PDA

View Full Version : Rank the DTs



tuck&rolle
04-21-2012, 05:51 PM
I'm working on a mock draft and have the first 31 picks pretty much set, and I'm thinking that a defensive tackle could be good value for us at 32. If you had to rank the top 5-7 DTs in this draft, who would they be?

Redeyejedi
04-21-2012, 06:18 PM
1. Fletcher Cox

2. Michael Brockers

3. Kendell Reyes

4. Devon Still

5. Dontari Poe

6.Jerel Worthy

7. Alameda Ta'amu

juice33s
04-21-2012, 06:32 PM
too lazy right now to watch youtube tape (You like that?, I think I just coined a new phrase) on all these guys, but here's how alot of the "professionals" see them:

Mayock- Cox, Worthy, Brockers, Poe, Reyes(t), still (t)

Kiper- Poe, Cox, Brockers, Wolfe, Reyes

CBS- Cox, Brockers, Poe, Worthy, Still

Walterfootball- Cox, Poe, Brockers, Reyes, Still, Thompson, worthy

Sidelinescouting- Cox, Brockers, Poe, Still, Worthy, Reyes, Thompson

slipknottin
04-21-2012, 07:15 PM
Are we looking for a 0 tech, 1 tech, 3 tech, or 5 tech?

Different players suit different systems and some dont have the versatility to play in all of them

Shockeystays08
04-21-2012, 07:45 PM
too lazy right now to watch youtube tape (You like that?, I think I just coined a new phrase) on all these guys, but here's how alot of the "professionals" see them:

Mayock- Cox, Worthy, Brockers, Poe, Reyes(t), still (t)

Kiper- Poe, Cox, Brockers, Wolfe, Reyes

CBS- Cox, Brockers, Poe, Worthy, Still

Walterfootball- Cox, Poe, Brockers, Reyes, Still, Thompson, worthy

Sidelinescouting- Cox, Brockers, Poe, Still, Worthy, Reyes, Thompson



I'll go with Mayocks order!

juice33s
04-21-2012, 08:25 PM
Are we looking for a 0 tech, 1 tech, 3 tech, or 5 tech?

Different players suit different systems and some dont have the versatility to play in all of them
For the most part I'd say 3's can play 5's and vice versa and 0's can play 1's (So basically any dtackle can play in any system). Also no reason why you can't play two nose tackle type guys in a 4/3 scheme for running downs. 2000 Ravens did so with alot of success with Sam Adams and Tony Siragusa.

I'm of the belief that good football players are good football players. For example just because Canty played the 5 for the cowboys didn't mean he couldn't come here and play the 1 and the 3.

slipknottin
04-21-2012, 08:59 PM
For the most part I'd say 3's can play 5's and vice versa and 0's can play 1's (So basically any dtackle can play in any system)

Completely disagree with that. Players like Geno Atkins would be horrible as a 5 tech.

0 tech DTs generally need to be much bulkier than 1 techs. Also depends if you want to run a 2 gap or 1 gap system.



Also no reason why you can't play two nose tackle type guys in a 4/3 scheme for running downs.

Most teams run two 1 tech, or 2 tech players at times.

Redeyejedi
04-21-2012, 09:04 PM
For the most part I'd say 3's can play 5's and vice versa and 0's can play 1's (So basically any dtackle can play in any system)

Completely disagree with that. Players like Geno Atkins would be horrible as a 5 tech.

0 tech DTs generally need to be much bulkier than 1 techs. Also depends if you want to run a 2 gap or 1 gap system.



Also no reason why you can't play two nose tackle type guys in a 4/3 scheme for running downs.

Most teams run two 1 tech, or 2 tech players at times.LOL just order them in the way u like them. Mayock isnt spliting them up by 0,1,3,5 Tech

slipknottin
04-21-2012, 09:06 PM
LOL just order them in the way u like them. Mayock isnt spliting them up by 0,1,3,5 Tech

It depends if you are ordering them for the giants, in the order you think they will be drafted, which DT will be the best at the position you think they will play best, etc.

