Should the Titans be more focused on building a powerhouse offense?

[socaltitan]

Steelers and Packers haven't invested a lot of 1sts recently, but they have invested a ton of money into their skill players. Bell is going to get tagged and Brown's going to get a new deal that will make him one of the highest paid WR in the league. Both Nelson and Cobb have huge contracts. Steelers have spent 1sts in the past on Heath Miller, Santonio Holmes, Rashard Mendenhall

And to be clear, I've actually said multiple times I prefer D as well. I really like Foster and Adams. Just playing devil's advocate and seeing what the discussion is

[socaltitan]

Just now, big2033 said:

None of these teams are built the same way.

That was my point

[socaltitan]

30 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said:

I get that, but it's not purposely ignoring one or the other. The opportunity cost of taking that top WR is the #5 pick though.... A guy who should be a staple of the defense for the next decade.

Good points. I get that hesitation because I feel similarly. But I get the feeling they want Williams or Davis, not Ross. But I don't know how you approach that because 5 might feel too high but 18 is probably too low. Maybe the Titans trade up from 18, but that could mean giving up another future 2nd rounder.

[SleepingTitan]

I've always felt like strong defense & running game suits a small market. Most people love a 400 yard passing game, but I prefer Seattle style. 

[SleepingTitan]

23 minutes ago, KnoxTitan said:

A lot of this boils down to this particular draft.

Corner: There could be 7 corners picked in the 1st. And to top it off, there's no consensus elite corner in this draft - just about every mock has different corners going in different places. There will be corners that some people have with 1st rounds grades that will last into the 3rd, the DB class is that deep.

Linebacker: Foster's good, sure. How important is an inside linebacker that doesn't rush the passer though and one that scouting reports say has trouble in pass coverage? Can you get just as good a value with Zac Cunningham or Jarrad Davis at 18? Or maybe a guy like Anthony Walker, who specializes in pass coverage, in the 3rd?

Wide Receiver: There's 3 guys, and a huge dropoff after that. And one of those 3 guys is a guy who lives and dies with his speed, and has had 2 major knee injuries.

In order to maximize the talent added to this roster - get the WR at 5, get your corner or linebacker at 18, and get the other position in the 3rd. Use the rest to add depth.

I don't think there are more than 2 first round safeties here.

Shaun Dion Hamilton (injured for 2016) is likely AS GOOD as Foster but won't cost as much.

*I say we trade back to 8-10 grab Adams or Hooker. Take the best defensive player available at #18, draft Adoree in 2nd (picked up from trade back), probably get SD Hamilton in the 3rd (taken from trade down) plus 2 other 3rds which will land a couple receivers or depth. 

[Bongo59]

Adore Jackson can play CB and be an Ace ST player so for me he has more value than a straight CB.  

[OhNoMularkey]

59 minutes ago, headhunter said:

All this offense vs defense is getting dumb. you need everything on both sides of the ball. 

Agree, but with FA, the salary cap, and a limited amount of high draft picks, you usually can't have really good talent everywhere .... you'll usually have to choose where you focus your resources.  Some defensive minded coaches would rather spend on DEs or DBs, and go cheap with the OLs, like Carroll.  They then try to make up for the weakness with scheme.

The GM has to have a very high hit rate with the draft to have a really well rounded team ... very hard to do.  Belichick constantly gambles the present with the future by trading away really good players for draft picks, but increases his chances of obtaining really good, cheap talent.

[Face]

5 hours ago, freakingeek said:

Good balance is the key. You don't want to have to get into a shootout every Sunday to pull out a W and especially in the playoffs. Case in point is Green Bay. On the other end of the spectrum, look mat Texas. If they have a halfway decent offence they'd probably still be playing.

I respectfully disagree. Sure, you don't want gaping holes in certain parts of the roster but Id prefer a dominant side of the ball & the other side be average than a good to very good offense & defense.

I think balance is overrated. I'd rather have one dominant unit & usually within that a great position group, ie the 2013 Seahawks defense & secondary.

[OILERMAN]

9 hours ago, wiscotitansfan said:

 Our offense is built to run the ball, no denying that but I don't buy it one bit with the defense.

The offense is built to run the ball from heavy sets and make big pass plays in the pass game. The purpose is absolutely to pass the ball downfield. It's why they want an outside down field threat to add to the offense. They absolutely understand points come from the passing game. They were very good at 3rd down and the 2:00 offense too.

[Face]

24 minutes ago, OhNoMularkey said:

Agree, but with FA, the salary cap, and a limited amount of high draft picks, you usually can't have really good talent everywhere .... you'll usually have to choose where you focus your resources.  Some defensive minded coaches would rather spend on DEs or DBs, and go cheap with the OLs, like Carroll.  They then try to make up for the weakness with scheme.

The GM has to have a very high hit rate with the draft to have a really well rounded team ... very hard to do.  Belichick constantly gambles the present with the future by trading away really good players for draft picks, but increases his chances of obtaining really good, cheap talent.

