PDA

View Full Version : More important: DT or SS/FS


TRing
07-06-2005, 03:11 PM
Friend and I are in the midst of a heated discussion and wanted to know what ya'll think. Have a take, don't suck.

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 03:12 PM
Have a take, don't suck.
Did I stumple upon the Jim Rome show?

TRing
07-06-2005, 03:13 PM
had to make somewhat antagonizing

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 03:14 PM
With out a DT, I dont care how good your FS/SS is he will not make an impact.

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 03:14 PM
I would say DT because an elite one can be so proactive in busting up a play run or pass either by making a tackle or sack himself or ruining the path for blockers weather it be a lineman pulling or base blocking or a full back.

I think it is obcious a bad SS\FS tandem can make a team suck. Just look at us. But if one is THAT good you can still do other things as an offense.

A great DT alot of times may not make a play himself but can be very disruptive to an offense so its easier for the calvery to come in and take care of business.

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 03:18 PM
exactly Zach...thats what I am trying to tell TRing.

jspchief
07-06-2005, 03:22 PM
I dunno, I think of the way Ed Reed can impact a game, and wonder what DT could have the same effect.

I know if I had the choice between Reed and whichever DT you might think is best in the league, I'd be inclined to choose Reed.

It's tough to say because they play such different roles.

TRing
07-06-2005, 03:24 PM
jsp, im glad someone around hear knows he's stuff

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 03:25 PM
jsp, im glad someone around hear knows he's stuff
heh, someone with a different opinion than yours doesn't know his stuff?

TRing
07-06-2005, 03:26 PM
no i was throwin that out there to piss dawson off

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 03:26 PM
ok...

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 03:29 PM
you only notice the SS/FS position when they are the likes of ED Reed, Rodney Harrison.....but you notice a DT impact no matter how dominant they are....

mcan
07-06-2005, 03:30 PM
This is a very hard question to answer. The obvious answer is that they are all part of the same unit, and therefore carry equal importance. A defense completely WITHOUT either of these positions is a defense that wouldn't stop anybody... Even if the other 9 men on the field were all probowlers.

However, my instinct is to say that on any given play, the Defensive Tackle is more counted upon in order for the total success of the unit. Without him doing his job first, nobody else can do their job effectively against the run or the pass.

TRing
07-06-2005, 03:31 PM
There are different plays you can call to negate the talent of a DT i.e. sweeps, bootlegs, etc. but with FS/SS they fly all around the field making plays not only east and west but also in the backfield if need be

Chiefnj
07-06-2005, 03:31 PM
First, you stop the run.

DT.

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 03:31 PM
However, my instinct is to say that on any given play, the Defensive Tackle is more counted upon in order for the total success of the unit. Without him doing his job first, nobody else can do their job effectively against the run or the pass.

mcan I could not have said it better myself.

jspchief
07-06-2005, 03:32 PM
you only notice the SS/FS position when they are the likes of ED Reed, Rodney Harrison.....but you notice a DT impact no matter how dominant they are....Really? That makes it sound like it's not that important if any schlub can get in there and make a difference.

Also, I don't remember KC DTs making much of an impact last year.

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 03:33 PM
There are different plays you can call to negate the talent of a DT i.e. sweeps, bootlegs, etc. but with FS/SS they fly all around the field making plays not only east and west but also in the backfield if need be
an elite DT can either knock back a center or get into the backfield himself to disrupt an outside running play's blocking scheme. Esp one involving pulling guards.

whoman69
07-06-2005, 03:33 PM
I think if you have a poor player on your D, the other team will find them.

jspchief
07-06-2005, 03:34 PM
However, my instinct is to say that on any given play, the Defensive Tackle is more counted upon in order for the total success of the unit. Without him doing his job first, nobody else can do their job effectively against the run or the pass.

Not sure I agree. A DT can be completely ineffective, and it won't ncessarily have any impact on the defense's ability to defend the play.

TRing
07-06-2005, 03:37 PM
Not sure I agree. A DT can be completely ineffective, and it won't ncessarily have any impact on the defense's ability to defend the play.
exactly. DT=1st line of defense=more people behind him to cover is ass. FS/SS= last line of defense=nobody to cover his ass

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 03:37 PM
Also, I don't remember KC DTs making much of an impact last year.

Yeah, but how much of an impact did our SS/FS make. You notice that with out a DT doing his job the D struggles against all aspects of the game, run and pass. If all the QB has to do is step up in the pocket because of no push from the DT then he can pick apart any secondary....

