+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Rank the DTs

  1. #11

    Re: Rank the DTs

    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.

  2. #12
    All-Pro slipknottin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    38,692

    Re: Rank the DTs

    [quote user="juice33s"]By nose tackle, I meant 3/4 nose tackle (0 tech).Adams was 350 and the goose was 340.[/quote]

    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.

  3. #13

    Re: Rank the DTs

    [quote user="slipknottin"][quote user="juice33s"]By nose tackle, I meant 3/4 nose tackle (0 tech).Adams was 350 and the goose was 340.[/quote]

    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.[/quote]
    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

  4. #14

    Re: Rank the DTs

    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

  5. #15
    All-Pro slipknottin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    38,692

    Re: Rank the DTs

    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.

  6. #16
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: Rank the DTs

    [quote user="slipknottin"]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.[/quote]

    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?

  7. #17
    All-Pro slipknottin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    38,692

    Re: Rank the DTs

    [quote user="WR4Life"]
    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?[/quote]

    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.

  8. #18

    Re: Rank the DTs

    [quote user="slipknottin"]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.[/quote]
    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.

  9. #19
    All-Pro slipknottin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    38,692

    Re: Rank the DTs

    [quote user="juice33s"]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.
    [/quote]

    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.

  10. #20
    All-Pro slipknottin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    38,692

    Re: Rank the DTs

    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.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts