PDA

View Full Version : What is more valuable to a NFL defense...



Skinny
02-21-2010, 01:16 PM
...a dominant edge rusher or a dominant DT?

Poll coming..

Carl
02-21-2010, 01:47 PM
Edge Rushers get sacks. DT's help other people get sacks. They are both important but when push comes to shove I would NOT trade Doom for a healthy Jammal Williams any day.

HORSEPOWER 56
02-21-2010, 02:22 PM
I had to say DT for the simple fact that the best way to beat any passing game is pressure up the middle right into the face of the QB, giving him no place to step up. The best way to beat any running game is also pressure up the middle. Typically, dominant DTs, even if they don't get the sacks themselves, cause sacks by driving QBs out of the pocket and into their DEs. They also clean out O-linemen or eat blockers and allow LBs to flow to the ball and stop the run, or just blow up run plays in the backfield themselves with their power and bull-rush abilities.

That's why I went DT. Dominant edge rushers are great, but normally a solid running game and running at them wears them down and takes them out of their game. Nobody in their right mind runs at Casey Hampton, Jammal Williams, Vince Wilfork, or Haloti Ngata.

dogfish
02-21-2010, 03:58 PM
edge rusher, and the franchise tag numbers say that NFL GMs agree with me. . . . ;)

TXBRONC
02-21-2010, 04:06 PM
I said defensive tackle but I think really depends on what kind of scheme you run. In 4-3 defense an edge rusher is probably more important but in 3-4 it's nose tackle because in 3-4 defensive ends do not have dominate pass rushers and usually don't put up big sack totals because the rush is coming from the linebackers.

HORSEPOWER 56
02-21-2010, 04:14 PM
edge rusher, and the franchise tag numbers say that NFL GMs agree with me. . . . ;)

True, but I think guys like Haynesworth have broken the mold on what a great 3 technique DT is worth these days. How did Tennessee's DL do without him this year? On the contrary, how did guys like Andre Carter (who had a career year) and Brian Orakpo benefit in DC? Washington's defensive strength this year was their D-line. Haynesworth's individual numbers dropped, but the whole defense benefitted from him being there.

shank
02-21-2010, 04:24 PM
i said DT for the same reasons as others. a good DT will make everyone's job easier. a DT also greatly impacts the running and passing games, moreso than an edger rusher. we all know how important stopping the run can be, so i went with DT.

SmilinAssasSin27
02-21-2010, 04:48 PM
poll coming

hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

SmilinAssasSin27
02-21-2010, 04:52 PM
DT makes everything easier.

KyleOrtonArmySoldier#128
02-21-2010, 05:03 PM
NT in a 3-4, Edge rusher in a 4-3.

Lonestar
02-21-2010, 05:24 PM
easy NT or a pair of DT's

those teams that have them unusually also have a good many sacks because everyone else is man on man for the most part and for the most part their run defenses are stouter.

Lonestar
02-21-2010, 05:32 PM
I had to say DT for the simple fact that the best way to beat any passing game is pressure up the middle right into the face of the QB, giving him no place to step up. The best way to beat any running game is also pressure up the middle. Typically, dominant DTs, even if they don't get the sacks themselves, cause sacks by driving QBs out of the pocket and into their DEs. They also clean out O-linemen or eat blockers and allow LBs to flow to the ball and stop the run, or just blow up run plays in the backfield themselves with their power and bull-rush abilities.

That's why I went DT. Dominant edge rushers are great, but normally a solid running game and running at them wears them down and takes them out of their game. Nobody in their right mind runs at Casey Hampton, Jammal Williams, Vince Wilfork, or Haloti Ngata.


Finally we have common ground.

the DT or NT if they are great screws up every thing. like they ran over the middle of our loin last year leaving Orton no place to go. but wide to the DE's.

Without that pressure good QB's can step up and allow the OT's to force the DE to the outside and back.

Great DT and NT just make everyones job easier. we have really never had a true DT price you say he was a great DE that put some pressure up the middle, but remember folks he was originally a LB for much of his college career. Was drafted as a DE and moved to DT because we really did not have anyone else.

silkamilkamonico
02-21-2010, 05:35 PM
DT for 3-4

edge rusher for a 4-3

Arguably the best defenses in the NFL since 2000 have 2 things in common. Dominant DT's.

NameUsedBefore
02-21-2010, 05:37 PM
Strong nose/d-tackle. But I think having both is what sends a lot of defenses into the 'elite' tier.

Lonestar
02-21-2010, 05:52 PM
DT for 3-4

edge rusher for a 4-3

Arguably the best defenses in the NFL since 2000 have 2 things in common. Dominant DT's.



dominant DL period but IMO it starts in the middle.

tsiguy96
02-21-2010, 06:17 PM
same thing that movethesticks asked 5 NFL executives. 4 of them said dominant edge rusher.

Broncolingus
02-21-2010, 08:29 PM
I agree with several here that it probably depends more on the scheme a team runs, but if I had to choose, I'd say the DT.

I think a strong DT can 'help' less talented DE's than the other way around...

JMO...

For the Bronc's, though, its a no-(shit)-brainer...

DT all the way, baby!!!

JDL
02-21-2010, 09:20 PM
Giants won the super bowl with elite DEs and good, not great DTs

Indy made the super bowl with superb DEs and some would say weak DTs.


Pressure matters and most great DTs don't help THAT much creating pressure... Look at NE and AZ both have terrific DTs and are DYING to create pressure... so where are the sacks??? huh?? Thought so... you want hard nosed workers on the inside that can hold their ground... but you need superior very difficult to find athletes (with tremendous technical skill/hand work to boot.)

Btw, a great interior LB is far more important than both those... those are the leaders, they set the defense, make the d calls. When Wilson departed Denver's D collapsed... DTs and DEs are RARELY leaders... Reggie White was one of the few exceptions to that rule.

tsiguy96
02-21-2010, 11:08 PM
I agree with several here that it probably depends more on the scheme a team runs, but if I had to choose, I'd say the DT.

I think a strong DT can 'help' less talented DE's than the other way around...

JMO...

For the Bronc's, though, its a no-(shit)-brainer...

DT all the way, baby!!!

a dominant edge rusher can also allow for one on one matchups in the center, which can make for easier blitzing up the gut.

Skinny
02-22-2010, 12:10 PM
Great responses guys...

Ravage!!!
02-22-2010, 12:49 PM
I think its the rush off the edge. Its harder to double up on, and frees the LBs with holes up the middle when they do. That, or it forces the offense to keep a RB in the backfield to knock on the DE.

Since the NFL is such a passing league now, getting to that passer is HUGE for a defense, and constantly reminding the offense to account for him (the edge rusher).

I think thats why you see teams giving more money out to DE's... AND... why a dominant LT is the second highest paid player on the team.

