A Different Approach

[tpaulus_2]

So this thread is likely better suited for the main NFL thread, but I'm more interested with what you guys think, so I'll post it here instead.

The article author basically makes a very compelling case for an NFL team to focus on defense and the running game, at the expense of finding a great QB, primarily because the other 31 teams would be/are obsessed with finding a "franchise" QB.

NFL morning after: Bucs should quit the quest for a quarterback | ProFootballTalk

This is something I've seen suggested before, and I find it to be pretty interesting. As the writer points out, not spending $15 to $20 million a year on a QB opens up a lot of cap room to focus on the o-line and defense. I'm not suggesting the Lions go this route, obviously, but it's a interesting idea and should make for an interesting discussion, I'd think...

 

[tpaulus_2]

One point he made, that I really liked, was that 3 bigger-bodied running QBs, Terrelle Pryor, Vince Young, and Tim Tebow, are all available at or near the league minimum. I think those bigger running QBs would be key to avoid the injuries an RG3-sized player would take.


Also, running QBs are plentiful and cheap in the draft every year. If a running QB system leads to injuries often at the position, carry 4 on the active roster and a couple more on the practice squad. There's certainly plenty of options to chose from, imo.


If I'm the GM of a shitty, perennial, bottom-dweller (Jacksonville, NYJ, Tennessee, Washington, Carolina, TB, St. Louis) this approach would be pretty appealing for me to at least consider...

 

[Naughtymax]

It's worked in a few places, but you have to get several very special players on defense or other skill positions. 2000 Ravens, last year's Seachickens, and the '85 Bears come to mind.

Still, from a cap perspective it'd be interesting to have a $3MM QB and two extra $8MM defenders.

 

[DetroitFan*]

The problem I see with this is that they need to build an offense that runs 50 times per game? There is a reason nobody runs the triple option, wildcat, and barely use the read option anymore... It doesn't work. One lineman just has to bust through the line, throw his arms up and take down the backfield. If you're running it 50 times a game, then defenses will find the offense more than predictable.

 

[tpaulus_2]

It's worked in a few places, but you have to get several very special players on defense or other skill positions. 2000 Ravens, last year's Seachickens, and the '85 Bears come to mind.

Still, from a cap perspective it'd be interesting to have a $3MM QB and two extra $8MM defenders.

He's suggesting a more full-on approach. Basically teams that you mentioned that are kind of in that vein now are trying to have a strong defense and good running game, but still covet that franchise QB, too.

This style is basically saying "fuck it" to a pro-style QB and instead running it 50 times a game and passing from the run fakes just enough to keep the DBs somewhat honest. Kind of like what the Jets did against Miami a few weeks ago...

 

[Rollingthndr]

It's all a crapshoot. The Titans spent countless resources and money on their O-line.

Levitre- 6/46 million.
Oher- 4/20 Mil
Warmack- Top 10 pick
Lewan- #11 pick

They still blow.

Anyone who has watched TB play (Which I personally have 4 times) knows Mccown is Brandon Weeden duex. Or vice versa, Whichever way you view it. The Jets drafted defense every single year other than the Mark Sanchez year. Now they are trotting out Genie Smith and the Dog Executioner and getting destroyed, per the usual. Trading away Mike Evans would probably be the most stupid thing in the entire universe. The dude is Calvin Johnson without the 4.35 speed (with better hands though). If you want to trade away Vincent Jackson? Sure, maybe you will get a late round pick.

Point being the Lions have the #1 defense in football(arguably) and spent a lot of high picks on offense. You can find quality players in free agency (Tulloch, Idghebo, Quin). You will never be able to find an QB who can win you a super bowl in free agency. There was Peyton a few years ago but that was the rarest of rarest situations.

Imagine being a GM and going to your fans and telling them that we are gonna roll with Terrell Pryor this year!!! This is a business. Not Madden. Guaranteed the author of this story was the new GM of the Bucs come next off-season. He would be fawning over Mariota or Winston. He throws the idea out there because there is no underlying risk for himself.

Personally I would interview Mariota multiple times if I had the #1 overall pick. If he was a humble kid who wanted to come in and work. I would take him. If he was ghetto and cocky like Kaepernick. I would pass. Winston I would pass in the first round altogether. Not building my franchise around the thief.

 

[LPinSLC]

So you just have to build a top defense and a great OLine and RB. Like that's easy. Reduce one players salary(The QB) and you win the Superbowl. Easy enough.

 

[RobBase]

Kind of like what the Jets did against Miami a few weeks ago...

Not sure the Jets are the team you want to use to help your argument here.

 

[tpaulus_2]

The problem I see with this is that they need to build an offense that runs 50 times per game? There is a reason nobody runs the triple option, wildcat, and barely use the read option anymore... It doesn't work. One lineman just has to bust through the line, throw his arms up and take down the backfield. If you're running it 50 times a game, then defenses will find the offense more than predictable.

This is the counter-argument to be sure.

The Jets had some serious success against a very good Miami defense running it like 48 times for around 275 yards (I'm being lazy, easy info to look up, but I'm going off the top of my head here).