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 03:39 PM
A DT can be in a position to effect every play. For some reason I am thinking about two elite players at each position. I just think a good FS\SS could be neutralized better if he was a stud.

TRing
07-06-2005, 03:41 PM
Ok.. the only reason why i would think that the DT is more important (which i dont) is because you dont come across as many dominant DT as you do safeties

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 03:42 PM
Woods was a probowler in 2003....but our D was terrible. If you put a Pro Bowl DT in our D then we have a soild D. Just what I think.

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 03:43 PM
Ok.. the only reason why i would think that the DT is more important (which i dont) is because you dont come across as many dominant DT as you do safeties
I agree and have to refer to you to one of my main points...DTs can do so much to disrupt an offense without actually making a tackle or sack.

jspchief
07-06-2005, 03:51 PM
Yeah, but how much of an impact did our SS/FS make. You notice that with out a DT doing his job the D struggles against all aspects of the game, run and pass. If all the QB has to do is step up in the pocket because of no push from the DT then he can pick apart any secondary....You make it sound as though every time the ball is snapped, the DT has some sort of impact on the play. That's not true. A large part of the time, the DT is completely neutralized.

By the same token, a safety is obsolete on many plays simply because he's not in the spot where the play is occuring.

So I look at it as who has the biggest impact when they are on the top of their game.

Let's use Kevin Williams as our DT. He gets 12 sacks, 52 tackles, and an INT. And however many QB pressures or busted holes on running plays.

The we'll use Ed Reed as our safety. Het gets 2 sacks, 62 tackles, and 9 INTs. And however many passes defensed, QB pressures, and busted holes on running plays.

I'd say an INT is a bigger impact play than a sack, So everything else being equal, Reed might have an advantage.

But like I said, It's tough to compare two positions that are so different. I'm not arguing that Safety is definately more important, as much as just arguing that you can't say that a Tackle clearly is.

patteeu
07-06-2005, 03:55 PM
I think I'd rather have 2 safeties than 1 defensive lineman.

TRing
07-06-2005, 03:58 PM
well yeah 2 is often times better than 1 but we are talking about A good safety compared to a good DT

Chiefnj
07-06-2005, 04:00 PM
You make it sound as though every time the ball is snapped, the DT has some sort of impact on the play. That's not true. A large part of the time, the DT is completely neutralized.

By the same token, a safety is obsolete on many plays simply because he's not in the spot where the play is occuring.

So I look at it as who has the biggest impact when they are on the top of their game.

Let's use Kevin Williams as our DT. He gets 12 sacks, 52 tackles, and an INT. And however many QB pressures or busted holes on running plays.

The we'll use Ed Reed as our safety. Het gets 2 sacks, 62 tackles, and 9 INTs. And however many passes defensed, QB pressures, and busted holes on running plays.

I'd say an INT is a bigger impact play than a sack, So everything else being equal, Reed might have an advantage.

But like I said, It's tough to compare two positions that are so different. I'm not arguing that Safety is definately more important, as much as just arguing that you can't say that a Tackle clearly is.


I think a fair amount of Reeds or any other CB's or Safeties picks are caused by pressure by the DL.

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 04:00 PM
I agree...I am not saying that the Safety position should just be manned but joe blow. But I am saying at the end of the game. If the QB that is playing against Ed Reed does not have any pressure up the middle from the DT spot then Reed will be picked apart. I dont care how good you are...you can not cover people all day with out the pass rush...

I agree the safety position is important...I just think that the DT has a chance to make a bigger impact in the game.

It is hard to argue against Ed Reed...I think he is one of a couple safelties that change the game from his position. name an average DT and an average SS and witch one makes a bigger impact.

TRing
07-06-2005, 04:01 PM
I think a fair amount of Reeds or any other CB's or Safeties picks are caused by pressure by the DL.
good point but the ends put more pressure than the DT's in most cases, and again we arent talking about the whole line!

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 04:08 PM
Just throwing this out there...why in the Draft is the DT more of a coveted position then Safety. YOu see 1 or 2 DT taken just about every year in the top 10 spots...but you rarely see the Safety position filed until later in the draft...unless you have an Ed Reed sitting there.

Simplex3
07-06-2005, 04:08 PM
I dunno, I think of the way Ed Reed can impact a game, and wonder what DT could have the same effect.

I know if I had the choice between Reed and whichever DT you might think is best in the league, I'd be inclined to choose Reed.

It's tough to say because they play such different roles.
I think part of the reason you can't name a DT you'd want is because there is a shortage of talent at the position right now. The really good ones of the last 10 years are all in their decline or retiring right now. I'm not sure who will step up in the next couple of years.

