Defensive Outsiders: An underlying pattern revealing a philosophy or just the obvious?

[TSO]

You’re going to play good defense, that’s easy to fix. You just draft good football players. They can be a small guy, a big guy, as long as they can find the ball.

 

-Scot McCloughan

 
   Our FA/trade (or "outsider") acquisitions thus far under Scot have been almost entirely on the defensive side. Last season our biggest buys were Knighton, Paea, Culliver, Jeron Johnson and Dashon Goldson. Pretty much no one on offense was of the more expensive variety, and they were few at that (I think we picked up Nsekhe and Larsen on the Oline, that's about it).    

This offseason? Same deal.
 
Norman on a mega deal, Reyes, Bruton, Garvin, and Toler. You can consider Vernon Davis as the only semi-expensive pickup on offense. 
 
So that's it. Essentially one "expensive" FA/trade acquisition on the offensive side in two years under Scot. 
 
Now, I know most are just going to assume the obvious: the reason we're more aggressive in Free Agency when it comes to the defense as opposed to the offense is simply because we have more needs on that side of the ball, duh!

 

And though that's a legitimate "duh" and just might be the truth, I'm starting to think it's something else. I believe there's some solid evidence proving such and, furthermore, I think it might actually show a base philosophy on the part of Scot, something we'll see the same of moving forward no matter how good or "set" our defense is. 
 

Here's where I'm going with this. 

 

I think it's safe to say that, in Free Agency, you want to find guys who:

 

1) You can plug and play immediately

 

2) Are not guys that need time to develop or grow.

 

3) Will produce like they have in the past.

 

4) Will not affect locker room/team chemistry and won't hamper your ability to re-sign your own. 

 

Now, that might not always be the case. It can be argued that under Allen/Shanahan we went out looking for more up and comer-types who we can get on cheaper contracts that would grow and develop as Skins. Sort of "make them our own" even though we didn't draft them. It's nice if you can find bargains like that who are young, but I think we've seen it's extremely difficult and pretty damn rare. 

 

The truly good ones who have that potential usually aren't allowed to leave the teams that drafted them in the first place. And the ones who haven't developed for the 3-4 years they were on their originally drafted teams usually haven't for reasons related to themselves (lack of talent, desire, etc...), not because of the team or "fit". Furthermore, I think you can only do that as an organization once a real core has been established and a system has been in place for years to allow defined roles to take root. 
 
 So what's the best way to find guys you can plug and play for immediate results? Most are going to yell out "scheme fit", and while that's essential, I don't think it's as simple as that. I think there's something about the dynamics of offense versus defense that means a whole lot more regarding this particular issue. 
 
You see, I think all of us can agree that learning offense (even within the same scheme) is much more difficult and more time-consuming than learning defense. Offense (particularly the passing game) is finesse. It's precision. It's so sensitive to even the slightest of miscalculations. WRs and TEs have to run their routes properly and precisely, with offensive plays dependent upon the difference of inches in their stems and breaks. QBs have to have a near perfect feel for all of their pass catchers, their Olinemen, and their RBs to excel. 

 

So even though they might be coming from a similar offense, or even had developed under the same coaching tree of coaches... the moving parts that are the different players operating the offense alone make it a time-consuming affair. Basically, scheme isn't the only thing; offensive players are so heavily dependent on their supporting cast it can be argued the players surrounding them (and how they gel with each other) mean more than anything else.  

 

As a result, the acquisition of Free Agents on the offensive side of the ball becomes that much more difficult, riskier, and (maybe outside of RB), more prone to failure due to the time it would take for an already aging vet to really grasp the offense and get comfortable within it. By the time he does, he's that much closer to exiting his prime. And that's assuming no coaching/scheme changes.

 

However, when it comes to defense, that is a much less significant problem. While players certainly fit in certain schemes better than others (one-gap as opposed to two-gap linemen, LBers who can cover versus thumpers, zone coverage versus man coverage, etc...), if they excel in that particular aspect of said scheme, they are almost guaranteed to excel almost immediately on their new team.

 

Simply put, there is a considerably less amount of significance assigned to things like feel for the other players around you, timing, precision, etc... on the defensive side than the offense. Hence, why we always hear things like "the defense is ahead of the offense, as is per the norm, to start out Training Camp". Schemes themselves don't even vary as wildly as they do offensively. 

