16th pick currently

[Essex Johnson]

(01-05-2024, 12:24 PM)Whatever Wrote: In the Raiders game, the D gave up 2 4th quarter FG's and the Raiders were in scoring position again at the end, but needed a TD.  The Raiders also had 385 yards of offense.

Titans game, I can give you based on the score, but they still had over 350 yards of offense and scored 10 in the 3rd quarter.  We dominated the 4th, I'll give you.

"The Switch" game in KC, they held them to 3 seconds half points.  However they got lit up for 21 in the first half and the offense's ability to score quickly was the only reason the D could concede an entire half to use that strategy.  

I've said it elsewhere and I will say it again here.  Our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks the last two drafts have all been on defense.  We have a ton of young talent early in the development curve on D already.  More young talent experiencing growing pains is not what we need to "fix" the defense.  We need some proven vets in FA. 

Even stranger to me is it seems a lot of folks(not you necessarily) want a DT in the 1st.  It's a strong FA class for both NT's and 3 techs.  DT's have a notoriously long learning curve.  DT's are usually cheaper than other positions we have needs at(T, WR).  Logic would seem to dictate you spend your money on the position group where you can get a better equivalent player for cheaper, especially considering the learning curve.  

I big reason we have leaned Defense is how much we $$ in FA in Oline, the past two years we signed 4 starting Oline (Collins got cut after a season) and used 2nd round pick in so we had to lean defense in draft.. We might have both our starting DTs gone , totally see us leaning early on a DT in the draft, im nos sure how $$ we are going to be in FA this year with those contracts we have coming up.

Like i said defense shut down teams in 2nd half in 2021 in scoring, only gave up 2 tds over the three games in 2nd half, and just 3 FGS in 4th.. that was the difference getting to SB