OL vs. Defense (Draft)

[Simpleton]

I'm curious to know what people think as far as possibly going OL in the 1st over defense. Assuming the defense continues as it has through 5 games I think everybody would agree that defense in general should be the number 1 offseason priority considering we could use an upgrade at just about any defensive position.

With that said, I think we'd all like a long-term replacement for Smith at LT, preferably someone who could replace Williams at LG for however much longer Smith has, so at what point does an OL of that nature outweigh going defense?

I think everybody would agree that if a DL/LB/S is the clear and obvious BPA, you go that direction, but what if you have an OL prospect vs. a DL prospect that are basically equal? An OL prospect that is slightly better or only slightly worse to where it's basically a toss-up, compared to say a LB or CB?

For me I'd take the OL prospect who is the clear BPA over any defensive position, including DL. All things being more or less equal I think I'd go DL over OL, but not LB or DB. So basically, if things are a toss-up I'd go: 1. DL 2. OL 3. S/LB (true toss-up for me unless Jaylon's Giants game becomes more of the norm) and 4. CB.

The reason I'm asking is because I think there are several 1st round OL who project as being able to play OG short-term while being long-term answers at LT. Guys like Alex Leatherwood and Rashawn Slater, and potentially even Trey Smith.

 

[boozeman]

Ummm...we need DTs.

 

[Simpleton]

Ummm...we need DTs.

I said I'd go DL over OL all things being equal, but are you willing to take a DL who is more of a top 25-30 prospect vs. an OL who is more top 15ish?

I also think that chart is a pretty good insight into how often our DT's are being asked to basically just absorb double teams, most of the guys in that lower right quadrant are 2-gap space-eating types, and apparently that's what we were asking of Hill.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I said I'd go DL over OL all things being equal, but are you willing to take a DL who is more of a top 25-30 prospect vs. an OL who is more top 15ish?

I also think that chart is a pretty good insight into how often our DT's are being asked to basically just absorb double teams, most of the guys in that lower right quadrant are 2-gap space-eating types, and apparently that's what we were asking of Hill.

I'd be ok with an O-lineman if it is a stud prospect like Martin. We need to be able to control games better. It would be nice if that was because our defense was great. But I'd also be ok if it was because our O-line was stellar again and we were able to run the ball when we want to and give Dak great pass blocking. Passing is great but you have to also be able to control the clock to seal wins.

 

[Smitty]

OL would probably be my preferred target. Shoring up the OL is the quickest way to offensive dominance.

Everything is a mess on the defense.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

OL would probably be my preferred target. Shoring up the OL is the quickest way to offensive dominance.

Everything is a mess on the defense.

I agree although I would love to have that one really stellar DT. It can set everything else on defense up. It causes major problems against the run and it's the quickest route to disrupting the QB. Just to be able to get in the QBs face and disrupt what he is seeing is a huge bonus on any defense.

 

[Cotton]

I'd be ok with an O-lineman if it is a stud prospect like Martin. We need to be able to control games better. It would be nice if that was because our defense was great. But I'd also be ok if it was because our O-line was stellar again and we were able to run the ball when we want to and give Dak great pass blocking. Passing is great but you have to also be able to control the clock to seal wins.

Yeah, I think it largely would depend on how the draft fell. If an OL slips and is a steal at our pick you almost have to take them, depending of course on what else is still on the board.

 

[Simpleton]

OL would probably be my preferred target. Shoring up the OL is the quickest way to offensive dominance.

Everything is a mess on the defense.

Yea, this is one of the main reasons, on top of the possibility of adding Smith's long term replacement, that I'd be all for an OL in the 1st. There are no other offensive positions that we need to address from QB to WR to RB to TE to at least 3 or even 4 out of 5 OL spots.

If we added a guy in the 1st who could replace Williams immediately and project as Smith's long term replacement we could literally spend the entire rest of the draft (which will seemingly include a 2nd, two 3rd's and two 4th's), not to mention basically all of our FA resources, on defense.

 

[Shiningstar]

IF you re defense cant stop the opposing team, than its a good stragety to assume they cant score points on you, and your offense is flawless.


Take the stats, Dallas can say at times they had the number 1 offense.

Now we all know anyone who hoists the Lombardi always says "we won due to such and such stat" happens every year.

So for the stat people we re winning.


Now i love a good offense, but that doesnt mean ignoring the defense is the way to go. Look how successful we ve been ignoring safety, busted up lineman and CBs who cant turn their heads to make plays. Lots of lombardis there, am i right?