Mayock generally orders guys for his hypothetical team.

juice33s
04-21-2012, 09:17 PM
For the most part I'd say 3's can play 5's and vice versa and 0's can play 1's (So basically any dtackle can play in any system)

Completely disagree with that. Players like Geno Atkins would be horrible as a 5 tech.

0 tech DTs generally need to be much bulkier than 1 techs. Also depends if you want to run a 2 gap or 1 gap system.



Also no reason why you can't play two nose tackle type guys in a 4/3 scheme for running downs.
<font size="4">
Most teams run two 1 tech, or 2 tech players at times</font>.
By nose tackle, I meant 3/4 nose tackle (0 tech). Adams was 350 and the goose was 340.

As for Atkins I don't follow why you would think that. Do you think he's less athletic then say Mike devito of the Jets?

juice33s
04-22-2012, 11:55 AM
I'm just going to rank Still, Worthy and Reyes because we presumably have no shot at Cox, Brockers and Poe.

1.) Still- By far the most productive of the three (55 tackles, 17.5 for loss), with very good length (6'5) to get in the passing lanes He's also very disruptive in the opponents backfield shooting the gaps with a quick burst off the snap.

2.) Worthy- His production doesn't show it, but Worthy also has a great burst off the snap enabling him to either shoot the gap or bull rush his man in to the backfield. Has a very wide build and low center of gravity giving him the ability to hold his position at the point of attack while facing double teams making him an optimal run stuffer and because of that I think he would be the best fit for the Giants. Him and Joseph would be an excellent combination as 2-down run stoppers.

3.) Reyes- Despite great combine numbers, I don't see the same type of quick burst off the line as the other two possess therefore getting him stone walled at the line of scrimmage far too often. IMO not worthy of a 1st round pick and personally I wouldn't even consider him till the 3rd.

slipknottin
04-22-2012, 12:14 PM
By nose tackle, I meant 3/4 nose tackle (0 tech).Adams was 350 and the goose was 340.

Right, I wasnt talking about player types but where guys can line up. There is nothing wrong with having multiple NT types on the field on running downs.


As for Atkins I don't follow why you would think that. Do you think he's less athletic then say Mike devito of the Jets?


I think Atkins is far more athletic, but he cant play the role of a NT, he just doesnt have the length or the anchor.

juice33s
04-22-2012, 12:24 PM
By nose tackle, I meant 3/4 nose tackle (0 tech).Adams was 350 and the goose was 340.

Right, I wasnt talking about player types but where guys can line up. There is nothing wrong with having multiple NT types on the field on running downs.


As for Atkins I don't follow why you would think that. Do you think he's less athletic then say Mike devito of the Jets?


I think<font size="4"> Atkins is far more athletic, but he cant play the role of a NT</font>, he just doesnt have the length or the anchor.
I think he could play the 5. Though he might not be prototype I really don't see a whole lot of difference physically between him and say guys like Corey liuget and Glen dorsey.

Also Sapp (one of the greatest 3techs of all time) played the 5 for the Raiders late in his career. He too had a similar build to Atkins.

Side note: I made the comparison to Devito, because he plays the 5 for the Jets. Pouha was the NT for them

juice33s
04-22-2012, 12:39 PM
Just look at the guys we're talking about, virtually all of them could play multiple positions in the 3/4 or 4/3.

Cox- 3,5
Brockers- 1,3,5
Poe- 0,1,3
Still- 1,3,5
Worthy- Best fit would be the 1,3, but imo could also play the 0 (not much difference physically between him and cofield) and the 5 (Might not have the length, but like Devito, Liuget and Dorsey could hold his position at the line of scrimmage because of a strong base.)
Reyes- 1,3,5

slipknottin
04-22-2012, 12:42 PM
Raiders after attempting to run a 3-4 with Sapp decided it was not working and went back to a 4-3 for the most part.

And its not a matter as much of if a guy when forced into it can play alright there, its a matter of finding a guy that best fits the system and is most effective there.

