Mike knows offense, but....

[SkinsFTW]

Do the Giants win the SB if David Carr has to get them through the playoffs? I'm betting no.

No but they might have been smart to keep Kurt Warner around, nobody wanted him at the time and I guarantee you that he'd have done fine, or even better.

[Bang]

I've long felt backup quarterback is a highly prized position. Obviously the many names that helped thir teams reach a Super Bowl are being mentioned, but the fact of the matter is most of the teams in the NFL will go for a time without their starting QB,, it may be a partial game, it may be a couple weeks.. but overall, most QBs do not last to take every snap.

That, plus the fact that backups that show a hint of ability are snapped up, made kings.. How much is Seattle paying Matt Flynn to find out Russell Wilson is their new franchise QB?

Kevin Kolb.. a shmuck in Arizona making the money.,, they're a desert mirage.

Matt Schaub paid off, but really,it' a hell of a gamble.. he played in 3 games in Atlanta and Houston paid him the money.

But the lure of that success.. to find a secondhand franchise QB .. it's like the 1 prospector's pan of gold that makes them all think they'll find the same thing.

So if you have a quality backup, chances are you won't have him for long . The market for QBs is so tight that any shiny bauble flashed is snatched up. (This is good and bad. If you can work the market like the Eagles have you can cash in on draft picks. If you don't you have a lot of bad backup QBs.)

But you can't pay him much. After all, there's a cap and he's a backup, so you're really between a rock and a hard place. To have a quality backup for a few years is a luxury.

It's possible they're thinking that by drafting Cousins they can develop them both at the same time.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

I've never denied such a need. Quality back-ups at every position would be a wonderful thing to have, but the league has created parity in such a way that it's an almost impossible ideal to achieve. In some positions, you're just going to have to be a little thin, and hope the injury bug doesn't bite you there, because the cap and the limits of the 53-man roster prevent you from hoarding talent at every position. Most teams are done if the starting QB goes down for the year, and I'm fine with that, but they can afford to lose a starter or two at other positions. Do the Giants win the SB if David Carr has to get them through the playoffs? I'm betting no.

I have no serious quarrel with any of that.

We disagree on this:

I'd be happier if Shanahan made a similar gamble and stuck with Grossman as the No. 2, along with greater depth at other positions.

For running the Shanahan standard offense, the one he brought from Denver, Cousins has a much better skillset than Grossman. He's more mobile and is a better passer. He allows Kyle to use more of the playbook than Rex. Grossman's only edge is his knowledge of the scheme. As the clear-cut BPA, taking Cousins was smart.

If we face facts, Griffin has more exposure to injury than the average QB. So, our need for a quality backup is greater than the average team's.

[Mursilis]

For running the Shanahan standard offense, the one he brought from Denver, Cousins has a much better skillset than Grossman. He's more mobile and is a better passer. He allows Kyle to use more of the playbook than Rex. Grossman's only edge is his knowledge of the scheme. As the clear-cut BPA, taking Cousins was smart.

If we face facts, Griffin has more exposure to injury than the average QB. So, our need for a quality backup is greater than the average team's.

That may be true, and I don't disagree with any of it, but now we're looking at becoming like KC was several years ago, when they had Priest Holmes in his prime and an elite offense that could score in bunches. They were fun to watch, but never won anything of note, because they didn't have a balanced team - they couldn't stop anyone. This team is this close right now, if only the defense wasn't falling apart.

[Oldfan]

That may be true, and I don't disagree with any of it, but now we're looking at becoming like KC was several years ago, when they had Priest Holmes in his prime and an elite offense that could score in bunches. They were fun to watch, but never won anything of note, because they didn't have a balanced team - they couldn't stop anyone. This team is this close right now, if only the defense wasn't falling apart.

Bill Parcells criticized the Al Saunders offense as complicit in that KC defensive problem. He alleged that Al didn't try to help his defense by playing ball control.

I wanted to keep the OP on one point, so I didn't speculate that part of Shanny's problem with defenses is that his offense has never been particularly good at ball control which helps the defense to higher rankings. The first drive against the Giants, 19 plays, was the best I can remember for a Shanahan offense. If they could do that more often, our defense would look a lot better.

[Morneblade]

The playcalling would change, of course. I think Cousins has the tools to run standard Shanahan very well.

We disagree again, DG. Good coaching will find ways to use good talent just as Mike is trying to find sound ways to use Griffin's skillset.

In total agreement here. I also liked the Cousins pick in the draft. I actually dont understand why people are still against it. Does anyone REALLY want to have Rex Grossman one play away from being on the field? Cousins was a value pick at a position of need.

[KCClybun]

Buy low, sell high.

We got a guy we had ranked as a 2nd round talent in the fourth round. In his limited game action, he played about average for a rookie, and it's not hard to imagine that if Kyle had time to develop a gameplan specifically working to Kirk's skillset, that Kirk would be successful.

And if Kirk was only moderately successful, it's not hard to imagine that we could fetch a 3rd or at the very least our original 4th round pick.

[darrelgreenie]

My argument was that Cousins was worth the fourth pick because -- "I think Cousins has the tools to run standard Shanahan very well." I saw no need to speculate at all on the size of the dropoff in production.

I think there are plenty of QBs like Kirk Cousins that could run the (pre-Griffin) offense available in every draft. Therefore I don't share the neccesity of finding thee back-up at this stage in the team building process. If a franchise is only as good as their QB then imo everything that franchise does from a team building perspective should directly help that QB have success. Drafting a QB with the 4th pick imo doesn't help Griffin this year.

I'm not saying its right or wrong only time will tell, but I didn't agree with the pick.

Off the top? Blanda, Morral, Strock, Hostetler, Plunkett and most recently Flynn. Oh, and Bledsoe, as a backup, was at QB when the Pats won their first playoff game in 2001.

When I mean outright back-up I mean guys that entered the season knowing they're going to be the back-up not QBs that were part of a rotation or starters that wound up on the bench. I'll take your word for those older guys but Bledsoe and Flynn don't count. Point being there aren't many outright back-up that filled the actual goal of having a good back-up QB.

[Dannyc]

Drafting Cousins can be a huge asset down the road. A couple of solid pre-seasons and appearances in the regular season and there will be a desperate team willing to trade a 1st or 2nd round pick for him. Just look at what the Cardinals traded for the atrocious Kevin Kolb.

[Oldfan]

...I'm not saying its right or wrong only time will tell, but I didn't agree with the pick.

I liked the Fred Davis pick in 2008 while most in the Stadium were opposed to it because we already had Cooley and we had a bunch of other needs. My position was that, if Davis panned out, we had the option of using Cooley and Davis in the same base offense or trading Cooley for a #2 while getting younger by four or fives years at the position. But the team never did either.

BPA is long- term thinking. If I can find a bargain in the draft, I can find ways to use him to add value to the roster. NEED is win-now thinking. Drafting good talent is hard enough. I don't think it wise, as a general rule, to stretch for the second or third pick on your draft board because of need.

The backup QB position is an important one especially on a team whose starting QB uses his legs as a weapon. We got younger and stronger at that position at a bargain price.

[Mursilis]

I liked the Fred Davis pick in 2008 while most in the Stadium were opposed to it because we already had Cooley and we had a bunch of other needs. My position was that, if Davis panned out, we had the option of using Cooley and Davis in the same base offense or trading Cooley for a #2 while getting younger by four or fives years at the position. But the team never did either.

I don't think the comparison stands. It's not at all unusual to see two TE sets in the NFL. It's also not unusual to rotate TEs. Two QB sets? Very rare. And I appreciate long-term thinking as much as the next fan, but at some point, you've got to focus on the current year, and not the next one. If not for the defense, this team would be a playoff contender THIS YEAR. Heck, they still may be, but it's going to be harder if the defense keeps playing like it has.