G_Money
02-22-2010, 01:01 PM
The NFL is SUCH a passing league right now that you need to be able to make him throw before he wants to.

You absolutely cannnot win without getting QB pressure.

OTOH, we saw what it's like to have Doom leading the league in sacks and the rest of the D giving up 200 yards on the ground. Edge rushers are only useful if you can cover and stop the run first.

Pass-rushers are the most critical part of getting control of an opposing team's offense, but only after everything else is in place. They'll make your corners better but they can't make them competent. And they can't stop the run, so somebody'd better.

THEN an edge-rush is the final ingredient in becoming a feared D. The reason they get paid so much is that most of the teams doing the buying already have the rest of the D in place. You don't pay Doom 80 million dollars with no DTs to stuff the rush and force the QB to throw the ball in the first place.

*shrugs* I voted DTs. Without them you can't get proper use out of a Doom-type sack artist anyway. Other teams just started running on us to keep him from causing them too much trouble.

~G

silkamilkamonico
02-22-2010, 01:29 PM
Patriots were an elite defense for a few years in the NFL without a dominant edge rusher, and with a dominant DT.

TXBRONC
02-22-2010, 03:21 PM
Patriots were an elite defense for a few years in the NFL without a dominant edge rusher, and with a dominant DT.

They still don't. The only dominate pass rusher that I can think of that played for the Patriots was Andre Tippett and its been 17 years since he played for the Patriots.

dogfish
02-22-2010, 03:27 PM
Patriots were an elite defense for a few years in the NFL without a dominant edge rusher, and with a dominant DT.

they never had that one true elite edge rusher, but they had a group of guys who were all good-- guys like mcginest, vrabel, rosevelt colvin and adalius thomas. . . plus seymour on the line. . . add in belly's schemes, and they've generally had a solid pass rush before this year. . .

and it's probably not coincidental that they were reportedly trying to trade for julius peppers last year, and are reportedly going to be among the top candidates for his services this year. . .

Lonestar
02-22-2010, 03:29 PM
They still don't. The only dominate pass rusher that I can think of that played for the Patriots was Andre Tippett and its 17 years since he played for the Patriots.


That is the real problem with the PATs they really do not have mega stars.
Just a bunch of players that work as a team.

Before this guy they had seymour in their most of the time and before he was there it was someone else.

Because they had these great players there it free severyone else to make plays.

TXBRONC
02-22-2010, 03:49 PM
they never had that one true elite edge rusher, but they had a group of guys who were all good-- guys like mcginest, vrabel, rosevelt colvin and adalius thomas. . . plus seymour on the line. . . add in belly's schemes, and they've generally had a solid pass rush before this year. . .

and it's probably not coincidental that they were reportedly trying to trade for julius peppers last year, and are reportedly going to be among the top candidates for his services this year. . .

I think the reason that could get away with not having an elite pass rusher was because they have dominate nose tackle during that stretch.

silkamilkamonico
02-22-2010, 04:20 PM
they never had that one true elite edge rusher, but they had a group of guys who were all good-- guys like mcginest, vrabel, rosevelt colvin and adalius thomas. . . plus seymour on the line. . . add in belly's schemes, and they've generally had a solid pass rush before this year. . .

and it's probably not coincidental that they were reportedly trying to trade for julius peppers last year, and are reportedly going to be among the top candidates for his services this year. . .

IMO they all benefitted from a great DT. NE was elite before Thomas. Colvin was a bust for NE, and rarely even saw the field due to injuries and ineptitude. Vvrabel did nothing in KC. Seymour was good on the line, but has has an injury riddled career. McGinest was good.

Both arguments need good cast. Dumervil was nothing last year without any inside prescence. He was actually irrelevant. Dominant DT's need a good cast to be effective, and edge rushers need a good cast to be effective.

And New England is pushing for a player like Peppers because they know that Wilfork will not be there in the future. Can't have one you go after another.

dogfish
02-22-2010, 04:44 PM
IMO they all benefitted from a great DT. NE was elite before Thomas. Colvin was a bust for NE, and rarely even saw the field due to injuries and ineptitude. Vvrabel did nothing in KC. Seymour was good on the line, but has has an injury riddled career. McGinest was good.

Both arguments need good cast. Dumervil was nothing last year without any inside prescence. He was actually irrelevant. Dominant DT's need a good cast to be effective, and edge rushers need a good cast to be effective.

And New England is pushing for a player like Peppers because they know that Wilfork will not be there in the future. Can't have one you go after another.

17 sacks is irrelevant?

hmmm. . .

maybe in a message board discussion, but NEVER on the field!

of course, since new england lost in the first round of the playoffs, can we say that a good nosetackle is irrelevant without a pass rush? it's kinda like people saying that this team and that team have won super bowls without an elite receiver, so you don't need one. . . the saints just won the super bowl without an elite edge rusher OR defensive tackle, so you obviously don't need them. . . and the colts have two very good edge rushers and nothing close to resembling a dominant DT. . . i guess having a stud QB is still the way to go. . .

and if new england wanted to keep wilfork, they could-- if he's not there in the future, it's because they weren't willing to pay him. . . he's been asking for a new deal for several years, they could have re-signed him without him ever getting to FA if it was a priority to them. . .

personally, i'd like to see us try to put together a defense with studs at both positions-- that's logically the best choice. . . and we're halfway there, IF we decide that we want to keep our talent instead of giving it away and hoping we can replace it with draft picks. . . otherwise, we can go back to having neither and see how well that works out for us. . .

TXBRONC
02-22-2010, 04:51 PM
IMO they all benefitted from a great DT. NE was elite before Thomas. Colvin was a bust for NE, and rarely even saw the field due to injuries and ineptitude. Vvrabel did nothing in KC. Seymour was good on the line, but has has an injury riddled career. McGinest was good.

Both arguments need good cast. Dumervil was nothing last year without any inside prescence. He was actually irrelevant. Dominant DT's need a good cast to be effective, and edge rushers need a good cast to be effective.

And New England is pushing for a player like Peppers because they know that Wilfork will not be there in the future. Can't have one you go after another.

What Vrabel did in K.C. is irrelevant since Dog was talking about New England.

Dumervil getting 17.5 sacks is irrelevant? That would be saying that some like Lawrence Taylor's sacks were irrelevant to the N.Y. Giants defense of the mid 1980's.