As for Chargers and KC. Different systems completely. Chargers run more of a 50 front, 1 gap 3-4. Size isnt as critical to their 5 techs. All of their DEs are on the smaller size height wise.

KC on the other hand doesnt really even use 5 techs, they use two 4 techs and a 0 tech. Traditional 2 gap 3-4. Dorsey was drafted by the previous regime, when they were running the 4-3. While Dorsey has played 4 tech probably better than anyone expected, its far from an ideal position for him. Just watching him play you can see the disadvantages he has with a lack of height trying to 2 gap. He is fortunate he has 33"+ long arms.

WR4Life
04-22-2012, 01:12 PM
Raiders after attempting to run a 3-4 with Sapp decided it was not working and went back to a 4-3 for the most part.

And its not a matter as much of if a guy when forced into it can play alright there, its a matter of finding a guy that best fits the system and is most effective there.

As for Chargers and KC. Different systems completely. Chargers run more of a 50 front, 1 gap 3-4. Size isnt as critical to their 5 techs. All of their DEs are on the smaller size height wise.

KC on the other hand doesnt really even use 5 techs, they use two 4 techs and a 0 tech. Traditional 2 gap 3-4. Dorsey was drafted by the previous regime, when they were running the 4-3. While Dorsey has played 4 tech probably better than anyone expected, its far from an ideal position for him. Just watching him play you can see the disadvantages he has with a lack of height trying to 2 gap. He is fortunate he has 33"+ long arms.

Just refresh my memory on this one. It's been over 4 years now since I've played football. If you are playing a two gap system, doesn't it make it difficult to do so playing both ends in a 4 tech? That puts a lot of pressure on the ends to cover two gaps from that position or is that strictly referring to the nose tackle's responsibility?

slipknottin
04-22-2012, 01:32 PM
Just refresh my memory on this one. It's been over 4 years now since I've played football. If you are playing a two gap system, doesn't it make it difficult to do so playing both ends in a 4 tech? That puts a lot of pressure on the ends to cover two gaps from that position or is that strictly referring to the nose tackle's responsibility?

Well from what Ive seen from the Chiefs the DEs align at either 3, 4, or 5, even occasionally at 6. They are asked either to engage both guard + tackle, or two gap over the tackle.

They might be aligning more on the inside shoulder because of a lack of talent at NT. Having the DEs engaging or at least threatening the guards may help keep the guards off the NT, making the NTs 2 gapping job easier to accomplish. If they had a wilfork type at NT, maybe they align the DEs more often at 5 tech?

From what Ive seen of the chargers, they align their DEs as 3 techs an awful lot, they try to get penetration from their DEs quite a lot.

juice33s
04-22-2012, 01:35 PM
Raiders after attempting to run a 3-4 with Sapp decided it was not working and went back to a 4-3 for the most part.

And its not a matter as much of if a guy when forced into it can play alright there, its a matter of finding a guy that best fits the system and is most effective there.

As for Chargers and KC. Different systems completely. Chargers run more of a 50 front, 1 gap 3-4. Size isnt as critical to their 5 techs. All of their DEs are on the smaller size height wise.

KC on the other hand doesnt really even use 5 techs,<font size="4"> they use two 4 techs and a 0 tech. Traditional 2 gap 3-4</font>. Dorsey was drafted by the previous regime, when they were running the 4-3. While Dorsey has played 4 tech probably better than anyone expected, its far from an ideal position for him. Just watching him play you can see the disadvantages he has with a lack of height trying to 2 gap. He is fortunate he has 33"+ long arms.
Never heard of a traditional 2 gap 3/4 where they have there ends playing the 4tech? Traditional 2 gap 3/4 is with 5 techs, hence the two gap ( B and C) responsibility of a 5 tech. A 4 techs sole gap is the B gap.

slipknottin
04-22-2012, 01:42 PM
Never heard of a traditional 2 gap 3/4 where they have there ends playing* the 4tech? Traditional 2 gap 3/4 is with 5 techs, hence the two gap ( B and C) responsibility of a 5 tech. A 4 techs sole gap is the B gap.


