an honest question about Rex
It's pretty obvious Rex is a defensive guy and always will be and it got me to thinking-If for some strange reason we ended up having a relatively pisspoor defense this season but our offense turned out to be stellar and won us a superbowl would Rex actually be completely satisfied? I'm gonna be honest while I am sure he'd be thrilled that we won a SB and boast about it for the next 10 years, I really think it would eat away at him a bit that his D was not part of the equation. I like the guy as a coach, I really do. I think he can definitely be a superbowl caliber coach but I really have to wonder if he'll ever be a true advocate of the offense. This is where I really think Tanny is failing us in the last couple years. Rex is and always will be a defensive guy. Rex will always want to draft D and get the best players he can on D. Rex will always choose to sacrifice on offense to strengthen the defense. This is ok to be honest because most HC's do tend to favor their strength, however in this case it's the GM's job to to spread the ingredients evenly and address the other side. Tanny is not doing that. He's complying with Rex's "wants" on defense and to compensate he keeps trying to swing for cheap HR's on offense. Some work, some don't, but pretty much every move on the offensive side of the ball with the exception of Sanchez has been a low cost high risk/reward move. Braylon Edwards- CLE's problem child. Holmes= PIT's problem child. LT-old but inexpensive. Plaxico-no explanation needed. Otah-again a big swing for the fences at little cost.
I guess this post became a twofold rant more than the original question, but Tanny really needs to step in on this team and tell Rex that he may have to make do with a top 10 defense instead of top 5 so the offense can get some help.