PDA

View Full Version : If we're going 3-4, here's the depth at our biggest hole:


Direckshun
01-13-2009, 09:57 PM
Nose tackle.

Oddly enough, the two best, by long shots, are from BC.

* B.J. Raji, Boston College. 6'1, 325 lbs. Late 1st/early 2nd.
* Ron Brace, Boston College. 6'3, 330 lbs. Late 2nd/early 3rd.
* Terrance Taylor, Michigan. 6'0, 317 lbs. Midrounder.
* Sammie Lee Hill, Stillman. 6'4, 330. Late rounder.
* Antonio Dixon, Miami. 6'3, 328. Late rounder.

Incredibly thin class, although we're basically guaranteed one from Boston College if we want one with our second rounder.

But it's always thin. NT is one of the toughest positions to fill, especially for depth. One of the perils of considering the 3-4.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-13-2009, 10:01 PM
Nose tackle.

Oddly enough, the two best, by long shots, are from BC.

* B.J. Raji, Boston College. 6'1, 325 lbs. Late 1st/early 2nd.
* Ron Brace, Boston College. 6'3, 330 lbs. Late 2nd/early 3rd.
* Terrance Taylor, Michigan. 6'0, 317 lbs. Midrounder.
* Sammie Lee Hill, Stillman. 6'4, 330. Late rounder.
* Antonio Dixon, Miami. 6'3, 328. Late rounder.

Incredibly thin class, although we're basically guaranteed one from Boston College if we want one with our second rounder.

But it's always thin. NT is one of the toughest positions to fill, especially for depth. One of the perils of considering the 3-4.

Well that, and the fact that moving to a 3-4 is the equivalent of flushing a top 5 draft pick after one year.

3-4 end is about as worthless of a position on the defense as you can find.

Direckshun
01-13-2009, 10:06 PM
Well that, and the fact that moving to a 3-4 is the equivalent of flushing a top 5 draft pick after one year.

3-4 end is about as worthless of a position on the defense as you can find.

I disagree. I think DL is the most important position on a defense, regardless of scheme.

3-4 defensive end is far more than just the pass-rushing specialist of a 4-3 end. I'd put it as the least important of DL positions, but in my opinion that still elevates it above every other position on the defense.

Basileus777
01-13-2009, 10:16 PM
3-4 end is about as worthless of a position on the defense as you can find.

Which is why teams regularly spend first round picks on them. Ty Warren, Richard Seymour, Luis Castillo, Marcus Spears, Shaun Ellis, and Haloti Ngata (played DE until Greggs got hurt) were all first round picks. Igor Olshansky was a high 2nd rounder. It's a valuable position.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-13-2009, 10:16 PM
I disagree. I think DL is the most important position on a defense, regardless of scheme.

3-4 defensive end is far more than just the pass-rushing specialist of a 4-3 end. I'd put it as the least important of DL positions, but in my opinion that still elevates it above every other position on the defense.

3-4 end is less important than NT or OLB by far. A 3-4 OLB is as valuable as a 4-3 DE. Safety in a 3-4 is more important. The only position that would even rival it for matters of irrelevance is corner, and that depends on the coverage that you decide to run (Cover 3, for example)

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-13-2009, 10:20 PM
Which is why teams regularly spend first round picks on them. Ty Warren, Richard Seymour, Luis Castillo, Marcus Spears, and Haloti Ngata (played DE until Greggs got hurt) were all first round picks. Igor Olshansky was a high 2nd rounder. It's a valuable position.

Seymour was drafted as a 4-3 DT. Ngata was drafted as a NT, and was going to move inside the whole time, much like LTs who play RT their first year to get their feet wet. Castillo was overdrafted at 28, Olshansky was in the second round, and Spears is a monumental bust at 20.

None of those guys were top 10 picks. Not one. Seymour was a top 10 pick only because of the position he played (DT). He's also 6-6 and a much quicker athlete than Dorsey. Those two players are nothing alike.

No one can make a reasonable argument that a 3-4 end is worth a top 10 pick, let alone top 5.

Basileus777
01-13-2009, 10:21 PM
3-4 end is less important than NT or OLB by far. A 3-4 OLB is as valuable as a 4-3 DE. Safety in a 3-4 is more important. The only position that would even rival it for matters of irrelevance is corner, and that depends on the coverage that you decide to run (Cover 3, for example)

It's not as important as a NT or rushbacker, but 3-4 DEs are still highly important, evident by the fact that successful 3-4 teams have spent high draft picks to acquire them. They might not be worth a top 5 pick, but very few positions are.

