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

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

 

Cowboys don't need a TE.

They already have 3 pretty good ones in Schultz, Jarwin and Bell.

 

Four counterpoints:

1. Bell is a free agent.
2. Schultz is a free agent after this season.
3. Jarwin is overrated.
4. Pitts is elite.

 

Dominated how? By season game win totals? Yardage records? Scoring records? Sure, no question.

But let's just review why you play - to win the SB. THAT'S the goal. But in two of the last 3 years what has won the SB?

Defense. The "high powered" Rams offense scored 3 pts, the "high powered" Chiefs offense 9 pts. (And yes that may have been due a lot to Mahomes' injury, but we don't know how it would have played out if he'd not had the turf toe). And go back a few more years, say 10 total, and we saw 8 pt and 10 pt losing team scores. Even the record setting Pats offense in the 2011 season scored only 17 pts.

Just saying overloading on one side of the ball is no guarantee of titles, balance is still important....

 

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.

 

And why did the offense not perform well? "Oops"?

Defense causes offenses to not perform well.

Sorry, can't agree....

 

Nope.

LAR was hampered because Goff couldn't make adjustments at the line.
SF lost because their QB couldn't throw downfield.
KC struggled because the OL was injured.

You do not win with defense.

 

are you serious?? these guys are mediocre players.they are in no way a franchise player.i would prefer not to draft a TE at 10 but if he is the BPA by far at 10 then you take him and worry about the other TEs on the roster later.

 

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...

 

This is the wrong mentality to have when drafting.

 

Like do you realize what you're saying here? The defense doesn't do that if the Chiefs weren't injured.

The Chiefs WRs dropping balls furthers my point lol.

Like you are making my point for me.

 

And why did they drop balls? Tight coverage making catches (and throws) more difficult.

Just forget it, you don't want to discuss just insist you're right. Where do you think the phrase "defense wins championships" came from? Somebody just made that up sitting around with nothing to do but think up trite phrases.

We're not going to agree, that's for sure....

 

Lol no. Drops are drops. You're talking about PBUs.

"Defense wins championships" came from a previous version of the NFL. It is no longer relevant.

I will discuss. I am discussing. You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of. I don't care if you agree or not, but yes, you are wrong.

 

No doubt he would add to a strength
But I’d rather improve our weaknesses

 

FIFTYBURGER BABY!!!!

 

I think it's going to be Pitts.

 

The Cowboys already have too much offense and by that I mean they have $113 million in CAP space allocated to offense without their QB and $65 million allocated to defense and $25 million of that is one player, Demarcus Lawrence.

Having said that, if the 2 CBs are gone and I will assume Sewell is gone as well, if Pitts is there at 10, I would not be upset if they took him despite the imbalance between the offense and defense. I suppose they could trade down but they would be trading away from an impact player to a player with more risk. I'd rather take Pitts than reach for a defensive guy who turns out to be Taco or Claiborne. Plus, I they take Pitts then can consider trading Gallup or Cooper for more draft picks and they could still get a quality QR in the draft that is deep with WRs.

Pitts is going to be a game changer, a matchup nightmare. Nothing against Schultz and Jarwin but they are just average players. Pitts has all world written all over him. He and Sewell are the only players I would consider taking at 10.

Buti f the Cowboys don't sign Dak they may have to figure out a way to move up and take a QB. If that happens forget Pitts, Sewell, CB, and anyone else we might be thinking about.

 

That' not a discussion, that's a judgment.

But you'll disagree with that too, probably, which is fine. I don't usually respond to clickbait posts, guess I'm just bored with the off season.

Have a good day, sir...

 

Pitts will not be there at 10 and might be gone before 7 if he runs a 4.5

 

Maybe. But who thought Lamb would be there at 17?

The draft NEVER goes 100% like anybody thinks..