Dick Edds Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Not saying I disagree entirely about the DT play, but, what's your reasoning behind saying that? DT Cornelius Griffin 2008: 27 Total Tackles 1 Sack 2007: 42 Total Tackles 2 Sacks Advantage: 2007 DT Anthony Montgomery 2008: 23 Total Tackles 2 Sacks 2007: 42 Total Tackles 0 Sacks Advantage: 2008 DT Kedric Golston 2008: 28 Total Tackles 2 Sacks 2007: 11 Total Tackles 1 Sack Advantage: 2008 DE Andre Carter 2008: 37 Total Tackles 4 Sacks 2007: 55 Total Tackles 10 Sacks 4 Fumbles Advantage: 2007 DE Demetric Evans 2008: 33 Total Tackles 4 Sacks 2007: 25 Total Tackles 1 Sack 1 Fumble Advantage: 2008 Comparing these two next to each other, seeing how Taylor was Daniels replacement: DE Phillip Daniels 2008: N/A 2007: 37 Total Tackles 2 Sacks 4 Fumbles DE Jason Taylor 2008: 29 Total Tackles 4 Sacks 1 Fumble 2007: N/A Advantage: Phillip Daniels 2007 And that's not talking about the intangibles that Daniels brings to the line. He batted tons of balls and forced QBs into Andre Carter's pass rush. OK, let's just say they were less effective as a unit. Isolating these stats takes their performances out of context, and since it is a team sport I think these stats aren't the strongest evidence in the world. Looking at the DL performances by the numbers only, you could argue that 2008 was slightly more productive than 2007, but I think they are indicative of the fact that they both pretty much provided the same result (2007 -- 9/7 record and 2008 - 8/8 record). Hence why IMO, it is time to focus on another aspect of our front 4. Personally, I think sacks for a DE are slightly more valuable (as in game changing plays) ... whereas tackles should be valued higher for a DT. This is all just my general impression from watching the games, following the message boards and following the individuals players performances on a weekly basis. There are some things that you can't quantify, like the strength of the opponent at a given time in the season, when these stats occurred in the game (was it in garbage time after we already had been beaten down?), did we have our full rotation of DT's that game, and were they healthy, etc. To the naked eye, and most other knowledgeable commentators, analysts and draft enthusiast, we lack a pass rush. I just happen to think that improving the rush in the middle, would benefit the DE's we currently have. There is no stat that says how many times a QB stepped up and avoided a sack off the edges to complete a pass. That was crystal clear during the giants game at Fedex (as well as most of the season), no stats are necessarily gonna support/refute the exact cause to that, because again, it is a team sport and all of these players have to play as a unit. I think our DE's have proven, that with a decent pass rush in the middle they can be effective. And if I had the resources, I may look closer at the games where AC and our DE's excelled, and try to see what kind of pressure our DT's were getting and then focus on trying to improve that area on a more consistent basis. I guess the way I see the play unfold is from the middle out, and the front to back ... but everything goes hand in hand and it is truly a team sport. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 To the naked eye, and most other knowledgeable commentators, analysts and draft enthusiast, we lack a pass rush. I just happen to think that improving the rush in the middle, would benefit the DE's we currently have. There is no stat that says how many times a QB stepped up and avoided a sack off the edges to complete a pass. That was crystal clear during the giants game at Fedex (as well as most of the season), no stats are necessarily gonna support/refute the exact cause to that, because again, it is a team sport and all of these players have to play as a unit. I think our DE's have proven, that with a decent pass rush in the middle they can be effective. And if I had the resources, I may look closer at the games where AC and our DE's excelled, and try to see what kind of pressure our DT's were getting. You missed the entire point of the post. Our line suffered due to a lack of a defensive end that could close the pocket. Our DTs, while not getting pressure, don't give up ground either. Am I totally okay with that? No. But, if we had a strong defensive end, would that be okay? Yes. The problem this season was the lack of Phillip Daniels. I could care less about stats. I posted them to prove a point. Our line last season, with Phillip Daniels, produced better. Our DTs this season were very comparable to where they were last year, thus refuting your claim that our DT play regressed this season. If we are at 13 and intend to draft someone there, I'd prefer OT. However, later in the draft guys like Tyson Jackson (LSU 6-5 292), and Mitch King (Iowa 6-1 275) should be around. Especially if we trade down for more picks. Jackson would be almost perfect for us. He won't give a pass rush, but we don't need him to do that. That's why we have Taylor/Carter. In our scheme, our DTs are supposed to occupy guards to keep them off the LBs in the run game. They do that pretty well (not great, but adequate enough). Against the pass they are supposed to shed a blocker and get to the QB and get their hands up. We don't do that well. I could live with another year like that (or address that need via FA) and trade down in the draft to pick up a strong stud DE to replace Phillip Daniels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbleedBnG83 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Jackson would be almost perfect for us. He won't give a pass rush, but we don't need him to do that. That's why we have Taylor/Carter. In our scheme, our DTs are supposed to occupy guards to keep them off the LBs in the run game. They do that pretty well (not great, but adequate enough). Against the pass they are supposed to shed a blocker and get to the QB and get their hands up. We don't do that well. I could live with another year like that (or address that need via FA) and trade down in the draft to pick up a strong stud DE to replace Phillip Daniels. You and I are on the same page about the DL/DT situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Besides that, pressure up the middle won't necessarily help our current DE's the way they take a path to a QB. They loop. That looping action causes the tackles to take an angle at them, thus opening up a LARGE hole between the guard/tackle (or the guard/center, depending on what gap the DTs are assigned). Even if we get penetration up the middle, if the DT's don't get the QB, there's a nice running lane. See my great drawing for an illustration. What I don't show in the drawing is the guards or center blocking. More than likely, no one is going to come free in that situation. There's at least going to be a piece gotten from the guards on the DT, and one of the DTs will likely be doubled, unless we bring heat through the A or B gap to occupy the center or the guards. So there would be a nice running lane there. Would the QB