And I'm not arguing that Dorsey can play the position.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-13-2009, 10:26 PM
It's not as important as a NT or rushbacker, but 3-4 DE are still highly important, evident by the fact that successful 3-4 teams have spent high draft picks to acquire them.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

1700 points for a 5, 850 for 20. Think about that for a second.

Name one 3-4 end in the last 10 years who was drafted to play end in a 3-4 who was taken in the top 10. One.

Basileus777
01-13-2009, 10:27 PM
http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

1700 points for a 5, 850 for 20. Think about that for a second.

Name one 3-4 end in the last 10 years who was drafted to play end in a 3-4 who was taken in the top 10. One.

Why should I? I never said that 3-4 DEs have top 10 value. I was disputing you erroneous notion that they are worthless. Sorry, but you don't spend first round picks on a position regarded as worthless.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-13-2009, 10:42 PM
Why should I? I never said that 3-4 DEs have top 10 value. I was disputing you erroneous notion that they are worthless. Sorry, but you don't spend first round picks on a position regarded as worthless.

You're trying to make it a semantic argument. That's deflection. The fact of the matter is that every other position in a 3-4, whether it be safety, corner, NT, OLB, or even ILB has warranted top 10 picks in the draft. End has not.

And not all 1st round picks are equal. You are conflating picks in the 20s with picks in the top 10, and that is wildly inaccurate. They are worth half the value.

Basileus777
01-13-2009, 10:47 PM
What 3-4 safeties were taken in the top 10? What corners were? I'm can't think of any off of the top of my head.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-14-2009, 12:00 AM
What 3-4 safeties were taken in the top 10? What corners were? I'm can't think of any off of the top of my head.

There really isn't any such thing as a 3-4 corner or safety. It's not like a 3-4 end or a 4-3 MLB opposed to a 3-4 ILB or 4-3 will.

If you want a list of safeties and corners taken in the top 10, it's plentiful. The closest analogue you'd have is a Cover 2 corner taken in the top 10, as that is the least important position in that defense.

There were 3 corners taken in the top 10 of the 2005 draft and all of them have played in both 4-3 and 3-4 defenses.

Basileus777
01-14-2009, 12:04 AM
There really isn't any such thing as a 3-4 corner or safety. It's not like a 3-4 end or a 4-3 MLB opposed to a 3-4 ILB or 4-3 will.

I know. I meant I can't think of a 3-4 team that took a safety or corner that high. None of those corners in 2005 were drafted by 3-4 teams.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-14-2009, 01:37 AM
I know. I meant I can't think of a 3-4 team that took a safety or corner that high. None of those corners in 2005 were drafted by 3-4 teams.

But they can move in and out because the secondary is interchangeable unless you are running a scheme like a T2 that really devalues the cornerback position.

The front seven is the most important in any scheme, but you don't often find teams using top 10 picks on SAM backers, and never on LDEs in a 4-3, just like you won't find teams using top 10 picks on ends in a 3-4, as it's not a pass-rushing position, nor is it a 2 for one position, like tackle, that occupies multiple blockers and thus frees up the pass rushers.

If we had just drafted Champ Bailey, wouldn't you be miffed it we moved to a Tampa 2 scheme. Or what if we draft Beanie Wells and decide to use him like Reggie Bush?

aturnis
01-14-2009, 05:47 PM
http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

1700 points for a 5, 850 for 20. Think about that for a second.

Name one 3-4 end in the last 10 years who was drafted to play end in a 3-4 who was taken in the top 10. One.

you must be going by the OLLLLLDDD draft chart.

bowener
01-18-2009, 05:49 PM
I disagree. I think DL is the most important position on a defense, regardless of scheme.

3-4 defensive end is far more than just the pass-rushing specialist of a 4-3 end. I'd put it as the least important of DL positions, but in my opinion that still elevates it above every other position on the defense.

I found this (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913858/The-4-3-vs.-the-3-4) simplified explanation of the 34 defense:

The Base 3-4The key player in a 3-4 scheme is the lone interior lineman, who is usually called the nose guard or nose tackle. He lines up directly across from the center � on the center's "nose" � though he may sometimes shade over to the space between the center and one of the guards. He almost always has two-gap responsibility. His job on nearly every play: force two offensive linemen or more to block him.


The defensive ends in a 3-4 alignment have jobs similar to that of the nose tackle: they want to take up space, fill gaps, and occupy blockers. In a 4-3 system, linemen are supposed to occupy blockers, but they are also expected to free themselves to make tackles and sacks. In the 3-4, linemen aren't expect to make many sacks or tackles. Most of the playmaking responsibilities fall upon the linebackers.