Maybe Kevin Williams (http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/396181) from MIN
Or Rod Coleman (http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/133255) of ATL

Both of those guys get more sacks than most DE's.

As for the Chiefs, I'd take the best DT in the league over the best SS or FS in the league all damn day. Their S help is better than average but unless Simms picks up his game they still don't have a DT worth pissing on.

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 04:08 PM
Stats cannot always tell the story of a DT who has had a great day. Same thing for FS\SS although to a less degree IMO.

jspchief
07-06-2005, 04:09 PM
I think a fair amount of Reeds or any other CB's or Safeties picks are caused by pressure by the DL.And how many sacks and pressures are facilitated by good downfield coverage?

It's apples and oranges and I don't think you can definitively say one is more important than the other.

TRing
07-06-2005, 04:11 PM
should the question be who would you take first in a fantasy draft or what????? come on now

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 04:12 PM
What does fantasy ball have to do with it

jspchief
07-06-2005, 04:14 PM
Just throwing this out there...why in the Draft is the DT more of a coveted position then Safety. YOu see 1 or 2 DT taken just about every year in the top 10 spots...but you rarely see the Safety position filed until later in the draft...unless you have an Ed Reed sitting there.I think that has more to do with how hard it is to find a good DT than anything else.

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 04:15 PM
What does fantasy ball have to do with it

Nothing, TRing is lost in his own fantasy world.

TRing
07-06-2005, 04:15 PM
i didnt mean fantasy league i meant (for example) like when you do a fantasy draft on madden

alpha_omega
07-06-2005, 04:20 PM
I'll go with DT.

A dominant player at the point of attack is critical.

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 04:22 PM
I'll go with DT.

A dominant player at the point of attack is critical.
:clap:

patteeu
07-06-2005, 04:22 PM
I'd take a stud DT over a stud safety any day. For example, I'd rather have Warren Sapp in his prime than Ed Reed in his. Whoever it was that pointed out that many more DT's go in the first round than S's had a convincing argument IMO.

Which means I would want to change my vote. Without reading the thread, I assumed we were voting on the choice between a single good DT versus a good pair of safeties. My bad.

TRing
07-06-2005, 04:23 PM
a ballhawking safety is just as critical

Nightfyre
07-06-2005, 04:24 PM
Well, good luck USING your safety when that defense is running all over your DT.

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 04:24 PM
[QUOTE=patteeu]I'd take a stud DT over a stud safety any day. For example, I'd rather have Warren Sapp in his prime than Ed Reed in his. Whoever it was that pointed out that many more DT's go in the first round than S's had a convincing argument IMO.[/QUOTE

Thats all I am trying to say...if you really think about it.

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 04:24 PM
a ballhawking safety is just as critical
An elite DT can either stop a run or pass at the point of attack himself or be doing disruptive things to let others do it.

If a guy is that great a ballhawk. He wont be thrown too. You can't avoid a great DT.

DTLB58
07-06-2005, 04:24 PM
It's starts up front.

Having said that, I would take Ed Reed on our defense any day.

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 04:29 PM
It's starts up front.

Having said that, I would take Ed Reed on our defense any day.

As would I...but as you said...it starts up front. I will mark you up for DT.

TRing
07-06-2005, 04:30 PM
Well, good luck USING your safety when that defense is running all over your DT.
so the safety is responsible for covering the DT's mistakes who is responsible for covering the safety .....

Nightfyre
07-06-2005, 04:33 PM
so the safety is responsible for covering the DT's mistakes who is responsible for covering the safety .....
Your safety will be really effective when hes trying to cover the whole field... :rolleyes:

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 04:33 PM
so the safety is responsible for covering the DT's mistakes who is responsible for covering the safety .....

I would say the LBs are responsible for covering the DTs mistakes. no matter how you twist it...the DT makes more of an impact on an every play basis then the SS.

TRing
07-06-2005, 04:34 PM
Your safety will be really effective when hes trying to cover the whole field... :rolleyes:
ROFL .... what!?

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 04:35 PM
Your safety will be really effective when hes trying to cover the whole field... :rolleyes:

ROFL ....what!?!

Nightfyre
07-06-2005, 04:38 PM
ROFL .... what!?
Your safety is responsible for specific duties in a good defense, not covering up for others mistakes. If he has to worry about cleaning up other peoples mistakes, he will inevitably be out of position to do his own tasks. Additionally, a safety is rarely ever in a position where they backup a DT. Every one of the eleven men is of great importance doing their own jobs. So lose your dumbass safeties are the DT backup argument.