I'll bet you're way base about why Belichick is pursuing someone like Peppers. I would bet that he believes he got the middle of his taken care whether or not Wilfork is there.

dogfish
02-22-2010, 04:55 PM
Julius Peppers $16,683,000
Jared Allen $14,533,344
Dwight Freeney $11,220,000
Will Smith $9,271,666
Aaron Schobel $8,066,670
Leonard Little $7,610,000
John Abraham $7,500,000

DeMarcus Ware $11,435,693
Joey Porter $7,200,000
Terrell Suggs $7,020,000
Calvin Pace $6,686,862

Tommie Harris $8,590,000
Albert Haynesworth $7,000,000
Jonathan Babineaux $6,500,000
Shaun Rogers $6,473,333
Casey Hampton $6,452,084
Tommy Kelly $6,336,266
Kris Jenkins $5,650,000
Marcus Stroud $5,591,666
John Henderson $5,490,000


we can bandy our airmchair QB opinions about forever, but the FACT of the matter is that the professional personnel executives who get paid millions of dollars to run NFL franchises very obviously feel that edge rushers are the most valuable players in the sport other than quarterbacks (the franchise numbers for defensive end are even higher than those for offensive tackle). . . . doesn't guarantee that they're right or that anyone has to agree with it, but those are the numbers. . . .

TXBRONC
02-22-2010, 05:02 PM
17 sacks is irrelevant?

hmmm. . .

maybe in a message board discussion, but NEVER on the field!

of course, since new england lost in the first round of the playoffs, can we say that a good nosetackle is irrelevant without a pass rush? it's kinda like people saying that this team and that team have won super bowls without an elite receiver, so you don't need one. . . the saints just won the super bowl without an elite edge rusher OR defensive tackle, so you obviously don't need them. . . and the colts have two very good edge rushers and nothing close to resembling a dominant DT. . . i guess having a stud QB is still the way to go. . .

and if new england wanted to keep wilfork, they could-- if he's not there in the future, it's because they weren't willing to pay him. . . he's ben asking for a new deal for several years, they could have re-signed him without him ever getting to FA if it was a priority to them. . .

personally, i'd like to see us try to put together a defense with studs at both positions-- that's logically the best choice. . . and we're halfway there, IF we decide that we want to keep our talent instead of giving it away and hoping we can replace it with draft picks. . . otherwise, we can go back to having neither and see how well that works out for us. . .

The comment about 17.5 sacks being irrelevant left scratching me head too.

While I think you start with having a dominate defensive tackle/nose tackle you still quality pass rushers and if you have a dominate pass rusher you all the better for it.

I would be that a lot what is going into Wilfork's situation is that Belicheck probably thinks that he has the nose tackle position taken care of with Ron Brace.

dogfish
02-22-2010, 05:25 PM
While I think you start with having a dominate defensive tackle/nose tackle you still quality pass rushers and if you have a dominate pass rusher you all the better for it.

i'll take either or both, and you start wherever you can. . . if ol' dream-o were here, he'd call it a false dilemna-- there's no rule anywhere that you can only have one or the other. . . i think everyone agrees that we need to upgrade the defensive line, but that's no reason to de-value the pass rush. . .

i don't want to trade having a solid pass rush for having a strong run defense-- you need both in this league if you want to compete at the highest level. . .


I would be that a lot what is going into Wilfork's situation is that Belicheck probably thinks that he has the nose tackle position taken care of with Ron Brace.

i'm guessing that that's correct-- they spent a 2nd on brace, and myron pryor actually outplayed him. . . i've said since last year's draft that i expected NE to franchise wilfork to give them another year to develop those young guys, and if belly thinks they can cut it he'll fill the position with cheap young talent and let somebody else pay wilfork a monster salary as he pushes towards 30. . .

atwater27
02-22-2010, 07:01 PM
Great DT's are so rare, you have to snap them up when they are available. pass rushing defensive ends are a dime a dozen.

EMB6903
02-22-2010, 07:03 PM
Ill go with a dominant NT. the right defensive scheme can put pressure on the Quarterback alone so having a "dominant pass rusher" is a little over hyped.

rcsodak
02-22-2010, 11:08 PM
Giants won the super bowl with elite DEs and good, not great DTs

Indy made the super bowl with superb DEs and some would say weak DTs.


Pressure matters and most great DTs don't help THAT much creating pressure... Look at NE and AZ both have terrific DTs and are DYING to create pressure... so where are the sacks??? huh?? Thought so... you want hard nosed workers on the inside that can hold their ground... but you need superior very difficult to find athletes (with tremendous technical skill/hand work to boot.)

Btw, a great interior LB is far more important than both those... those are the leaders, they set the defense, make the d calls. When Wilson departed Denver's D collapsed... DTs and DEs are RARELY leaders... Reggie White was one of the few exceptions to that rule.

Poor example, using the NYGiants.

Postrami was using ALL DE's on the line, so they were actually filling in for the DT's for the added rush ability. Offenses couldn't stop their speed.

rcsodak
02-22-2010, 11:25 PM
Julius Peppers $16,683,000
Jared Allen $14,533,344
Dwight Freeney $11,220,000
Will Smith $9,271,666
Aaron Schobel $8,066,670
Leonard Little $7,610,000
John Abraham $7,500,000

DeMarcus Ware $11,435,693
Joey Porter $7,200,000
Terrell Suggs $7,020,000
Calvin Pace $6,686,862

Tommie Harris $8,590,000
Albert Haynesworth $7,000,000
Jonathan Babineaux $6,500,000
Shaun Rogers $6,473,333
Casey Hampton $6,452,084
Tommy Kelly $6,336,266
Kris Jenkins $5,650,000
Marcus Stroud $5,591,666
John Henderson $5,490,000


we can bandy our airmchair QB opinions about forever, but the FACT of the matter is that the professional personnel executives who get paid millions of dollars to run NFL franchises very obviously feel that edge rushers are the most valuable players in the sport other than quarterbacks (the franchise numbers for defensive end are even higher than those for offensive tackle). . . . doesn't guarantee that they're right or that anyone has to agree with it, but those are the numbers. . . .

So I guess, by your statement, that champ and his soon-to-be-paid-higher cb's are just as important?

I think ya'll need to read up on Supply and Demand...Econ 101.

DT's are a dime-a-dozen. If they're in a 3-4, all they're expected to do is clog the line up, taking on 2xteams. They won't have gaudy stats. In a 4-3, they're 50-50 on heads-up plays. But are in the trenches, slow, big and mainly expected to slow down the run. Really good one comes along, like Haynesworth, he breaks the bank.

DE's, on the other hand, control the edges. It's them controlling the run to their side, and to put pressure on the QB. MUCH more tv-time. They're the flashy players, built for speed AND power. If they're no good, more damage is done to the defense so there's a bigger risk value associated with them.

That's how I perceive it, anyhoo.

Supply n demand

Who the hell wants to be lost in the middle of a scrum when they can be THE MAN at the top of the screen! :confused:

silkamilkamonico
02-23-2010, 02:53 AM
17 sacks is irrelevant?

hmmm. . .

maybe in a message board discussion, but NEVER on the field!