[Morneblade]

I think there are plenty of QBs like Kirk Cousins that could run the (pre-Griffin) offense available in every draft. Therefore I don't share the neccesity of finding thee back-up at this stage in the team building process. If a franchise is only as good as their QB then imo everything that franchise does from a team building perspective should directly help that QB have success. Drafting a QB with the 4th pick imo doesn't help Griffin this year.

I'm not saying its right or wrong only time will tell, but I didn't agree with the pick.

When I mean outright back-up I mean guys that entered the season knowing they're going to be the back-up not QBs that were part of a rotation or starters that wound up on the bench. I'll take your word for those older guys but Bledsoe and Flynn don't count. Point being there are many outright back-up that filled the actual goal of having a good back-up QB.

I dont understand this at all. What does drafting Cousins this year, or drafting another guy next year have to do helping Griffin? It's not like there is some QB contorversy going on, Cousins is the backup, period. But he has tools the run the offense, which Grossman does not. Having a backup QB that is able to run the offense is important, and with someone that runs as much as Griff does it's even moreso. Grossman is not that guy and we got Cousins for a steal. Drafting a Saftey or Corner in the 4th isnt going to help our D much, because alot of the problems are scheme related and you dont usually find great secondary people there. Cousins already has had to finish a game for us this year. And it's very possible he might have to finish another one. I think it was a good move.

---------- Post added October-25th-2012 at 09:15 AM ----------

I don't think the comparison stands. It's not at all unusual to see two TE sets in the NFL. It's also not unusual to rotate TEs. Two QB sets? Very rare. And I appreciate long-term thinking as much as the next fan, but at some point, you've got to focus on the current year, and not the next one. If not for the defense, this team would be a playoff contender THIS YEAR. Heck, they still may be, but it's going to be harder if the defense keeps playing like it has.

Drafting a FS or a CB in the 4th wastn going to save this Defense. Haslett would still be running the D and a 4th rounder isnt going to cover up the fact that he isnt a very good DC. However getting a young QB with a 2nd round grade in the 4th to back up your franchise guy that is amazing, but at a larger risk than most QB's is a smart move. Especially when your only other options is Sexy Rexy.

---------- Post added October-25th-2012 at 09:16 AM ----------

[Mursilis]

I dont understand this at all. What does drafting Cousins this year, or drafting another guy next year have to do helping Griffin? It's not like there is some QB contorversy going on, Cousins is the backup, period. But he has tools the run the offense, which Grossman does not. Having a backup QB that is able to run the offense is important, and with someone that runs as much as Griff does it's even moreso. Grossman is not that guy and we got Cousins for a steal. Drafting a Saftey or Corner in the 4th isnt going to help our D much, because alot of the problems are scheme related and you dont usually find great secondary people there. Cousins already has had to finish a game for us this year. And it's very possible he might have to finish another one. I think it was a good move.

So much speculation here. Can't get a decent S or CB in the 4th? Maybe, but maybe not. Plenty of secondary depth has been found in the lower rounds. Asante Samuel was a 4th rounder, and he's been to the Pro Bowl. Cousins being a steal, with a "2nd round grade"? Maybe, but it's hard to say at this point. Besides, draft grades are themselves pretty pointless. Brady Quinn was graded to be a first rounder, but he's not looking like one now.

As for that game Cousins had to finish? It was still a loss. Anyone can be QB in a loss. Grossman was well qualified to do that.

[darrelgreenie]

The backup QB position is an important one especially on a team whose starting QB uses his legs as a weapon. We got younger and stronger at that position at a bargain price.

I'm a proponent of BPA and I acknowledge the importance of having a quality back-up. However, I think (a) QBs like Cousins aren't hard to find and are available every draft ( I don't think drafting a back-up QB w/ a 4th round pick this year helped build the team we field this year and for the future like a non-QB could

---------- Post added October-25th-2012 at 11:00 AM ----------

I dont understand this at all. What does drafting Cousins this year, or drafting another guy next year have to do helping Griffin?

If you draft a non-QB (as opposed to a Kirk Cousins) this year then that non-QB has a much greater chance of directly helping the team. Then the following year you can draft your 'Kirk Cousin' or you can acquire your quality back-up QB through FA as you build your team.