TRing
07-06-2005, 04:40 PM
that is what i was getting at. the safety doesnt cover for the DT's. therefore. "Your safety will be really effective when hes trying to cover the whole field..." is totally off base

TRing
07-06-2005, 04:42 PM
and good luck using ... you know what .. nevermind im not trying to start anything

TRing
07-06-2005, 04:42 PM
i understand your point but...... disagree

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 04:44 PM
i understand your point but...... disagree
I am still not sure how you glossed over the fact that you can avoid a FS\SS but not a DT if they are studs.

Nightfyre
07-06-2005, 04:44 PM
that is what i was getting at. the safety doesnt cover for the DT's. therefore. "Your safety will be really effective when hes trying to cover the whole field..." is totally off base
Which would totally go against everything you have said in this thread. Way to go Jr. The DT is clearly more important because he can be disruptive in the following ways:
1) He is a run stopper
2) He is a pass rusher
3) He draws the double team, freeing up a LB

If you have a weakness here, your troubles only compound because it puts your LBs out of position and inherently the secondary.

TRing
07-06-2005, 04:45 PM
There are different plays you can call to negate the talent of a DT i.e. sweeps, bootlegs, etc. but with FS/SS they fly all around the field making plays not only east and west but also in the backfield if need be
already said man

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 04:46 PM
You cant, TRing thinks that by runnings sweeps and other off tackle runs you nulify the DT, which is not true. A Stud DT will blow up a sweep in the back field.

Your move TRing.

|Zach|
07-06-2005, 04:46 PM
already said man
And you were wrong...

DT's can bust up outside runs by breaking down a blocking scheme. If you have not seen this then I question how much football you watch. Remeber, a DT does not have to make a sack or tackle to be a dominant force.

Nightfyre
07-06-2005, 04:48 PM
And you were wrong...

DT's can bust up outside runs by breaking down a blocking scheme. If you have not seen this then I question how much football you watch. Remeber, a DT does not have to make a sack or tackle to be a dominant force.
Further, a DT can disrupt said play by drawing the double team and freeing up a DE or a LB whos job it is to contain said play.

jspchief
07-06-2005, 04:48 PM
You cant, TRing thinks that by runnings sweeps and other off tackle runs you nulify the DT, which is not true. A Stud DT will blow up a sweep in the back field.

Your move TRing.So will a stud safety.

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 04:51 PM
And you were wrong...

DT's can bust up outside runs by breaking down a blocking scheme. If you have not seen this then I question how much football you watch. Remeber, a DT does not have to make a sack or tackle to be a dominant force.

I will vouch for TRing, he knows his football.

TRing
07-06-2005, 04:52 PM
so your saying that a safety has to make a tackle or an int. or a FF to make a good play. either way you look at it they can be effective in basically the same way. I just think that being in the position a safety is in whether it be coming up in the box or playin back and being athletic and mobile is going to be able to help your team in more situations

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 04:53 PM
so your saying that a safety has to make a tackle or an int. or a FF to make a good play. either way you look at it they can be effective in basically the same way. I just think that being in the position a safety is in whether it be coming up in the box or playin back and being athletic and mobile is going to be able to help your team in more situations

to shay...

Nightfyre
07-06-2005, 04:54 PM
so your saying that a safety has to make a tackle or an int. or a FF to make a good play. either way you look at it they can be effective in basically the same way. I just think that being in the position a safety is in whether it be coming up in the box or playin back and being athletic and mobile is going to be able to help your team in more situations
I strongly disagree. A DT who is eating up a double team is essentially removing an extra player from the field. A DT who is stopping the run is putting the secondary into positions to make plays. A DT who is rushing the passer is creating plays for the secondary. DT Hands Down.

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 04:55 PM
but you have to remember that out of the 32 teams...you only have a few dominant SS/FS, but there are a lot more dominant Defenses out there then a few.

Dawson4004
07-06-2005, 04:57 PM
I strongly disagree. A DT who is eating up a double team is essentially removing an extra player from the field. A DT who is stopping the run is putting the secondary into positions to make plays. A DT who is rushing the passer is creating plays for the secondary. DT Hands Down.

This might be one of the best arguements of the day....

hope you dont mind me quoting you when this arguement comes up agian....and beileve me....it will.

CoMoChief
07-06-2005, 05:00 PM
I believe that a DT is more of a priority than that of a S. DT's can bust up plays in the backfield as a S has to cover more ground. You have to account for a really good DT, but very seldom do you have to account for a good S.