5 sacks as a "dominant pass rusher" off the edge the year before.

The both need each other, but no one can deny the fact that a dominat DT makes room for everyone around him.

And they are more consistent for a defense when healthy from a year to year basis. DT's can not only stuff the run but improve the pass rush. How well does Dumervil do in the run game? Not very well, and I bet you could find stats to his side that show it.

silkamilkamonico
02-23-2010, 03:04 AM
What Vrabel did in K.C. is irrelevant since Dog was talking about New England.

Dumervil getting 17.5 sacks is irrelevant? That would be saying that some like Lawrence Taylor's sacks were irrelevant to the N.Y. Giants defense of the mid 1980's.

I'll bet you're way base about why Belichick is pursuing someone like Peppers. I would bet that he believes he got the middle of his taken care whether or not Wilfork is there.

What Vrabel did in K.C. (or didn't do) shows how an average to a below average LB can become a Pro Bowler with someone up front eating up his blockers.

Dumervil getting 5 sacks is relevant?

I don't think I'm off base at all. Pass rushers are important. It's only going to benefit his defense more. And if Belichick has someone waiting to replace Wilford, he'd trade him and not franchise him like he did Seymour.

They're both important, but a DT open's dimensions for defense against both the run and the pass by eating up 2 sometimes 3 blockers, where a pass rush does not.

dogfish
02-23-2010, 03:05 AM
5 sacks as a "dominant pass rusher" off the edge the year before.

The both need each other, but no one can deny the fact that a dominat DT makes room for everyone around him.

And they are more consistent for a defense when healthy from a year to year basis. DT's can not only stuff the run but improve the pass rush. How well does Dumervil do in the run game? Not very well, and I bet you could find stats to his side that show it.

and twelve sacks off the edge the year before that, and eight only playing part time his rookie year-- go compare his sack numbers to high picks like gaines adams (RIP), jamaal anderson, jarvis moss, jake long, vernon gholston, etc etc. . . doom has more sacks than all of those high picks combined, and if he'd gotten just twom more his rookie year he'd have three out of his four seasons in the league in double digit sacks-- and even with the one down year, he's averaged close to twelve sacks per season. . .

besides which, i fail to see how anyone can seriously count last year against him, given that he played hurt most of the year in a "scheme" that was hands down the most pitiful i have ever seen-- one that utterly refused to do anything to generate pressure or to play ANY press coverage to slow down the receivers off the line. . . in a joke of a front seven he was the only thing even vaguely resembling a pass rush threat, no wonder he didn't play very well-- no one did in slowick's defense, it even made probable future HOFer champ bailey look pedestrian. . .

in any case, someone will most likely pay dumervil quite handsomely this offseason-- don't be surprised if he gets a deal that exceeds what top nosetackles like kris jenkins and shaun rodgers are making. . . the really good edge rushers are at a premium. . .

dogfish
02-23-2010, 03:08 AM
And if Belichick has someone waiting to replace Wilford, he'd trade him and not franchise him like he did Seymour.



i doubt he saw enough of brace and pryor this year to feel comfortable handing that important starting spot over to either of them in their second years. . . that's why they hedge their bets with wilfork for another year-- especially because the franchise number for D-tackles isn't prohibitively high in comparison to the numbers for other positions. . .

dogfish
02-23-2010, 03:10 AM
They're both important, but a DT open's dimensions for defense against both the run and the pass by eating up 2 sometimes 3 blockers, where a pass rush does not.

yes, but OTOH, almost all of the league's top edge rushers play pretty much every down, while the nosetackle is strictly a two-down player in today's NFL outside of the obvious short-yardage situation. . .

even ten years ago, when it was still a bit more balanced and not quite such a pass-heavy league, top sack artists like simeon rice and jason taylor rarely ever came off the field despite being liabilities against the run. . .

Poet
02-23-2010, 03:17 AM
edge rusher, and the franchise tag numbers say that NFL GMs agree with me. . . . ;)

It's always the big NT. Without doubt.

Edge rushers get bigger money because the only part of defense that fans typically like are INT's and sacks.

West
02-23-2010, 03:22 AM
Depends on the defense.

dogfish
02-23-2010, 03:25 AM
Edge rushers get bigger money because the only part of defense that fans typically like are INT's and sacks.

complete bullshit! if the pay scale is based on what the "fans like," PLEASE explain to me why the franchise number for O-linemen (set by five left tackles) is higher than the number for wide receivers. . .

when somebody like bill belichick or parcells sits down with his FO guys to talk about who's going to get paid, you honestly think they give a shit what joe drunk in the cheaps seats thinks?

edge rushers make bank because this is a passing league run by stud QBs, and they're the ones who can slow them down! ask the G-men how much their pass rushers were worth. . .

ask indy how much they'd have liked to have freeney fully healthy for the bowl. . .

Poet
02-23-2010, 03:40 AM
complete bullshit! if the pay scale is based on what the "fans like," PLEASE explain to me why the franchise number for O-linemen (set by five left tackles) is higher than the number for wide receivers. . .

when somebody like bill belichick or parcells sits down with his FO guys to talk about who's going to get paid, you honestly think they give a shit what joe drunk in the cheaps seats thinks?

edge rushers make bank because this is a passing league run by stud QBs, and they're the ones who can slow them down! ask the G-men how much their pass rushers were worth. . .

ask indy how much they'd have liked to have freeney fully healthy for the bowl. . .

Because it stops at a certain extent and a lot of fans are turned off by WRs. TO drives people insane. People don't like Randy Moss. Ocho Cinco is loud and a primmadonna, Steve Smith is offputting, Marvin Harrison shoots people, Brandon Marshall is a baby, etc etc etc.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only the LTs who make more than the big name WRs. Football sense factors into it to.

The G-men play a defense where most of the pass rush is designed to come from the ends. However, that nasty Titans defense that runs the same scheme was anchored by the best defensive player (Haynesworth) who made some pediestran DE's look beastly.

You get to the 3-4 (read typically better defenses) and it's the 3-4 that makes that defense tick.

Yes, it's a passing league, but those same DE's who are get pass rushers get abused when backs kick it to the outside. The NT has a chance to stop every play. DE's don't.

The draft shows us that teams take NT's higher than DE's. A great NT lets you play a much better defense in regards to sacking QBs. Why would I want to have a guy like Freeney when I can have a guy Hampton who lets me play the 3-4? It's a well known fact that 3-4 defenses typically do better at pass rushing, that's why teams like Denver and Green Bay were scrambling to make that change.

In a perfect world teams would have guys like Ngata who can play 4-3 DE/3-4 NT/3-4 DE/4-3DT. :lol:

Ziggy
02-23-2010, 03:52 AM
The draft shows us that teams take NT's higher than DE's.