The 3-4 system gives the defensive coordinator a variety of options. At the snap, he can blitz any combination of linebackers, and the offense doesn't necessarily know where the rush is coming from. Typically, one or both of the outside linebackers will attack the line of scrimmage, whether to pressure the quarterback or tackle a running back in the backfield. That leaves two inside linebackers to follow the flow of the play, pursue running backs, or drop into pass coverage.


The 3-4 alignment is popular now because it allows defenses to zone blitz effectively. The "zone blitz" is just what it sounds like: some defenders blitz, the rest drop into zone coverage. In a 4-3 system, zone blitzing is tricky: the linebacker or safety who blitzes leaves a zone unoccupied. Another player can take over in the unoccupied zone, but a) that defender is stretched pretty thin, with an extra-large zone to defend, and b) the quarterback can usually see what's happening. Many a smart quarterback has defeated a zone blitz by waiting for a linebacker to attack, then dropping a soft pass into the part of the field that the linebacker usually defends. But with an extra linebacker on the field, the defensive coordinator has more flexibility. The faster linebackers can rotate quickly at the snap of the ball, filling each other's zones.


Say the coach wants both the left outside and middle linebacker to blitz. Normally, that would leave a big space on the left side of the field, one the offense could exploit with a quick slant pass. But in the 3-4 alignment, there's an extra inside linebacker who can quickly slide into that unoccupied zone. The right outside linebacker can move over to cover the middle of the field. The zones are a little wide, and the defenders in coverage have a lot of space to defend, but the quarterback must assemble a jigsaw puzzle to figure out who's where, all the while bracing for the blitz.


The nose guard in a 3-4 system must be huge, strong, and have incredible stamina: he takes on two blockers per play, every play. Ends must also be bigger and more durable than the ends in a 4-3 scheme, though they don't have to be as fast. Pass rush responsibilities are handed to the outside linebackers, who are expected to be lightning-quick runners and ferocious hitters. The inside linebackers in a 3-4, like middle linebackers in the 4-3, have to be smart, athletic, and versatile.


Does anyone think that Tank Tyler is not strong enough to play NT? I can understand concerns about stamina, but the dude seems to be a beast as far as strength goes (43 reps if I remember right). I also thought that he said in a predraft discussion that he actually prefers playing NT, and enjoys it more... just some food for thought.

Want I want to know, because I am uneducated on the matter, is why Glenn Dorsey could not be an effective DE in we switched to the 34 base alignment? From the description above a DE needs to be bigger (300 range) and able to hold at the point of attack to stand up blockers, plus have some quickness to get into the gap, and the ability to shed a blocker if needed to stop the run or get some added pressure on the QB.

Everything that was said about Dorsey before/during the draft was that he is stout at 6'2" 295 lbs (sounds big enough to play DE to me), and has a quick burst to get into the gap and beat the blocker (sounds like what a good 34 DE needs). If there was any concern that Dorsey could not hold up the point of attack at the line before the season, it was surely wiped away as Herm and Co. showed us just how well Dorsey was at standing at the LOS and holding up a blocker, never moving beyond the LOS or really getting pushed back. Of course that is a problem in the 43 since he is supposed to get a push up the middle to get some pressure on the QB, but in the 34 that is what is expeted of him. He is supposed to stand up the LT/RT, and possibly try and shoot the inside gap to make room for the OLB blitzing off the edge.

I just want somebody to explain to me why he physically cannot do the job as a 34 DE. Some people say he seems a bit short... I am confused on why height matters that much for a 34 DE if he is stout enough. If anything, being shorter than the LT/RT seems to be a godsend as it would allow you to have better leverage to push the T backwards into the play or the QB.

Thanks in advance if you can help me!

bowener
01-19-2009, 09:07 PM
Here (http://www.nfldraftdog.com/2008_nfl_draft/glenn_dorsey.htm), this was posted in another thread, but I think it gives us a little better feeling about Dorsey if we make the switch to the 34.

edit: I got bored, and this site (http://www.buccaneers.com/news/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=5717) discusses Tank as a NT prior to the draft. Apparently teams were looking at him to play the position for them.

AustinChief
01-20-2009, 12:42 AM
I don't think it is a "waste" of Dorsey as a #5 at DE in a 3-4... #1 we would likely run a hybrid that would utilize him extensively at DT and #2 he isn't getting it done anyway... He may be a bust in a straight 4-3 defense...

