the beef on the DL...and a couple of good CBs
 

AsthmaField

Outta bounds
Messages
26,326
Reaction score
43,954
I think it's going to be Pitts.
I definitely wouldn’t mind getting that kind of talent at 10... but I don’t think Pitts will still be on the board then. IMO, he going to go early. He’s just too talented and too much of a weapon for a team not to take him before 10.

I hope you’re right though.
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,054
Reaction score
46,962
Offense lost both of those games (and it was injuries on the OL that was the Chief's main problem) more than defense won them. And that's the point.

A good offense beats a great defense every time. We saw that in the 49ers v Chiefs game. Given that, it makes no sense to prioritize defense.
No, it doesn't.
 

John813

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,105
Reaction score
33,854
Would make sense for Philly. Another weapon for their 2 TE setup and gives them potentially a legit one to overtake DG when his contract is up.
 

reddyuta

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,775
Reaction score
16,510
its highly unlikely he makes it to 10 anyway,a lot of crazy things have to happen if he has to fall
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,054
Reaction score
46,962
Pitts will be better walking in the door than those other 3 combined. Cut Bell, trade Schultz and keep Jarwin for 2 TE sets.
And a nasty DT would make this team 3 times better than any TE.

Using a high 1st on a position of strength would be dumber than trading up for MO and drafting Escobar.
 

stilltheguru

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,698
Reaction score
13,536
Offense lost both of those games (and it was injuries on the OL that was the Chief's main problem) more than defense won them. And that's the point.

A good offense beats a great defense every time. We saw that in the 49ers v Chiefs game. Given that, it makes no sense to prioritize defense.
A good offense beats a good defense if the good defense has a bad offense. Niners lost because jimmy g played bad not because tge chiefs were such a good offense.
 

817Gill

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,141
Reaction score
19,113
A good offense beats a good defense if the good defense has a bad offense. Niners lost because jimmy g played bad not because tge chiefs were such a good offense.
Don’t understand this argument lol and not your post specifically just the overall discussion y’all are having. Any great offense can be bad on a given Sunday while any great defense could be bad as well. There’s not one way or the other to do it, it literally just comes down to who performs that day.

Sounds like an oversimplification but to me I don’t get how anyone can argue great offense vs bad defense or vice versa. If an all time great offense plays extremely well but comes up short, are we saying that they shoulda built through defense? If an all time great defense lays an egg and gets 40 put up on them, are we saying they should’ve built their team on the offensive side?

Seems to me like you just build the best team possible on both sides, with an edge to whatever side of the ball your organization is best at scouting; but without ignoring the other side either.
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,054
Reaction score
46,962
Don’t understand this argument lol and not your post specifically just the overall discussion y’all are having. Any great offense can be bad on a given Sunday while any great defense could be bad as well. There’s not one way or the other to do it, it literally just comes down to who performs that day.

Sounds like an oversimplification but to me I don’t get how anyone can argue great offense vs bad defense or vice versa. If an all time great offense plays extremely well but comes up short, are we saying that they shoulda built through defense? If an all time great defense lays an egg and gets 40 put up on them, are we saying they should’ve built their team on the offensive side?

Seems to me like you just build the best team possible on both sides, with an edge to whatever side of the ball your organization is best at scouting; but without ignoring the other side either.
Teams w/o at least a competent D don't win super bowls. Generally, the D needs to be top 5, or play as if they're top 5. KC's D did a masterful job shutting down Garrop allowing the comeback. Make no mistake about it, KC's D carried the mail.
 

LACowboysFan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,996
Reaction score
7,145
Teams w/o at least a competent D don't win super bowls. Generally, the D needs to be top 5, or play as if they're top 5. KC's D did a masterful job shutting down Garrop allowing the comeback. Make no mistake about it, KC's D carried the mail.

Nobody, at least myself, is saying you can't win SBs with offense. I checked the last 10 years, the winning SB team had a top-10 or better defense 6 of those years. And one other year the Seahawks lost the SB with the no. 1 defense, but that was the infamous game where the Seahawks, had they run Lynch, probably win. So that would have made the winning team having a top-10 defense 7 times. But they didn't run the ball, so let's leave it at 6 teams.

However, there were SB champs with the 17th and 21st ranked defense as well. So offense can win SBs.

But looking at the records, clearly very good to great defenses win championships at a high rate....
 
Top