Not in the past 4 drafts.

dogfish
02-23-2010, 04:24 AM
The draft shows us that teams take NT's higher than DE's. A great NT lets you play a much better defense in regards to sacking QBs. Why would I want to have a guy like Freeney when I can have a guy Hampton who lets me play the 3-4?

this really isn't accurate. . . teams may draft one gap defensive tackles as highly as the blue chip DEs, but they rarely take mammoth two gap nosetackles that high. . . for a perfect example, watch terrance cody-- the purest true NT in this year's class-- drop to the later part of the 1st if not out of it. . . dan williams, another projected NT, could end up being one of the higher-drafted NTs in some time if he sneaks into the top fifteen-- and if you ask coach chaz, he'll tell you williams' value is being inflated by the very high demand for NTs this year. . . and i still bet you derrick morgan, the top DE prospect on most boards right now, goes higher than williams. . . he'll almost certainly go far higher than cody if the big guy goes where he's being projected, and DE/edge rusher prospects jason pierre-paul, carlos dunlap and maybe even everson griffin could easily all go before cody or in the same range. . .

suh will probably be the top pick this year, but he will probably play some of both one- and three-technique, depending on who drafts him-- and five-technique just might be his best fit long term. . . he's too small for the nose. . . and if he's not the top pick, gerald mccoy will be-- but he's a classic three-technique, not a NT. . .

b.j. raji was the first potential NT off the board last year at #9-- tyson jackson went off at #3, but he's a five-tech, not an edge rusher. . . pass rushers came off the board with two of the next three picks, orakpo and maybin. . .

in '08, pick two was a DE, pick five was a three-technique DT, pick six was a hybrid DE/OLB, pick seven was the first potential NT-- and he really fits better as a 4-3 one-technique than a true NT. . . pick eight was a pass-rushing DE that the jags traded way up to get. . . and any number of assorted ends and smaller tackles go off the board before the true NT prospects. . .

in '06, DE mario williams was the top pick while big DTs ngata and bunkley went at #12 and #14, with hybrid OLB wimbley at #13. . . in '05, hybrid OLBs ware and merriman were the only D-linemen to fit into the top 12. . . in '03, three-technique dewayne robertson made the jets look dumb when they traded up to #4 to get him-- a pair of DEs rounded out the top ten, although one plays three-tech in the NFL. . . in '02, DE julius peppers was the top DL off the board. . .

and so it goes. . . .

in '07, two DEs and a three-technique tackle all fit into the top ten, while that year's top pure NT, alan branch from michigan, slid from once being considered a top ten player all the way to the top of the second round. . . cody has done the same this year. . . teams are leery of giving that top half of the first round money to guys who will never play three downs and are sometimes a danger to eat themselves out of the league. . .

also, you would probably draft a guy who you think can be the next freeney higher than a guy you think will be the next hampton-- that's not MY valuation, just observation of drafting trends. . . as i just showed you, the blue chip edge rusher prospects go way higher than the real zero-technique NTs. . .


and FTR, i more than understand the real value of a good NT-- i really wanted denver to draft raji last year, even if they had to move up for him (and despite chaz's insistence that he wouldn't play the zero effectively in the pro's). . . i'm just playing devil's advocate because the conventional message board wisdom that NT is more valuable than edge rusher just doesn't agree with the comments that i've heard consistently over the years from scouts, GMs and personnel types. . . whenever i hear someone like that comment on the subject, they always rank edge rusher along with QB and OLT as the premiere positions. . .

tsiguy says that four out of five questioned said the same thing, and the salaries for the top guys at each position certainly seem to bear it out-- FFS, good but not great at all guys like leonard little, terrell suggs and calvin pace made more last year than hampton, kris jenkins, shaun rodgers, etc. . .

and look at the value placed on the position in the FA market. . . look at what the vikes gave up for jared allen when guys like shaun rodgers, kris jenkins and marcus stroud were all traded for 3rd round picks plus pocket change. . . who's the biggest free agent in possibly the history of free agency? reggie white, his signing with green bay was considered a sea change in NFL culture. . .

dogfish
02-23-2010, 04:34 AM
casey hampton - pick #19
vince wilfork - pick 21
jamal williams - 2nd round
shaun rogers - 2nd round
kris jenkins - 2nd round

late 1st to mid 2nd isn't an unusual place to find the top NT prospects coming off the board-- it's no coincidence that all the core of today's best NT group were drafted in that range. . .

last year, ron brace was the consensus number two NT behind raji, and he went in the top half of the 2nd, right about where he was projected. . .

silkamilkamonico
02-23-2010, 01:27 PM
and twelve sacks off the edge the year before that, and eight only playing part time his rookie year-- go compare his sack numbers to high picks like gaines adams (RIP), jamaal anderson, jarvis moss, jake long, vernon gholston, etc etc. . . doom has more sacks than all of those high picks combined, and if he'd gotten just twom more his rookie year he'd have three out of his four seasons in the league in double digit sacks-- and even with the one down year, he's averaged close to twelve sacks per season. . .

I'm not sure why you're changing the argument for a pro Doom? I'm not hating on him. I'm simply showing that "dominant edge rushers" can have a non impact year, even if they're healthy. If you look around the league you'll see he isn't alone in that boat.






besides which, i fail to see how anyone can seriously count last year against him, given that he played hurt most of the year in a "scheme" that was hands down the most pitiful i have ever seen-- one that utterly refused to do anything to generate pressure or to play ANY press coverage to slow down the receivers off the line. . . in a joke of a front seven he was the only thing even vaguely resembling a pass rush threat, no wonder he didn't play very well-- no one did in slowick's defense, it even made probable future HOFer champ bailey look pedestrian. . .

Well, now you're showing that dominant pass rushers need a good scheme to be effective, which isn't the case with dominant DT's. They make an impact regardless.



in any case, someone will most likely pay dumervil quite handsomely this offseason-- don't be surprised if he gets a deal that exceeds what top nosetackles like kris jenkins and shaun rodgers are making. . . the really good edge rushers are at a premium. . .



Not really, considering you listed 11, and left off guys like Dumervil, Mario Williams, Shawn Merrimen (who'd still be elite if not for injuries), Lamarr Woodley, Trent Cole, Brian Orakpo, and a plethora of other talent that could easily put up 10+ sacks on any given year, regardless of their scheme.

silkamilkamonico
02-23-2010, 01:29 PM
i doubt he saw enough of brace and pryor this year to feel comfortable handing that important starting spot over to either of them in their second years. . . that's why they hedge their bets with wilfork for another year-- especially because the franchise number for D-tackles isn't prohibitively high in comparison to the numbers for other positions. . .