Tank may be fine at NT but I would still want someone like Taylor as backup and yes we are sorely lacking at OLB... but in that case... Curry at #3 starts to look damn good.

AustinChief
01-20-2009, 12:45 AM
But they can move in and out because the secondary is interchangeable unless you are running a scheme like a T2 that really devalues the cornerback position.

The front seven is the most important in any scheme, but you don't often find teams using top 10 picks on SAM backers, and never on LDEs in a 4-3, just like you won't find teams using top 10 picks on ends in a 3-4, as it's not a pass-rushing position, nor is it a 2 for one position, like tackle, that occupies multiple blockers and thus frees up the pass rushers.

If we had just drafted Champ Bailey, wouldn't you be miffed it we moved to a Tampa 2 scheme. Or what if we draft Beanie Wells and decide to use him like Reggie Bush?

BUT the problem is... Dorsey hasn't shown anything this year anyway.... The way I see it (unless the coaching was just that bad... which is possible)... Dorsey may be a bust at #5 anyway... at least in the 4-3...

Would you rather have a mediocre DT at the #5 pick or an outstanding (yes, that is all up in the air as well..) DE at #5?

KCUnited
01-20-2009, 06:35 AM
Tank seems a bit top heavy to play NT. The guy is strong as an ox, but does he have the leg strength to hold his own at NT?

Amnorix
01-20-2009, 06:39 AM
Well that, and the fact that moving to a 3-4 is the equivalent of flushing a top 5 draft pick after one year.

3-4 end is about as worthless of a position on the defense as you can find.

Richard Seymour...

Amnorix
01-20-2009, 06:42 AM
3-4 end is less important than NT or OLB by far. A 3-4 OLB is as valuable as a 4-3 DE. Safety in a 3-4 is more important. The only position that would even rival it for matters of irrelevance is corner, and that depends on the coverage that you decide to run (Cover 3, for example)

Riiiiight. Well, I agree on the OLB and NG being ahrder to find than a 3-4 DE, but the rest I definitely disagree with.

And so does Bill Belichick, if 8 years of drafting decisions is any indication. He's drafted 3 first round DL'men, and another DL in the 4th round that has panned out very nicely and kept us from needing to spend too many more picks in that area.

Meanwhile, he has selected one first round LB, and that was an ILB, and one first round safety.

Amnorix
01-20-2009, 06:44 AM
Seymour was drafted as a 4-3 DT.

That is absolutely, categorically WRONG. The Patriots ran alot of 4-3 and some 3-4 in 2000 and 2001 because we didn't have the personnel to make the switch to 3-4 full time.

But unless you think Belichick just woke up one day by total accident and said "oh, gee, I guess with the guys I've got now I **could** run a 3-4, then you have to know that Seymour was selected as a 3-4 end.

None of those guys were top 10 picks. Not one. Seymour was a top 10 pick only because of the position he played (DT). [/quote]

Not correct. He was destined for 3-4 end by Belichick.

Amnorix
01-20-2009, 06:45 AM
Name one 3-4 end in the last 10 years who was drafted to play end in a 3-4 who was taken in the top 10. One.

Richard Seymour. 5 pro bowls I think it is, at last count.

Amnorix
01-20-2009, 06:46 AM
I know. I meant I can't think of a 3-4 team that took a safety or corner that high. None of those corners in 2005 were drafted by 3-4 teams.

I'm pretty sure that if BB had a chance at Sean Taylor, he would have happily have taken him. he values safeties highly.

He values corners much less highly.

Amnorix
01-20-2009, 06:48 AM
I found this (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913858/The-4-3-vs.-the-3-4) simplified explanation of the 34 defense:



Does anyone think that Tank Tyler is not strong enough to play NT? I can understand concerns about stamina, but the dude seems to be a beast as far as strength goes (43 reps if I remember right). I also thought that he said in a predraft discussion that he actually prefers playing NT, and enjoys it more... just some food for thought.


Not that upper body strength isn't important for a NG< as it obviously is, but what you're looking for is mass and lower body strength. eXcept for Casey Hampton, who is some kind of physical freak or something, it seems that 325+ lbs is what you're looking for. Not too many NFL DLs can play at that weight. I dunno if Tank is at that number, or can reach it without screwing himself up.

the Talking Can
01-20-2009, 07:17 AM
i kind of hope we make the switch just because i think it is easier to find and replenish 3-4 pieces in the draft...LBs are everywhere...

as for Dorsey, i think he could easily play a 3-4 DE...is it the position that will maximize his talents? I have no idea

bowener
01-20-2009, 01:31 PM
Not that upper body strength isn't important for a NG< as it obviously is, but what you're looking for is mass and lower body strength. eXcept for Casey Hampton, who is some kind of physical freak or something, it seems that 325+ lbs is what you're looking for. Not too many NFL DLs can play at that weight. I dunno if Tank is at that number, or can reach it without screwing himself up.

Pre-draft he was listed at 6'2" and 320 lbs. He said he shed weight for the combine to be more attractive to all suitors though, since some wanted him as a DT in a 43 system.

About his strength. I suppose it was a bit too naive of me to assume since he is such a physically strong man in his upper body, his lower body is as well. I know that is foolish to assume, though.

This site (http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/020503aaf.html) has him squatting 500 lbs in 2003 (start of his freshman year I think). I know he has to squat more now since that would not be very good for the NFL.

edit:

I found this site (http://www.sportsfrog.com/2007/03/07/2007-nfl-draft-demarcus-tyler-dt/) when trying to find more out about him. I thought this was interesting.

It’s unlikely Tyler displays the agility to be a playmaker like Pat Williams or Jamal Williams. Instead his future is more in the Wilfork and/or Tank Johnson mold, depending on what kind of defense he goes to (3-4 or 4-3).
Tyler’s probably best suited to line up over the center in a 3-4 because of his initial quickness off the snap. He’ll occupy at least two blockers in that position and hold the point of attack. Just don’t expect him to be able to move wide on a strech run.

Chiefnj2
01-20-2009, 01:46 PM
If you want go to a 3-4 draft the kid from BC in the first.

Amnorix
01-20-2009, 01:48 PM
Pre-draft he was listed at 6'2" and 320 lbs. He said he shed weight for the combine to be more attractive to all suitors though, since some wanted him as a DT in a 43 system.

About his strength. I suppose it was a bit too naive of me to assume since he is such a physically strong man in his upper body, his lower body is as well. I know that is foolish to assume, though.

This site (http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/020503aaf.html) has him squatting 500 lbs in 2003 (start of his freshman year I think). I know he has to squat more now since that would not be very good for the NFL.

edit:

I found this site (http://www.sportsfrog.com/2007/03/07/2007-nfl-draft-demarcus-tyler-dt/) when trying to find more out about him. I thought this was interesting.

6'2" and 320 is fine for a NG. You don't want to be too tall because the leverage issue can be tough. Ted Washington was 6'5" or whatever, if I remember right, but he was also about 370 and had otherworldly skills in terms of leverage and hands.

Wilfork is about 6'2" and listed at 325, which is a joke. He's probably at 340-350. Jamal Williams is listed at 6'3" and 350. I'm surprised to see Hampton listed at 6'2" and 325 (on Wikipedia). I thought he was lighter than that.

If he can add 15 pounds to, basically, his ass/thighs, then he ought to be perfect in terms of height/weight, and his strength certainly seems sufficient.

The big trick is how is he with leverage and using that weight? A 3-4 NG ideally needs to be a fireplug -- the immoveable object. Having some degree of speed to rush the passer or slide along the LOS etc. is good, but not critical. God knows Ted Washington couldn't move for ****, but neither was he moveable.

Pestilence
01-20-2009, 05:44 PM
Pre-draft he was listed at 6'2" and 320 lbs. He said he shed weight for the combine to be more attractive to all suitors though, since some wanted him as a DT in a 43 system.

About his strength. I suppose it was a bit too naive of me to assume since he is such a physically strong man in his upper body, his lower body is as well. I know that is foolish to assume, though.

This site (http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/020503aaf.html) has him squatting 500 lbs in 2003 (start of his freshman year I think). I know he has to squat more now since that would not be very good for the NFL.

edit:

I found this site (http://www.sportsfrog.com/2007/03/07/2007-nfl-draft-demarcus-tyler-dt/) when trying to find more out about him. I thought this was interesting.

If that's the case then our front 3 (I would imagine) would be:

Dorsey Tank Turk?

bowener
01-20-2009, 05:58 PM
If that's the case then our front 3 (I would imagine) would be:

Dorsey Tank Turk?

Thats what I figured. Boone or Turk on one side, but they all could rotate. If we drafted the rookie out of BC to play NT, that would give us a pretty young and pretty talented DL to rotate in games. If only Tamba could either gain 15 pounds to play DE as well, or lose some weight and become decent in pass coverage and great at rushing off the edge....