Dibs Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 Ever since the aquisition of Tripplett & drafting of McCargo people on this board have been saying...."We need bigger DTs, the ones we have are too small." That might be the case.......but then again it might not. The results from this season do not actually show us much of whether we need bigger DTs to stop the run. What it does resoundingly show is that we need better(minimally) DTs to stop the run. The Tampa 2 scheme relies even more than normal on rotation of players at DT. Since the only DT we had before entering FA last off-season was Anderson(not good enough), we always knew it would be a difficult task to obtain 4 DTs in one off-season. We obtained 3....but the one with the greatest potential(McCargo) went down to injury. Even if he didn't, that would have left us with 2 rookies & a scrub(Anderson) for 3 of the 4 spots. We were bound to have severe growing pains against the run.....& with McCargo getting injured we are left with..... 1 rookie(Williams)..... 1 scrub(Anderson)..... 1 solid vet(Tripplett).... and.... um.... let me look it up.... 1 guy I had to look up(Jefferson). We will only be adding 1 DT next off-season. I'm hoping it's a good one but for all those wanting to re-vamp the DTs......who do you chuck? The FA(who should fit perfectly with talent around him? The 1st round talent that got injured? The lower round rookie that showed he can play in this league? Tripplett, McCargo & Williams will all be on the roster next season(baring major unforeseen situations). That leaves 1 DT acquisition in the off-season. Will he be a BIG DT? I severely doubt it. There is no reason to think the coaches will not go after a 'good' 300lb DT rather than a bigger guy. I say this due to us simply not having the talent in our 4(5) DTs this season to show that it was the system that couldn't stop the run....rather than the players who caused such inconsistent run D.
Acantha Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 This got me thinking, so I looked up the top 10 rushing defenses and how big their two starting DT's are in comparison to ours. It surprised me to find that 3 of the top 5, and 5 of the top 10, rushing defenses play a 3-4. Leaving those teams out (cause it's like comparing apples to oranges), this is what your left with: 1. Minnesota: Pat Williams - 6-3, 317 and Kevin Williams - 6-5, 304 3. Jacksonville: Stroud - 6-6, 306 and Henderson - 6-7, 325 6. Chicago: Harris - 6-3, 300 and Tank - 6-3, 300 7. Miami: Traylor - 6-2, 337 and Holiday - 6-5, 288 10. Atlanta: Jackson - 6-4, 345 and Coleman - 6-3, 285 Only Chicago, who uses the cover 2, doesn't have a big DT along their line. I think generally speaking having a big DT is a huge advantage to run defense. Chicago has shown that you can do it with small DT's, but it doesn't happen over night. Chicago is loaded at LB, and their DT's have been playing in that system for a few years now. I don't really think we have to have a big guy on the line, but it has to be a guy who knows how to play against the run. He has to know how to collapse running lanes and shed blockers when he needs to.
BuffaloRebound Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 It would be nice to have bigger DT's, but bigger or sturdier LB's are also needed. Our best hitter among the back 7 is Clements. Spikes can knock a guy down when he's going for the ball, but if a runner is coming head-on, Clements is our only back 7 player who can knock a guy backwards. I don't know if that means Clements is the toughest CB in the league, or our LB's are some of the weakest.
Scraps Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 This got me thinking, so I looked up the top 10 rushing defenses and how big their two starting DT's are in comparison to ours. It surprised me to find that 3 of the top 5, and 5 of the top 10, rushing defenses play a 3-4. Leaving those teams out (cause it's like comparing apples to oranges), this is what your left with: 1. Minnesota: Pat Williams - 6-3, 317 and Kevin Williams - 6-5, 304 3. Jacksonville: Stroud - 6-6, 306 and Henderson - 6-7, 325 6. Chicago: Harris - 6-3, 300 and Tank - 6-3, 300 7. Miami: Traylor - 6-2, 337 and Holiday - 6-5, 288 10. Atlanta: Jackson - 6-4, 345 and Coleman - 6-3, 285 Only Chicago, who uses the cover 2, doesn't have a big DT along their line. I think generally speaking having a big DT is a huge advantage to run defense. Chicago has shown that you can do it with small DT's, but it doesn't happen over night. Chicago is loaded at LB, and their DT's have been playing in that system for a few years now. I don't really think we have to have a big guy on the line, but it has to be a guy who knows how to play against the run. He has to know how to collapse running lanes and shed blockers when he needs to. 878677[/snapback] Behind Chicagos starting DTs are a pair of 300+ pounders in the rotation. Rationalizing why we don't need run stuffers because of "schemes" isn't going to get the job done.
Acantha Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 Behind Chicagos starting DTs are a pair of 300+ pounders in the rotation. Rationalizing why we don't need run stuffers because of "schemes" isn't going to get the job done. Don't think that's what I was doing.