Exactly. Because guys like Wilfork aren't easily replaceable, despite what TXBRONCO was trying to argue.

silkamilkamonico
02-23-2010, 01:33 PM
yes, but OTOH, almost all of the league's top edge rushers play pretty much every down, while the nosetackle is strictly a two-down player in today's NFL outside of the obvious short-yardage situation. . .

even ten years ago, when it was still a bit more balanced and not quite such a pass-heavy league, top sack artists like simeon rice and jason taylor rarely ever came off the field despite being liabilities against the run. . .

It still doesn't change the argument that a pass rusher is only one dimensional in terms of effectiveness. You don't need to look past Elvis Dumervil, and his sorry run defense to see that. He'll get a big payday for making sacks, certainly not stopping the run.

You won't find a dominant DT that does not change the complexion of the game in both the run and the pass, simply by the way you have to block him. It's not only a harder position to play than a pass rusher, but it's physically more demanding, as well as more taxing on the body over a course of time.

silkamilkamonico
02-23-2010, 01:36 PM
[QUOTE=King87;909647]
The draft shows us that teams take NT's higher than DE's. [QUOTE]

Not in the past 4 drafts.

The drafting place of these guys is completely irrelevant. Production on the field is what makes a player, not draft status. It's also no secret that DT's is by far a harder position to play at a higher level than DE, not only earlier in their career, but in their career period.

DT has also shown to be one of the few positions that are easily busted in the draft because of how hard it is to play at a high level, which is why teams are so cautious with them.

What happens when a talent comes along the teams feel might be a sure thing at that position? They likely go #1 overall, likely Suh. There's already been reported 1 team that are offering there #3 overall, a third rounder, and a QB to move up to #1 to draft him.

TXBRONC
02-23-2010, 04:01 PM
What Vrabel did in K.C. (or didn't do) shows how an average to a below average LB can become a Pro Bowler with someone up front eating up his blockers.

Dumervil getting 5 sacks is relevant?

I don't think I'm off base at all. Pass rushers are important. It's only going to benefit his defense more. And if Belichick has someone waiting to replace Wilford, he'd trade him and not franchise him like he did Seymour.

They're both important, but a DT open's dimensions for defense against both the run and the pass by eating up 2 sometimes 3 blockers, where a pass rush does not.

Maybe before you claims you should actually look what he's done over the years. He has been the greatest linebacker of all time but say he was below average is inaccurate.

Yep those 5 sacks of Dumervil's aren't irrelevant but again you're leaving off a lot facts. He was a defensive end in '08 on bad defense and he was playing injured that season as well. Interesting that you want to bring up his down year in '08 yet in '07 he had 12 sacks as a defensive end and that wasn't any better than one in '08. It common sense, opponents would pay attention to him in '08 after putting up double digit sacks in '07.

I don't everything there is to know about Belichick however, I do know that Belichick isn't idiot. You forget that he franchised Matt Cassel. So did he franchise a back quarterback because he had one else to back Brady? He franchised so that Cassel didn't go elsewhere without getting something in return. Wilfork will be free agent if doesn't get tagged. Now if Belicheck is so worried about losing him why not just sign him to long term contract? That could have been done by now. He franchised him because he doesn't want him walking away without getting something in return just like he didn't let Cassel walk away without getting something in return.

Why would any coach who has one the best nose tackles in the game today let contract run out if didn't feel could replace him immediately? He did draft Ron Brace just last season. So I don't think it's going to far out on limb to say that Belicheck probably believes he got a replacement already on the roster.

TXBRONC
02-23-2010, 04:12 PM
i doubt he saw enough of brace and pryor this year to feel comfortable handing that important starting spot over to either of them in their second years. . . that's why they hedge their bets with wilfork for another year-- especially because the franchise number for D-tackles isn't prohibitively high in comparison to the numbers for other positions. . .

Maybe so but why didn't he already give Wilfork a contract extension? If Belicheck is hedging his bets by frachising him isn't that he's at least willing to let him go if he gets two number one picks?

Lonestar
02-23-2010, 04:58 PM
Maybe so but why didn't he already give Wilfork a contract extension? If Belicheck is hedging his bets by frachising him isn't that he's at least willing to let him go if he gets two number one picks?

I would believe it is more for taking more time to come to an agreement.
If he wanted to allow him to leave they would tender him as a High tender and either match the offer sheet or get a 1 and 3 for him.

I seem clear to me they want him to stay and he appears to be unwilling to talk. This forces him to talk at the bargaining table and deters other teams from snapping him up. Until they talk more. Who know NE may find a team willing to trade for him that give them value in return.

Poet
02-23-2010, 05:17 PM
Dogfish, you showed me.

Poet
02-23-2010, 05:27 PM
Maybe so but why didn't he already give Wilfork a contract extension? If Belicheck is hedging his bets by frachising him isn't that he's at least willing to let him go if he gets two number one picks?

Anyone short of Tom Brady would be let go of for two number one draft picks.

rcsodak
02-23-2010, 10:08 PM
Not in the past 4 drafts.


True, but it also depends on the players in the draft, no?

Why else are Suh/McCoy being touted as #1/2 this year, and not DE's? Because they're being considered game changers.

DT's have more impact because they can stop the run, AND get to the QB, if they're good. DE's are mainly QB rushers and hopefully contain the outside run.

TXBRONC
02-23-2010, 10:12 PM
I would believe it is more for taking more time to come to an agreement.
If he wanted to allow him to leave they would tender him as a High tender and either match the offer sheet or get a 1 and 3 for him.

I seem clear to me they want him to stay and he appears to be unwilling to talk. This forces him to talk at the bargaining table and deters other teams from snapping him up. Until they talk more. Who know NE may find a team willing to trade for him that give them value in return.

They're going to place the franchise tag on him that's tender of two 1st round draft picks. Now if you would to explain how a 1st and 3rd round tender is higher than what franchise tender is I would like to hear that.

Wilfork has been looking for a contract extentioin for couple years already. And from what Dogfish said not long ago he wasn't asking of deal that would break the bank. And no putting the franchise tag on him does not force him to the table. Rod Woodson was franchised twice by the Raiders it didn't force him to the table. If recall correctly the Redskins franchised Champ Bailey but he refused to sign the offer which in turn lead to him being traded to Denver.

rcsodak
02-23-2010, 10:22 PM
casey hampton - pick #19
vince wilfork - pick 21
jamal williams - 2nd round
shaun rogers - 2nd round
kris jenkins - 2nd round

late 1st to mid 2nd isn't an unusual place to find the top NT prospects coming off the board-- it's no coincidence that all the core of today's best NT group were drafted in that range. . .

last year, ron brace was the consensus number two NT behind raji, and he went in the top half of the 2nd, right about where he was projected. . .