 

So that'd mean - if, of course, you're using Free Agency as a means to find guys who can immediately contribute positively - the focus should be on defensive players since they're way more likely to be of the "plug and play" variety.

 

The offense, on the other hand, should almost exclusively come from the draft since it's so much more contingent upon guys gelling and growing together. Or, if you do sign them via FA, they should be guys with very specific, defined roles in a system that's continuously implemented for some time. Again, RBs are probably the easiest ones to plug and play. 

 

To see if there is something to this idea, or if I'm just completely bull****ting, I looked at our history under Snyder and Vinny.

 

Under the tyranny of Snyderatto I don't think we actually had a philosophy as opposed to wild flailing, but it's interesting to see that we were heavily involved in picking up offensive players via Free Agency or through trade. Guys like Larry Moore, Trung Canidate, Chad Morton, Laverneus Coles, Mark Brunell, Santana Moss, David Patten, Randle El, Lloyd, Portis, TJ Duckett, Randy Thomas, and Rabach were brought in from outside and either paid handsomely or had some legitimate players/draft picks traded for them. I might be missing some others.     

 

Now, we acquired more guys defensively that way, but it wasn't too heavily one-sided like it has been under Scot. One look at that list and you can see there aren't many difference makers. I'd say Santana Moss and Clinton Portis were truly immediate impact players, though Randy Thomas would be a close one... I wouldn't put him there due to constant injuries.

 

However, in that same span and just off the top of my head, you can think of defensive players who immediately impacted the team positively like Mark Carrier, Cornelius Griffin, Shawn Springs, Bruce Smith, London Fletcher, Marcus Washington and DeAngelo Hall. Albert Haynesworth was an overall massive oopsie, but even he had a positive impact his first season with the team.  

 

Essentially, were you to put up the success:failure ratio of offensive acquisitions up against defensive acquisitions, it wouldn't even be close. Defense would win hands down. 

 

The same goes for their impact draft players. We had next to no success drafting offensive players under Snyderatto, let alone any immediate impact players. I think Jon Jansen, Chris Cooley and Chris Samuels are the only three, maaaaaybe Gardner if you don't want to be too picky.

 

Defensively, however, we had immediate impact players like Lavar Arrington, Sean Taylor, Laron Landry, Carlos Rogers, Fred Smoot, Brian Orakpo, and maybe even Rocky Mcintosh can be considered.  

 

Remember, that's with a very limited amount of draft picks in the first place. 

 

So, in summary... we come to the quote I have above from Scot McCloughan regarding finding defensive players. And though he was speaking in the context of the draft (that's what the interview was about), I think the fact that he said "defense is easy to fix" speaks to more than just that. I think he views the defense as something you can easily fill needs with via FA or trade acquisitions. Guys who can come in from outside and immediately contribute short-term or long-term.

 

I wouldn't be surprised at all if, moving forward and even if the defense attains an elite level, we still see us mostly acquiring defensive personnel via FA/trade. And even if the offense has obvious needs, we won't see Scot doing the same on that side of the ball except with very specific role-players. The offense will mainly be addressed through the draft and from within. Vernon Davis might be an example of this.

 

Are there other indications that may give this theory more weight? Let's look at our first draft under McCloughan. 

 

We drafted Brandon Scherff, Matt Jones, Jamison Crowder, Arie Kuandjio, Evan Spencer and Austin Reiter on the offensive side of the ball. Preston Smith, Martrell Spaight, Kyshoen Jarret and Tevin Mitchell on the defensive side of the ball. So 6 offensive players to 4 defensive players. Only 1 defensive player came within the first 4 rounds (Preston Smith), whereas 4 offensive players were taken in that same span.   

 

Definitely nothing conclusive, of course, but it's further evidence leaning towards the theory being true. And don't get me wrong, I don't think this means that we'll actually avoid defensive players in the draft, not at all. Just that needs will be addressed, defensively, via FA/trades more than they would offensively (and with more allocated cap space), no matter which side has more needs.  

 

There are more questions that, if this theory holds true, are quite intriguing as well.