It looks like on film the Chiefs DEs are asked to engage the guard and OT. But unless its a known pass play, they arent asked to push up field at all, just to engage both players.

Seems like they either are 2 gapping, or engaging guard + tackle.

They do run a lot of slants as well, so its hard to tell a lot of it.

slipknottin
04-22-2012, 01:50 PM
Also I did not get to see any Chiefs games this year, they werent broadcast in florida and my internet was not fast enough to stream them, so I didnt get to see how the defense changed this year if it did. I do know that when the chiefs originally installed the 3-4 that Dorsey was lined up at 4 tech nearly every play.

WR4Life
04-22-2012, 01:52 PM
Just refresh my memory on this one. It's been over 4 years now since I've played football. If you are playing a two gap system, doesn't it make it difficult to do so playing both ends in a 4 tech? That puts a lot of pressure on the ends to cover two gaps from that position or is that strictly referring to the nose tackle's responsibility?

Well from what Ive seen from the Chiefs the DEs align at either 3, 4, or 5, even occasionally at 6. They are asked either to engage both guard + tackle, or two gap over the tackle.

They might be aligning more on the inside shoulder because of a lack of talent at NT. Having the DEs engaging or at least threatening the guards may help keep the guards off the NT, making the NTs 2 gapping job easier to accomplish. If they had a wilfork type at NT, maybe they align the DEs more often at 5 tech?

From what Ive seen of the chargers, they align their DEs as 3 techs an awful lot, they try to get penetration from their DEs quite a lot.

That's why I was curious. From a 4 it would be very difficult to play 2 gaps. If its the case that it's compensating for the NT then it would almost be as if the NT has a two gap responsibility while the ends do not. It'd almost be impossible to cover the C gap from the 4 spot.

slipknottin
04-22-2012, 01:55 PM
That's why I was curious. From a 4 it would be very difficult to play 2 gaps. If its the case that it's compensating for the NT then it would almost be as if the NT has a two gap responsibility while the ends do not. It'd almost be impossible to cover the C gap from the 4 spot.

It could have been playcall too, asked to either 2 gap over the OT (occasionally you see them 2 gap over the guard too) or to engage both guard + tackle, and while they arent two gapping, they arent supposed to be penetrating, either. Simply occupy blockers.

They do have some really good talent at OLB too, so perhaps they are less concerned with the C gap.

They do run an unusual scheme, at least they did under Pendergast. Arizona ran similar concepts when he was there

slipknottin
04-22-2012, 02:20 PM
Went back and watched some of there defense and it seems like if one DE played 4 tech and tied up that gap by drawing guard+ tackle the other DE just two gapped over his OT. They switched up which DE did which. I suppose that is sort of like a line slant. Interesting concept. The DE which played 4 tech would almost always have a LB come in behind him going outside, which takes care of that C gap

WR4Life
04-22-2012, 02:31 PM
Went back and watched some of there defense and it seems like if one DE played 4 tech and tied up that gap by drawing guard+ tackle the other DE just two gapped over his OT. They switched up which DE did which. I suppose that is sort of like a line slant. Interesting concept. The DE which played 4 tech would almost always have a LB come in behind him going outside, which takes care of that C gap

That makes sense to me. Did the alignment have anything to do with how the offense came out? (I.E. Did the 5 tech always play to the strong side and the 4 on the weak side or vice versa?)

slipknottin
04-22-2012, 02:40 PM
Not sure. Two games I've been looking at are against 49ers and chargers. 49ers have used two TEs nearly every snap. And chargers have flexed Gates out wide nearly every snap.

The Chiefs have brought their safetys up on the line over the TEs quite a few times too

WR4Life
04-22-2012, 02:57 PM
Interesting. Unfortunately some of us will never be able to fully grasp or understand the complexities of how these coordinators run their defenses. Requires more hours of study and film than many of us can afford or have access to.