I'm lost on what your point is, dog.

Granted, the fat-boys you list were drafted later...

...but aren't they also some of the highest paid players in the NFL? Because they are studs?
Willfork just got franchised.
Williams went out, and SD's D went to shit.
Jenkins was credited with being one of the reasons NYJ's D rocked!
Rogers....well, he got paid big bucks as well. lol

Not to mention Casey Hampton - franchised.

NT's are the MOST important player in a 3-4. Thus, the big bucks
DT's are important players in the 4-3, as they pretty much determine how good the D will be against the run, and how active the LB's can be. If they're really worth their weight, they'll get some pressures/sacks, to boot.

DE's play contain, and rush the QB. Sometimes, they'll fill the zone.

I just question, if they're so great, then why are more teams going to 3-4's and standing their OLB's up, and thusly leading the league in sacks?

TXBRONC
02-23-2010, 10:27 PM
Anyone short of Tom Brady would be let go of for two number one draft picks.

Two number ones is just a starting point it's possible that Belicheck could get more two number ones if wanted.

Lonestar
02-23-2010, 10:31 PM
I would believe it is more for taking more time to come to an agreement.
If he wanted to allow him to leave they would tender him as a High tender and either match the offer sheet or get a 1 and 3 for him.

It seems clear to me they want him to stay and he appears to be unwilling to talk. This forces him to talk at the bargaining table and deters other teams from snapping him up.

Until they talk more. Who know NE may find a team willing to trade for him that give them value in return.


They're going to place the franchise tag on him that's tender of two 1st round draft picks. Now if you would to explain how a 1st and 3rd round tender is higher than what franchise tender is I would like to hear that.

Wilfork has been looking for a contract extentioin for couple years already. And from what Dogfish said not long ago he wasn't asking of deal that would break the bank. And no putting the franchise tag on him does not force him to the table. Rod Woodson was franchised twice by the Raiders it didn't force him to the table. If recall correctly the Redskins franchised Champ Bailey but he refused to sign the offer which in turn lead to him being traded to Denver.


You need to read my posts closer TX.

rcsodak
02-23-2010, 10:33 PM
Maybe so but why didn't he already give Wilfork a contract extension? If Belicheck is hedging his bets by frachising him isn't that he's at least willing to let him go if he gets two number one picks?

Good grief, tx. Name ONE freaking idiotic team in the NFL/CFL/UFL that would do that!

:tsk:

Wilfork has said he's hoping they're using the FT to buy some time while they work out a new contract.

If NE just wanted something in return, then all they'd have to do is tender him high, so if they didn't match, they'd get a 1/3. But we all know he puts more stock in getting 2's, so 4/5 of them ought to do the trick as well! :lol:

rcsodak
02-23-2010, 10:35 PM
Anyone short of Tom Brady would be let go of for two number one draft picks.

I'm not so sure Tom wouldn't be included.

:laugh:

TXBRONC
02-23-2010, 10:47 PM
Good grief, tx. Name ONE freaking idiotic team in the NFL/CFL/UFL that would do that!

:tsk:

Wilfork has said he's hoping they're using the FT to buy some time while they work out a new contract.

If NE just wanted something in return, then all they'd have to do is tender him high, so if they didn't match, they'd get a 1/3. But we all know he puts more stock in getting 2's, so 4/5 of them ought to do the trick as well! :lol:

Hey genius the Patriots franchised tagged Cassel last season so that he did get way without anything in return.

TXBRONC
02-23-2010, 10:50 PM
You need to read my posts closer TX.

Hey Einstein it called hedging your bets.

Lonestar
02-23-2010, 10:59 PM
Hey Einstein it called hedging your bets.

Thank you, thank you very much.

CoachChaz
02-24-2010, 07:57 AM
Keep in mind, the tag is there simply for signing purposes. Teams can ALWAYS work out trade deals that can vary from the standard tag requirements. If someone gets tagged with the high exception that requires 2 firsts, that team can always turn around and trade him for two 2nd's if they wanted to

TXBRONC
02-24-2010, 12:54 PM
Keep in mind, the tag is there simply for signing purposes. Teams can ALWAYS work out trade deals that can vary from the standard tag requirements. If someone gets tagged with the high exception that requires 2 firsts, that team can always turn around and trade him for two 2nd's if they wanted to

Agreed. I think that putting a franchise tag on any player is an open invitation to other teams to at the very inquire about a player. Two first is starting point but obviously they trade him for whatever they think equitable or not at all.

CoachChaz
02-24-2010, 01:15 PM
Agreed. I think that putting a franchise tag on any player is an open invitation to other teams to at the very inquire about a player. Two first is starting point but obviously they trade him for whatever they think equitable or not at all.

Exactly. Denver could put Marshall on a hig tender that would require a first and third, but could always trade him to TB for two 2nd's. The tender just prtects the current team.

Lonestar
02-24-2010, 02:54 PM
Keep in mind, the tag is there simply for signing purposes. Teams can ALWAYS work out trade deals that can vary from the standard tag requirements. If someone gets tagged with the high exception that requires 2 firsts, that team can always turn around and trade him for two 2nd's if they wanted to


IIRC the player also has to sign the agreement before they can trade him as long as the Tag is in place.

CoachChaz
02-24-2010, 03:47 PM
IIRC the player also has to sign the agreement before they can trade him as long as the Tag is in place.

I wasnt talking about a franchise tag...just an RFA tender.

underrated29
02-24-2010, 03:51 PM
I never saw this thread. And I am not going to read through all the responses. But here is mine for the record.



DT is the most important.


They stop the run, and collapse the pocket, and make the players around them better as they often require a double team or more.



I remember when the broncos D in superbowl years would get lots of pressures and sacks. I always remember seeing Keith Trayler bulldozing up the middle, right where the Qb was going to step up into the pocket. However, because of him there was no pocket and our DE's would get the sack. Him and Ma'a Tanuvassa- was he a DT- i remember them well.

Lonestar
02-24-2010, 04:21 PM
I never saw this thread. And I am not going to read through all the responses. But here is mine for the record.



DT is the most important.


They stop the run, and collapse the pocket, and make the players around them better as they often require a double team or more.



I remember when the broncos D in superbowl years would get lots of pressures and sacks. I always remember seeing Keith Trayler bulldozing up the middle, right where the Qb was going to step up into the pocket. However, because of him there was no pocket and our DE's would get the sack. Him and Ma'a Tanuvassa- was he a DT- i remember them well.


The key is being able to hold their position and require double teams, and then there is collapsing the pocket. If they can do that like a haynsewroth then they are the most important as EVERYONE around them has a chance at getting a sack.

dogfish
02-24-2010, 05:02 PM
I'm lost on what your point is, dog.

i was just debunking king's comment about teams drafting nosetackles higher than edge rushers, which is not true at all. . .