 

Like, are those one-year "prove it deals" not really about proving anything, but just short-term plug and play fixes? Will we simply rely on finding those types every year and not actually be looking into signing them long term at all? Thus far, we've given out those type of deals almost exclusively on defense (Knighton, Galette, Reyes, and you can say Goldson as well). Both Knighton and Goldson are gone, with Knighton and Galette only being offered cheap one year deals again.

 

What do you guys think? Just a coincidence? Is there more evidence of this in SM's past? How valid is the idea that "outsider" acquisition should be used mainly for defensive personnel as opposed to offensive? 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I'm about 12 paragraphs in. Taking a smoke break. I like it so far but will post the remaining thoughts upon completion

[Koolblue13]

You need a ****ing blog motor mouth. Ols

[RedBeast]

I think I'm happy you used paragraphs!

I think he takes talent when he can find it. Occasionally based on need, but not always. He pays highly for certain positions with 99% belief that the player will deliver. He would have never paid Haynesworth. Just keeps adding talent to the pot, but with a balanced approach. Many things come from the farmers market but then choice cuts of meat are needed for sustantence...and a little in between.

Kinda like a pyramid with curved sides

http://i.stack.imgur.com/tRXa2.png

[TSO]

You need a ****ing blog motor mouth. Ols

You shouldn't talk to me like that, I'm a mammal.

[Koolblue13]

You shouldn't talk to me like that, I'm a mammal.

ols touché.

I posted some meme on FB tonight about how kneck tattoos use to mean "I'm a bad mother ****er", but now it mean " let me read you the poem I wrote to my vegan bicycle ". Ols

I'll read your book tomorrow, I gotta date. Sorry I called you motormouth.

[bobandweave]

We don't have two years of drafts to see if this continues but last season our first, third, and fourth round picks were spent on the offense. That's the heart of any draft to me. Yes the second round pick went to a defensive player but in terms of draft picks it was clear to me that offense won that battle and I expect that to continue this draft. Scot must think it's easier to grab defensive players who can be plug and play guys in free agency then offensive players because need wasn't a question to me. Now we are seeing his second round of free agency the money spent there has gone to the defensive side of the ball again. If the draft goes strong offense in the first four rounds then that's my guess as to how to build a team his way

[TSO]

I swear, every time I'm all proud of myself and feel like I put out some good content, KB and Momma are there to poop on me and its length.

You guys kill me. What's even worse is I totally anticipate it, that's how lame we all are here.

[RedBeast]

TSO...Lighten up bro, well written.

[TSO]

TSO...Lighten up bro, well written.

 

You're reading it wrong, I crack up every time they do it and totally expect it.

 

This is what twitter has done to us, though. Even I'm annoyed with the length!   

 

But thanks for the kind words.

[RedBeast]

I'm sure I read it wrong, do that **** all the time. Condensed written expression is an art form, i know what you mean.

[HTTRDynasty]

I think you're on to something.  His biggest signing in SF was Justin Smith, and that worked out beautifully for that defense. 

 

I agree that he doesn't ignore defense in the draft.  I would say if he has two guys rated equally - one offensive and one defensive player - he would go offense the majority of the time because he feels he can plug and play guys on defense much more easily through free agency, which I think is something that played a big factor in us drafting Scherff over Williams last year.  Even though taking a guard top 5 was considered a "reach" by many, I think that in McCloughan's eyes Scherff actually had the higher value because it's harder to find a guy like that in free agency (and have him gel with the rest of the OL right away) than it is a 5 tech DE (where it's easier for a DE to gel with the rest of the DL).

[RedBeast]

Why is Djax at $10M a year and JN at $15M? A few years between contracts, I know, but you know what I mean? We can lob artillery but what can nullify those salvos?

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

So we know his Big Board last season went:

Fowler (defense)

Cooper (offense)

Scherff (offense)

Turkey (offense)

Leonard Williams was absent from his top 4.

We also know that Seattle rarely drafts defensive lineman before Day 3. It's only happened once, 3rd round in 2013. It's possible McCloughan took some of those values with him to here.

As such, I do wonder if the popular mock choice of Jarran Reed (or some other DT) is wildly inaccurate. Karl Joseph might still fit, he was in Seattle when they spent a 1st on Earl Thomas. He just shelled out a ton of money to Norman, so secondary players he views differently.