Dibs Posted December 27, 2006 Author Posted December 27, 2006 Behind Chicagos starting DTs are a pair of 300+ pounders in the rotation. Rationalizing why we don't need run stuffers because of "schemes" isn't going to get the job done. Actually.....Scott is listed at 302lbs & it is only Boone(Garay is there due to injuries) who is a bit heavier at 318lbs. BTW, Jefferson(our guy who is there due to injury) is listed at 310lbs I guess I set things off a little incorrectly in my opening post.....what I meant to say was the Tampa 2 prefers DTs that have good initial bursts & can get to the QB. A larger DT could have the ability....it's just not as common in a bigger man. Basically if a DT(large or small) cannot do what he is required for the style of defence, I would not think that DJ or Marv. would bring him in to be the answer. In response to Faustus' list.....thanks for the compilation of stats This brings up the percentages argument. Since there are only really 3 defences who have been using the Cover(Tampa) 2 for a few years(Bears, Colts, Bucs) by pure averages you'd expect that if the style of D can stop the run the same as the more traditional D....then there should be one team in each 3rd of the rankings. When we look we find the Bears in the top 3rd, the Bucs in the middle 3rd & the Colts in the bottom 3rd. I am certainly not convinced that the Cover 2 Defence is disastrously weak against the run.
Bill from NYC Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 1. Minnesota: Pat Williams - 6-3, 317 and Kevin Williams - 6-5, 304 I once sat in the 1st row at RWS, directly behind Pat Williams. He is as big as Sam Adams. If Pat Williams weighs 317, I am a ballet dancer.
frogger Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 I agree, it's not te size of the DT that matters, last year when I wanted Ngata it wasn't only because of his size, he was the best DT in the draft. As much as we shouldn't want a guy only because of his size we shouldn't not want someone because of his size. I think we look to often at what others who run the Cover 2 do, and we, on at the stadium wall, think that we have to match them. I am pretty sure had Dungy had the chance to get Ngata he would have. Plus, sorry to say this but LT is no where nearly as good as Sapp or Tommie Harris. I am still hopeful that McCargo will reach the potential that Marv and Tom see in him, but losing his rookie year will set him back as well.
marauderswr80 Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 What id like to see is one massive DT next to Tripplett, a DT that has to take on double teams, that leave Tripplett man to man and then Tripplett can really use his speed. I think that would be the best option, not 2 DT's that are huge....
Fixxxer Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 What id like to see is one massive DT next to Tripplett, a DT that has to take on double teams, that leave Tripplett man to man and then Tripplett can really use his speed. I think that would be the best option, not 2 DT's that are huge.... I wouldn't say massive but a more talented guy would do wonders for Tripplet and the rest of the kids. When Tripplet was in Indy he played along side Corey Simon and he did well until Simon got injured. If that said talent comes with size, the better.
Scraps Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 Actually.....Scott is listed at 302lbs & it is only Boone(Garay is there due to injuries) who is a bit heavier at 318lbs.BTW, Jefferson(our guy who is there due to injury) is listed at 310lbs I guess I set things off a little incorrectly in my opening post.....what I meant to say was the Tampa 2 prefers DTs that have good initial bursts & can get to the QB. A larger DT could have the ability....it's just not as common in a bigger man. Basically if a DT(large or small) cannot do what he is required for the style of defence, I would not think that DJ or Marv. would bring him in to be the answer. In response to Faustus' list.....thanks for the compilation of stats This brings up the percentages argument. Since there are only really 3 defences who have been using the Cover(Tampa) 2 for a few years(Bears, Colts, Bucs) by pure averages you'd expect that if the style of D can stop the run the same as the more traditional D....then there should be one team in each 3rd of the rankings. When we look we find the Bears in the top 3rd, the Bucs in the middle 3rd & the Colts in the bottom 3rd. I am certainly not convinced that the Cover 2 Defence is disastrously weak against the run. I'm not convinced that the Cover 2 Defense is disastrously weak against the run either. It will largely depend opn the talent you have up front. I don't think that we have thr kind of talent at defensive tackle that can penetrate to make the plays or, failing that, occupy blockers so the linebackers can make the plays. And in the latter category, size helps. I don't think Marv Levy appreciated being stout up the middle when he was a coach and doesn't appear to do that now either.
Koufax Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 I'm not convinced that the Cover 2 Defense is disastrously weak against the run either. It will largely depend opn the talent you have up front. I don't think that we have thr kind of talent at defensive tackle that can penetrate to make the plays or, failing that, occupy blockers so the linebackers can make the plays. And in the latter category, size helps. I don't think Marv Levy appreciated being stout up the middle when he was a coach and doesn't appear to do that now either. Things did not go well this year against the run, obviously. We are not going to abandon the defensive scheme, DJ is way to calm and steady to even consider that, so let's move on. We need fast and agile tackles from the scheme. That doesn't mean we can't have a fast and agile 320. 1) We will get McCargo back and he will be more than a rookie having gone through camp, played some games, and had a year studying the system. We just hope he stays healthy. 2) Kyle will be better. This kid is high energy, and will have a high energy off season trying to get stronger and better. I still want him #4 in the rotation, but he is going to be better in 2007 than in 2006. 3) Larry is in his prime, came on strong in the second half, and will do better with better support around him. 4) We will add a DT that is more talented than Anderson. Whether it is a free agent, our top pick, or a 2nd-4th round pick, we will improve here. That means we upgrade at every one of our four DTs in the rotation. We might not be run stuffers, but we should be able to stop more drives, get the ball back, and limit the points allowed. Might just be enough to make the difference, and if McCargo becomes a star it could be a big difference. The other piece is to upgrade our LBs. I hope that TKO and Crowell healthy plus Ellison with a year of experience is already an upgrade (with London staying), but this is another place we could potentially add someone. I wouldn't want to spend huge resources unless it is really the best value at that draft slot, etc.
Recommended Posts