NT's are the MOST important player in a 3-4. Thus, the big bucks
DT's are important players in the 4-3, as they pretty much determine how good the D will be against the run, and how active the LB's can be. If they're really worth their weight, they'll get some pressures/sacks, to boot.

DE's play contain, and rush the QB. Sometimes, they'll fill the zone.

I just question, if they're so great, then why are more teams going to 3-4's and standing their OLB's up, and thusly leading the league in sacks?

in this discussion the comparison was "edge ruhers" vs NTs-- the original post didn't distinguish whether those edge rushers were DEs or OLBs, but obviously when you're talking about the 3-4 those guys are 'backers. . .

silkamilkamonico
02-24-2010, 05:35 PM
Maybe before you claims you should actually look what he's done over the years. He has been the greatest linebacker of all time but say he was below average is inaccurate.


LMAO uhh no. Mike Vrabel is not the greatest LB of all time. He's an average LB at best, that had a couple good years in NE because of a dominant DT. He didn't even see the field in his 4 years at Pittsburgh. He had a handful of good years at NE, and one Pro Bowl year, mainly because of his surrounding cast (dominat DT), get's traded to KC and has an average at best season.

And I said he's a "below average to average at best LB", not simply "below average" like you're insinuating. And Vrabel is an average at best LB.


Yep those 5 sacks of Dumervil's aren't irrelevant but again you're leaving off a lot facts. He was a defensive end in '08 on bad defense and he was playing injured that season as well. Interesting that you want to bring up his down year in '08 yet in '07 he had 12 sacks as a defensive end and that wasn't any better than one in '08. It common sense, opponents would pay attention to him in '08 after putting up double digit sacks in '07.

Interesting how you're completely sidestepping the argument of "dominant pass rushers may, or may not help in the run game, while dominant DT's constantly help in both" argument, and trying to create your own about focusing only on pass rushers.


I don't everything there is to know about Belichick however, I do know that Belichick isn't idiot. You forget that he franchised Matt Cassel. So did he franchise a back quarterback because he had one else to back Brady? He franchised so that Cassel didn't go elsewhere without getting something in return.

No, he franchised Cassel because Brady was coming off major knee surgery, and it was unclear if he would be ready the following season. The front office chose to bite the bullet with Cassell for one sesason, because they had the money to do so.


Wilfork will be free agent if doesn't get tagged. Now if Belicheck is so worried about losing him why not just sign him to long term contract? That could have been done by now. He franchised him because he doesn't want him walking away without getting something in return just like he didn't let Cassel walk away without getting something in return.

No. Everyone knows that DT's are unlikely to stay on the top of the game for a long period of time. Especially 3-4 DT's. Wilfork wants a long term contract, and Belichek will use the franchise year to determine if he wants to take that chance.



Why would any coach who has one the best nose tackles in the game today let contract run out if didn't feel could replace him immediately? He did draft Ron Brace just last season. So I don't think it's going to far out on limb to say that Belicheck probably believes he got a replacement already on the roster.

Because he has to make a long term decision with Wilfork. He isn't going to just let WIlfork walk. He also isn't going to franchise the guy if he has an immediate replacement for him. He'll probably the next year to see what he has with the younger guys, and then make a decision with WIlfork.

If he believes he already has a replacement on the roster, he isn't going to waste a year of that replacement's playing time by franchising WIlfork in his spot. Do you think he's going to pay WIlfork that money this year, and then not play him?

Poet
02-24-2010, 05:41 PM
The thing that DT's and NT's do that DE's can't (normally) is collapse the pocket from the inside. Casey Hampton and the 3-4 NT's demand and force a double team from the inside. They eat up 2/5 of the line.

Now, a dominant edge rusher can force a double team as well. Demarcus Ware and Jared Allen demand doubles. The reason why Ware is the most versatile pass rusher is that he can do it from DE or LB and he's a good LB in coverage (not great). That's just because I have a man crush on Ware that I point that out.

Those edge rushers will eat up a tackle and a guard or a tackle and a TE/RB or maybe even a FB if it's applicable.

DT's or NT's won't ever get many sacks. But, they still apply a lot of pressure to the QB and the do more to open up holes and gaps for the rest of the team. Now if you get a guy like a young Sam Adams who does have some ability to get to the QB you have just unleashed an absolute terror on the gridiron. Those guys are super rare.

In the 3-4 defense the most important player on the field is the NT. There's no two bones about it. In the case of Pittsburgh, Hampton isn't their best player, Polamala is, but I think Pitt would struggle just as much without Hampton as they did without Troy.

In the 4-3 the most important player isn't a DT unless you have someone like Haynesworth (who is the best defensive player in the NFL bar none). The onus is on the defensive ends to get the sacks in the 4-3. I can tell you that Cincinnati's pass died for the most part when Odom went out.

In essence, I want the NT. The NT lets you play the 3-4. The 3-4 is typically better at getting to the QB than the 4-3.

silkamilkamonico
02-24-2010, 05:48 PM
I would just take a dominant DT over pass rusher simply because the DT impacts both the run AND the pass, because of they way you have to play them. That's not the case with a dominant pass rusher.

rcsodak
02-24-2010, 11:10 PM
Hey genius the Patriots franchised tagged Cassel last season so that he did get way without anything in return.

I have no freaking idea what you just tried to say, other than finally admitting my intellect.

Ever wonder why they let Seymour go?

Maybe because they KNEW they wouldn't be able to afford both him and willfork?

That maybe Willfork, being a top tier NT is more important to keep?


Franchising a qb, who after not playing in FOREVER, and won 11 games, was SMART! They got out of him more than what they paid for him. How that has anything to do with tagging a Pro-Bowl player on the other side of the ball? Only you could tie the two together. :rolleyes:

rcsodak
02-24-2010, 11:14 PM
Keep in mind, the tag is there simply for signing purposes. Teams can ALWAYS work out trade deals that can vary from the standard tag requirements. If someone gets tagged with the high exception that requires 2 firsts, that team can always turn around and trade him for two 2nd's if they wanted to

You mean like how KC acquired Cassell, who was "franchised", for a 2nd, plus had Vrabel thrown in to boot?

I dunno, coach..... :shocked: ....you best run this by tx, first!



:listen:

Lonestar
02-24-2010, 11:19 PM
You mean like how KC acquired Cassell, who was "franchised", for a 2nd, plus had Vrabel thrown in to boot?

I dunno, coach..... :shocked: ....you best run this by tx, first!



:listen:


You forgot they (KC) also gave him a Franchise QB contract.

Lets see we got two firsts, a third and QB for our trouble and have not spent that kind of money yet. All the while getting rid of a head case.:D