I do have a gut feeling that WR gets drafted at some point in the first 3 rounds. Based on this post OP, I think he also adds either o-line or an RB. The remaining pick would be DB or Edge. ILB value doesn't seem to be there this year.

[skinny21]

Yeah, ILB seems a bit thin this year. Still have to wonder if he takes one late considering our starters are FAs next year (IIR).

If Scot is able to get a couple extra picks, I also wonder if he winds up with 2 Wrs.

[Snagletooth]

Is this mental gymnastics?  Quite that cautious voice in the back of my head, that has been nagging me about dropping mega $Bucks$ on a 28 year old FA.  Now I can jump on the Norman Parade!

 

Can't wait for the presser today.  If GMSM pulled the trigger on this, as has been reported, then I can get on board fully.  

[LD0506]

Insightful and thought provoking as usual tso, but I'm not reading that much into this. If anything I feel that Scot's plan involves flexibility and adaptability so that when opportunities arise, you can exploit them. Junior was one, now Josh, but I don't know how you could foresee these happening and actually plan on them so much as keeping enough resources liquid to jump quickly when ya need to.

 

 

[TSO]

Insightful and thought provoking as usual tso, but I'm not reading that much into this. If anything I feel that Scot's plan involves flexibility and adaptability so that when opportunities arise, you can exploit them. Junior was one, now Josh, but I don't know how you could foresee these happening and actually plan on them so much as keeping enough resources liquid to jump quickly when ya need to.

Yeah, as I stated in the OP, it is entirely possible it's just a coincidence so far and that we'll see things put a dent in the theory moving forward. But there's a lot there indicating it could really be about a philosophy when it comes to defensive players.

As for the "flexibility" thing, I think the same way and said as much yesterday in the Burgold thread.

[LD0506]

I also wouldn't be shocked some year to see McClue deal up in the draft to snag a particular player that he has to have, all in the same vein. The guy is playing chess and plotting many moves ahead, and when you do that there are a lot of plans that don't pan out, but it doesn't mean you don't have contingencies for 'em.

 

Plan A guys talk a lot, but the guys with the better Plan Bs usually come out ahead.

[TSO]

So we drafted another offensive player in the first round. 

 

Coincidence, or further proof?  

[Burgold]

I think the surest sign of "In Scott we trust" seems to be this Doctson pick. In year's past, we would make the pick and the board would go into absolute meltdown. 

 

"A slow receiver when we already have Garcon, Djax, and Crowder! How's he even going to get on the field!"
"We have no D Line! No safeties! And we pick an f-ing wide receiver! I hate this team."

That's the kind of stuff I expected to see. Instead, people looked at the pick and came away pretty happy. It's certainly a strange pick in that it is a pick for tomorrow and not today. Never mind that we can use another red zone threat and someone who eventually will help as a downfield blocker in the running game.

 

The fact that ES found almost instant equanimity with this pick should be frightening. It's too bloody out of character. Yet it may just be as promising as the pick itself.

[KDawg]

If Derrick Henry falls to us, he'd likely be BPA.

[TSO]

Let's see what other evidence (or lack thereof) gets introduced to this case today.

If Derrick Henry falls to us, he'd likely be BPA.

 

Intriguing.

[Bacon]

So we know his Big Board last season went:

Fowler (defense)

Cooper (offense)

Scherff (offense)

Turkey (offense)

Leonard Williams was absent from his top 4.

We also know that Seattle rarely drafts defensive lineman before Day 3. It's only happened once, 3rd round in 2013. It's possible McCloughan took some of those values with him to here.

As such, I do wonder if the popular mock choice of Jarran Reed (or some other DT) is wildly inaccurate. Karl Joseph might still fit, he was in Seattle when they spent a 1st on Earl Thomas. He just shelled out a ton of money to Norman, so secondary players he views differently.

I do have a gut feeling that WR gets drafted at some point in the first 3 rounds. Based on this post OP, I think he also adds either o-line or an RB. The remaining pick would be DB or Edge. ILB value doesn't seem to be there this year.

 

This wound up being alarmingly accurate.

[Veryoldschool]

Scot loaded up on DBs and I thought he was going try use this draft to get impactful and powerful at the line of scrimmage. I'm not critizing the emphasis on the back just surprised.