What this guy is selling, and I'm at least kind of buying, is that a team built to run the ball, with o-linemen and TEs who are good run-blockers first and foremost, good RB talent, and big running QBs who can take a beating while running the read option, could have some success with the approach.

I'll concede that it's an unorthodox approach in the NFL. However, given some limited success with the wildcat and the read option, a team built to run this approach, with it's pick of the type of talent that the rest of the league isn't necessarily after, could have some success...

 

[tpaulus_2]

So you just have to build a top defense and a great OLine and RB. Like that's easy. Reduce one players salary(The QB) and you win the Superbowl. Easy enough.

No- that's over-simplifying it and taking the easy way out without really exploring it.

A "great" o-line isn't needed. A great run-blocking o-line is. Most of the coveted tackles that cost big $$ are coveted because of their ability to pass block. If you're not searching for that type, they will be much cheaper.

A great RB also isn't ideal, because they're expensive and the offense depends too much on one guy. I'd go the Patriots route and go with quantity at the position, and rotate the hell out of them.

The advantage with going with a cheap QB, cheap RBs, cheap WRs and TEs, and an o-line that is cheap by default because you're valuing something different that what the rest of the league is, is that you have more $$ to spend on your defense than any other team in the league does.

Basically the idea is that you pair the best defense in the league with an offense that is built for ball control and clock management.

I'm not advocating this approach, but it merits more consideration than one would think, imo...

 

[LPinSLC]

Its a gimmick though. How long do they last? DC's find a counter to one dimensional offenses. After it gets figured out, you have basically a good line and a RB in place and still end up looking for the proto QB.

Just build a great defense. Like every team isn't already trying to have a great Defense.

 

[tpaulus_2]

Its a gimmick though. How long do they last? DC's find a counter to one dimensional offenses. After it gets figured out, you have basically a good line and a RB in place and still end up looking for the proto QB.

Just build a great defense. Like every team isn't already trying to have a great Defense.

But every other team already trying to build a great defense doesn't/wouldn't have nearly the resources to devote to the defense that this hypothetical approach would... That's part of the allure of going this route.

For a team that's always shitty anyhow, maybe exploring a different approach isn't so far-fetched?

Seattle won last year on the strength of a good defense and strong running game, as have other teams in the past. This idea is just taking that approach to the extreme by devoting more resources to both areas.

Would the Jaguars really be any worse off the last 5 seasons if they'd taken this approach?

Overall, though, I'm with you that opposing defenses would likely figure out how to stop it before too long. But I also think there's enough merit for a crappy team to try it and see what shakes out...

 

[gandydancer]

I would just see it as the ever evolving game of football. Coaches always can plan for what is coming next week. Having the players execute is key.

This guys idea is having weaker WR's. So that tells me stack the box and cover Tweeter one on one. I could see this working with a QB that can somewhat pass. The Jets are actually identical to this guys article and does not hold water. Well, minus the defense part. That offense is horrid with no pass game or WRs to think of. Decker looks like Durham there. Pedestrian at best.

 

[TwoCents22]

I can understand the theory, but still think its flawed. I would understand if top draft picks were still paid ridiculous amounts. If you hit on a QB, you're a contender. That's more so than any other position.

I'm not going to go back and look, but had the Jags taken the next best non QB instead of Bortles, do you think they'd be trending upwards? Or Raiders with Derek Carr?

The fact of the matter is to build a team, you have to get more picks than just your first rounder right. Whether you take a QB or not. But, in counterpoint, if you get the QB pick right, you will be in a good spot.

 

[gandydancer]

Trevor when you speak of Seattle doing it last year. I see Russell and at the time Tate being above what he meant in that article

He mentions 3 QBs out of football basically for league minimum. Then getting rid of your #1 and #2 WR in VJax and Evans. So I see a WR core same as the Lions last season minus CJ. With Pryor as a QB. Just do not see it working. You get what you pay for IMO. You are 100% correct in saying can't hurt to try it. Now you just have to get a owner to try it. That is the biggest hold back IMO. Will one go against the grain of what the Jones' are doing?

 

[LPinSLC]

Russell Wilson is a great QB.

 

[RobBase]

The authors point is flawed because in the NFL high/low pay does not automatically result in high/low play. Might work great on Madden though .

 

[themuzzer]

Russell Wilson is a great QB.

 

[jdwills126]

A solid O-Line makes anything look better than it actually is. For years the Broncos would trot out any RB of the waiver wire and they would instantly be a league leading RB. Take that RB of the Broncos and they were well Mike Anderson.

I like the Ravens model of a great defense and an average offense.

 

[Naughtymax]

Obviously the model assumes that the personnel department invests wisely in players without getting a bunch of bargains or several bad contracts.

The actual secret may be having underpaid talent that allows you to sign high-priced FA talent so that you have the best team in the league. Even then, you also need coaching and paying top dollar there may be worth considering.

Given the Lions' improvement in penalty discipline this year, only on offense do they need to look for coaching. Trestman will be available, but I'm not sure that the league hasn't figured him out.