So, i say if its worked for 20 plus years, seriously we should consider doing it again. We had a HOF TE, that lead to a ton of lombardis, we ve had the number 1 OL, again, tons of lombardis. we can scream stats all day long. why are even considering other options when having the number 1 offense stat wise is working?

 

[Simpleton]

If we had just an above average HC I'm fairly certain we would've made the Super Bowl in 2016, if not won it.

Even with that aside, you can't base granular draft decisions at an individual pick with a specific set of prospects in a specific year on these overarching themes like "focusing on offense hasn't won for us over the last 20 years".

 

[Stasheroo]

For me it's a combination of both need and best player available. Neither one can be decided on in a vacuum. If there's a defensive lineman worthy of taking at our spot? I'll take him based on the added factor of a bigger need. If there's a better offensive lineman and the defensive value isn't equal? I have no problem taking him either.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I'm so sick of this team sucking on defense. Take some defensive players high in the draft and do something in free agency, to the extent you can.

I guess the exception would be if an amazing LT fell to you, but I'd have to be really sure he'd be a great one.

 

[Stasheroo]

I'm so sick of this team sucking on defense. Take some defensive players high in the draft and do something in free agency, to the extent you can.

I guess the exception would be if an amazing LT fell to you, but I'd have to be really sure he'd be a great one.

I think we need a total revamp of the interior defensive line. All of 'em. That means I'm drafting at least two, if not more.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

If we had just an above average HC I'm fairly certain we would've made the Super Bowl in 2016, if not won it.

Even with that aside, you can't base granular draft decisions at an individual pick with a specific set of prospects in a specific year on these overarching themes like "focusing on offense hasn't won for us over the last 20 years".

One draft pick isn't going to change the entire defense. Had we taken Chaisson last year, does anyone think our defense would be that different? I get grabbing an elite defensive talent but you build the defense with multiple draft picks. The first round pick alone doesn't mean as much.

 

[Cotton]

For me it's a combination of both need and best player available. Neither one can be decided on in a vacuum. If there's a defensive lineman worthy of taking at our spot? I'll take him based on the added factor of a bigger need. If there's a better offensive lineman and the defensive value isn't equal? I have no problem taking him either.

This has always been my take on the draft. You have to have a mix of BPA and need. You cannot successfully draft year after year doing one or the other. You need a nice balance. If we had drafted strictly for need, we would not currently have CeeDee Lamb on our team.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

This has always been my take on the draft. You have to have a mix of BPA and need. You cannot successfully draft year after year doing one or the other. You need a nice balance. If we had drafted strictly for need, we would not currently have CeeDee Lamb on our team.

Yep, we need defense everywhere but you can't pass up an elite talent on thebOline in the process. All depends who is left and where we pick. If you're picking at say 5 you may have the option of a couple elite guys. If we win some games and are picking in that 15-20 range you're just praying someone falls who can have a Lamb type impact as a rookie.

 

[Stasheroo]

This has always been my take on the draft. You have to have a mix of BPA and need. You cannot successfully draft year after year doing one or the other. You need a nice balance. If we had drafted strictly for need, we would not currently have CeeDee Lamb on our team.

Same here. Dealing in absolutes with either one sets you up for failure. And in this specific case, I don't rule out other positions either. We can certainly use help at any number of defensive positions, including linebacker, safety, and cornerback. If any of those positions was the best value at that point, I would add them as well.

The last thing I'm doing is locking myself in and limiting my options. Heck, we can even change coordinators between now and then, which could mean far different requirements in players or prioritization of positions. A lot of variables in play.

 

[data]

Defense, unless another offensive lopsided-value, can’t miss player drops.

We’re scoring 34 points-per-game and are a lucky 2-3.

 

[Simpleton]

The premise isn't necessarily, "do you want to prioritize OL no matter what?"

The real question is, barring a glaring BPA drop similar to what happened with Lamb, how would you prioritize an OL who projects as Smith's replacement at LT but who can replace Williams at LG in the meantime in relation to the various needs on defense?

All things being equal, I'd have only DL in front of the OL.

 

[p1_]

The premise isn't necessarily, "do you want to prioritize OL no matter what?"

The real question is, barring a glaring BPA drop similar to what happened with Lamb, how would you prioritize an OL who projects as Smith's replacement at LT but who can replace Williams at LG in the meantime in relation to the various needs on defense?

All things being equal, I'd have only DL in front of the OL.

so, you might factor in the consideration that historically we don't move guys from guard to tackle. Martin and Williams being prime examples.