[Brotherz]

I'm a target for the argumentative types because I represent a challenge for them. I've tried ignoring them in other threads but that doesn't help. They end up cluttering my threads no matter what I do.

My argument here is simply that what we are seeing now, an offense outperforming the defense, is nothing new for Mike Shanahan. We can speculate on the causes, but it's only speculation. You are free to draw your own conclusions. Mine is that Mike will have to change something in his management approach if he is to stop his defenses from dragging down the overall quality of his teams.

So you aren't arguing cause and effect then? You're just making an observation that this year's defense is bad. This year's offense looks good. His old defenses in Denver were bad while his offenses were good. Do you have any theories on what about Mike's "management approach" needs to be changed with regard to the defense? Do you know how much management imput he has on the defense. Obviously the buck stops at Mike but I don't know how much he does with the defense (and maybe that is the problem I suppose).

Put another way, are you pointing out the history and the present to come to a specific conclusion about Mike's ability as head coach?

[Oldfan]

So you aren't arguing cause and effect then? You're just making an observation that this year's defense is bad. This year's offense looks good. His old defenses in Denver were bad while his offenses were good. Do you have any theories on what about Mike's "management approach" needs to be changed with regard to the defense? Do you know how much management imput he has on the defense. Obviously the buck stops at Mike but I don't know how much he does with the defense (and maybe that is the problem I suppose).

Put another way, are you pointing out the history and the present to come to a specific conclusion about Mike's ability as head coach?

Here are the premises and conclusions of the argument laid out for you:

P1) In his 16 years as a head coach prior to this season, Mike Shanahan's offenses have ranked #9 on the average DVOA while his defenses have ranked #18.

P2) For all but four of those years, since 1999, he has had control of the entire team. So, the responsibility, both credit and blame, for those results ends with Mike.

C1) He has obviously done much better with the offense than he has with the defense.

P3) Offenses and defenses are equally important in winning

C2) Since the offense and defense are equally important, his defenses have been dragging down the quality of his teams over the past 16 years.

P4) Jim Haslett hasn't been Mike's DC for 16 years

C3) Therefore, even if he's not a good DC, firing Haslett is unlikely to solve the current problem.

I implied in the OP and later stated in the discussion that Mike has a management problem of some kind. In the discussion, we speculated on what that problem might be but there's not enough evidence to support any hypothesis. My own is that Mike's ego is the underlying problem. Bright DCs don't want to be micromanaged. Therefore, they are not interested in working for MIke. It's just speculation, though.

---------- Post added October-25th-2012 at 12:01 PM ----------

... However, I think (a) QBs like Cousins aren't hard to find and are available every draft...

Since 1999, when Mike took over control of the Broncos, Cutler was the only QB found in the draft who fit the Shanahan scheme and amounted to anything and it took a #1 pick to acquire him.

---------- Post added October-25th-2012 at 12:15 PM ----------

... Besides, draft grades are themselves pretty pointless. Brady Quinn was graded to be a first rounder, but he's not looking like one now.

This statement identifies the crux of our difference of opinion. Drafting BPA rather than NEED is based on the idea that it would be foolish to spend big bucks on a scouting system only to toss the grades aside for NEED which has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the draft prospect.

Need should be a deciding factor when the grades are close between two prospects.

[SkinsFTW]

When I mean outright back-up I mean guys that entered the season knowing they're going to be the back-up not QBs that were part of a rotation or starters that wound up on the bench. I'll take your word for those older guys but Bledsoe and Flynn don't count. Point being there aren't many outright back-up that filled the actual goal of having a good back-up QB.

Bledsoe doesn't count, you are right but Brady was the backup and he's the one who won the Super Bowl and won the games all year to get them there.

[Mursilis]

P3) Offenses and defenses are equally important in winning

I've often wondered if that was actually true. My thought is that because the rules favor the offense (IMHO), having an elite offense is more likely to result in more wins than an elite defense. I've gotten curious enough to look at the stats for a few recent NFL seasons, and when I've looked at the top 10 offenses and defenses, the top 10 offenses usually have a greater chance of making the playoffs than the top 10 defenses (and yes, there's going to be overlap, of course). I don't claim, however, that my casual review is a true study of the question. I'd be curious to hear the comments of others.