It's almost incredible what Seattle does with the OL. It does seem like recently teams are thinking that the OL is a little overrated & as long as you're decent there, having a great one doesn't improve your team that much, as compared to having top corners, WR's, pass rushers, backs, etc.

But Seattle, up until this year when they got pass happy, had a dominant running game for years with a horrific OL. They spend zero money on it & it barely hurts them, because Wilson's mobility is just devastating. They do so much with him on the move & it just opens everything up, he attracts so much attention. 

This is why I wish Marcus would use his mobility a lot more.

[OILERMAN]

Here is the deal

As long as you have a top QB your offense is going to be good. Notice how Brady does fine with spare parts everywhere( no Gronk all year), Rodgers carried the offense with injuries at WR and RB, Stafford was just fine without Calvin Johnson, anyone remember the Panthers offense last year with their WRs?

Is it nice to have a legit #1 great WR? Sure.

You are not having a good defense without talent. You have to have good pass rushers and good cover people.

Assuming Mariota continues to develop I would assume the offense will also improve. There is only one way the defense is improving, adding players. This defense is so bad that even if the offense had Julio Jones it wouldn't help them seriously contend.

On the other hand if the Titans had the Texans defense this season they would have had a bye and likely be playing the Pats this past Sunday. Their offense would have been fine this year with a better defense.

Add a WR, just don't skip top defensive talent in order to get one, defense def takes priority

 

 

[OILERMAN]

5 minutes ago, Face said:

It's almost incredible what Seattle does with the OL. It does seem like recently teams are thinking that the OL is a little overrated & as long as you're decent there, having a great one doesn't improve your team that much, as compared to having top corners, WR's, pass rushers, backs, etc.

But Seattle, up until this year when they got pass happy, had a dominant running game for years with a horrific OL. They spend zero money on it & it barely hurts them, because Wilson's mobility is just devastating. They do so much with him on the move & it just opens everything up, he attracts so much attention. 

This is why I wish Marcus would use his mobility a lot more.

Seattle absolutely got burned this season because of their terrible OL

[OhNoMularkey]

Just now, big2033 said:

How did the Patriots "build" a powerhouse offense besides having Tom Brady? Honestly?

If Tom Brady went to the wrong coaches and the wrong system, he most likely wouldn't have had as much success.  Here's Jimmy Johnson with Collin Cowherd .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y61ycGprNz4

On the 8:15 mark, Jimmy Johnson talks about how great a job Belichick's done with Brady, because of their style of offense, and that how he'd likely not be as productive in a different system.  It's the Patriots who recognized his potential ....

http://www.businessinsider.com/patriots-draft-tom-brady-2014-5

"It's not that we said we wanted to draft a tall, lanky quarterback that ran a 5.3 [time in the] 40. Those weren't the traits we were looking for," current Bucs general manager and then-member of the Patriots personnel staff Jason Licht recently said at a press conference. "But we were looking for the mental makeup...Belichick did a lot of homework on him, along with our staff, on his mental makeup. Watching the tape, he was the guy that would go in and lead them back to victory."

If the Titans drafted Brady, he'd most likely be a backup behind McNair, then a journeyman QB like McCown or Cassel.  Fisher, in his career, has never recognized and fully developed an excellent passing QB.  No one team saw what Brady could be.

So there is a case to be made that without Belichick's systems, Tom Brady would not be the Tom Brady.

Now if you're talking about Peyton Manning, he'd probably have more success with most NFL teams.  He was much easier to evaluate coming out of college.

[OhNoMularkey]

Just now, Face said:

It's almost incredible what Seattle does with the OL. It does seem like recently teams are thinking that the OL is a little overrated & as long as you're decent there, having a great one doesn't improve your team that much, as compared to having top corners, WR's, pass rushers, backs, etc.

But Seattle, up until this year when they got pass happy, had a dominant running game for years with a horrific OL. They spend zero money on it & it barely hurts them, because Wilson's mobility is just devastating. They do so much with him on the move & it just opens everything up, he attracts so much attention. 

This is why I wish Marcus would use his mobility a lot more.

I agree with most of what you're saying; where we disagree is that I don't see Mariota, as he currently is, as a good mobile passer; he currently lacks the footwork.  Mechanics wise, he's excellent at throwing standing in the pocket, and he's an excellent runner.  He could throw on the run, but not with the maneuverability of Wilson, Rodgers, Smith, Luck, etc.

I see him more as a stand and throw guy.  It would take him a ton of work to learn the proper footwork for mobile passing; I even don't like his footwork from under center.  Playing in Oregon's spread system probably didn't help him develop proper footwork.

Now you look at a guy like Wentz; he's a big guy, so he's a bit slow, but everything he does, including his footwork, is deliberate and measured ... in balance, no wasted movement, and in time with the play.  It's probably because he played in a pro system througout college.  I don't think Mariota has that, yet.

[Huston]

1 hour ago, OILERMAN said:

Seattle absolutely got burned this season because of their terrible OL

Should have never gotten away from featuring the run game instead of Wilson but that's another discussion.