[Mursilis]

This statement identifies the crux of our difference of opinion. Drafting BPA rather than NEED is based on the idea that it would be foolish to spend big bucks on a scouting system only to toss the grades aside for NEED which has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the draft prospect.

That's illogical. A need on a team exists in the first place not because there is NO ONE playing that position, but because the player at that position lacks quality (talent). The Redskins drafted RG3 not because they did not have a QB (they had several), but because the QBs they had were of poor quality. Thus, a need existed. And if that need existed because the existing player lacked talent, replacing that player with another player without regard to talent would be incredibly stupid. You wouldn't even be addressing the cause of your need at all.

[SkinsFTW]

I can't believe that it's gotten down to hating on the coach in thread after thread for drafting an actual pretty good QB in the 4th round anyway.

I don't remember all this hate back in the day when Gibbs drafted a freaking FB in the 4th and then just to make his point drafted another one a few rounds later,and we already had Mike Sellers and didn't use a FB all the time anyway lol. I remember a few years ago thinking we should draft 2-3 qb's a year until we found one worth putting on the field because it was obvious that was what was holding us back.

[SkinsFTW]

I've often wondered if that was actually true. My thought is that because the rules favor the offense (IMHO), having an elite offense is more likely to result in more wins than an elite defense. I've gotten curious enough to look at the stats for a few recent NFL seasons, and when I've looked at the top 10 offenses and defenses, the top 10 offenses usually have a greater chance of making the playoffs than the top 10 defenses (and yes, there's going to be overlap, of course). I don't claim, however, that my casual review is a true study of the question. I'd be curious to hear the comments of others.

I think now days the most important is being able to keep it close enough and have clutch plays and playmakers late in the game to win it. That's really all the Giants have and their deep pass rush helps them stop the opponent from achieving the same goal. That's why they are so scared of RG3, he counters their one advantage on defense perfectly.

[Mursilis]

I think now days the most important is being able to keep it close enough and have clutch plays and playmakers late in the game to win it. That's really all the Giants have and their deep pass rush helps them stop the opponent from achieving the same goal. That's why they are so scared of RG3, he counters their one advantage on defense perfectly.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you agreeing that if your team could only be elite on one side of the ball, you'd choose offense over defense, or vice versa?

[Idaho fan]

I know almost every team could say this to some extent, but just imagine if we didn't have our list of injuries... If we had our starting safeties out there.. Rak... Imagine for a second if we had all of our starters playing like PG! Now, combine that image with what this team would have had with that huge portion of our cap money that was taken away. These things combined have really limited the success this team can have IMO.

The future is bright - but these injuries and bogus penalties from the league has had a huge impact on this year.

[Oldfan]

I've often wondered if that was actually true. My thought is that because the rules favor the offense (IMHO), having an elite offense is more likely to result in more wins than an elite defense. I've gotten curious enough to look at the stats for a few recent NFL seasons, and when I've looked at the top 10 offenses and defenses, the top 10 offenses usually have a greater chance of making the playoffs than the top 10 defenses (and yes, there's going to be overlap, of course). I don't claim, however, that my casual review is a true study of the question. I'd be curious to hear the comments of others.

Remember, we are talking only about the importance of the offense versus the importance of the defense. Can you make an argument that it is more important to score seven points than it is to stop the opponent from scoring seven points? Of course you can't.

Should a team spend more of its assets on offense than on defense? That's a different question, one that has nothing to do with importance.

[Mursilis]

Remember, we are talking only about the importance of the offense versus the importance of the defense. Can you make an argument that it is more important to score seven points than it is to stop the opponent from scoring seven points? Of course you can't.

You're clearly smart enough to know what I meant. Let's not get caught up in semantics.

Yes, it's the same in theory (scoring 7 vs. preventing 7), but I think one is easier than the other in today's NFL.