always make it to that lane? Nope... But could he a good portion of the time? Yes. Taylor/Carter both starting scare the crap out of me. However, if we keep DTs that don't get penetration, but don't open up lanes, and we get one DE that collapses the pocket from the outside, the QB won't have many options on where to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Edds Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 You missed the entire point of the post. I think that's a little over the top and unnecessary. I gave you my opinion in courteous way without getting bogged down in stats. Our line suffered due to a lack of a defensive end that could close the pocket. I disagree, I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, only that IMO I think we would benefit from more agressive DT's that could collapse the pocket in the middle, or in their gaps as you pointed out. Our DTs, while not getting pressure, don't give up ground either. Am I totally okay with that? No. But, if we had a strong defensive end, would that be okay? Yes. The problem this season was the lack of Phillip Daniels. Fair enough, to each his own. I agree Daniels is stout against the run. I could care less about stats. I posted them to prove a point. Our line last season, with Phillip Daniels, produced better. Our DTs this season were very comparable to where they were last year, thus refuting your claim that our DT play regressed this season. And I am saying that the stats you provided do not show anything that conclusively indicates that the DT didn't regress, other than a few more tackles and sacks, you edged out the year 2007 by 1, not really a big trend there. IMO, standing still, is the same thing as regressing, but that's just my personal opinion. If we are at 13 and intend to draft someone there, I'd prefer OT. However, later in the draft guys like Tyson Jackson (LSU 6-5 292), and Mitch King (Iowa 6-1 275) should be around. Especially if we trade down for more picks.Jackson would be almost perfect for us. He won't give a pass rush, but we don't need him to do that. That's why we have Taylor/Carter. This sounds great, though I am not familiar with these guys, but I am interested in researching them now. In our scheme, our DTs are supposed to occupy guards to keep them off the LBs in the run game. They do that pretty well (not great, but adequate enough). Against the pass they are supposed to shed a blocker and get to the QB and get their hands up. We don't do that well. I could live with another year like that (or address that need via FA) and trade down in the draft to pick up a strong stud DE to replace Phillip Daniels. I'm not against this either, but after drafting Rob Jackson, acquiring Erasmus James and the trade for Jason Taylor ... I prefer that we not settle for Griff/Monty/Gholston and give them some competition. Like I said, the entire team needs to function as a unit. There is more than one way to improve the overall performance, and I would prefer that we look to provide even more push up the middle, and stick with the guys we current;y have a DE. That being said, if there is a real play maker on the board at DE like Orakpo and all the other top flight OT's are gone, I would not be opposed to taking him. I would not e opposed to signing Tank Johnson on the cheap and seeing what he can do. I am opposed to offering a player like Haynesworth a crap load of money. Signing off, Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think that's a little over the top and unnecessary. I gave you my opinion in courteous way without getting bogged down in stats. Saying you missed the point was over the top and unecessary? How? You missed the point. That's not calling you dumb, stupid or ignorant, none of which I believe in the least, that's saying that I used the stats to prove a point that with Daniels we had more pressure on the QB, without, we had less. Nothing more, nothing less. That was the point. And the fact that our DTs stayed the same statistically, but that wasn't as important. I disagree, I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, only that IMO I think we would benefit from more agressive DT's that could collapse the pocket in the middle, or in their gaps as you pointed out. What are you disagreeing with? That we didn't have an end that could collapse the pocket? Fair enough, to each his own. Absolutely. And I am saying that the stats you provided do not show anything that conclusively indicates that the DT didn't regress, other than a few more tackles and sacks, you edged out the year 2007 by 1, not really a big trend there. IMO, standing still, is the same thing as regressing, but that's just my personal opinion. Staying the same is not regressing. It's staying the same. This sounds great, though I am not familiar with these guys, but I am interested in researching them now. Jackson is alot like a young Phillip Daniels. Long arms, powerful frame. Research up and stick with the guys we current;y have a DE. If it means Evans starting and Carter/Taylor rotating, sure. But Taylor/Carter both starting = scary thought. That being said, if there is a real play maker on the board at DE like Orakpo and all the other top flight OT's are gone, I would not be opposed to taking him. I would not e opposed to signing Tank Johnson on the cheap and seeing what he can do. Agreed here. Orakpo is actually good sized at 260, and I wouldn't mind him, but I really like Jackson for our scheme. I am opposed to offering a player like Haynesworth a crap load of money. Agreed here 110%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Redskins Fan Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I agree orpako is going to probably have a good combine which hopefully push on of the tackles downs . I hope andre Smith just cause he is by far the best right takle /guard in the draft. I am going to ask a question in this thread who are some players at the combine you are going to follow. 1. Smith 2. Monroe 3. Bj raji 4. Alex Boone 5. peria jerry are my choices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Character 0 N/A Ah just like Devin Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Edds Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Saying you missed the point was over the top and unecessary? How? You missed the point. That's not calling you dumb, stupid or ignorant, none of which I believe in the least, that's saying that I used the stats to prove a point that with Daniels we had more pressure on the QB, without, we had less. Nothing more, nothing less. That was the point. And the fact that our DTs stayed the same statistically, but that wasn't as important. I appreciate your explanation, really I do. But I don't think I missed the point, thought I explained why I thought your stats weren't truly indicative of the actual situation, and that there are a lot of other variables that were not factored into your findings, that are not quantifiable. I'll conceded that the play did not drop off from a "statistical" standpoint. But again, I think that is like "separating the yolk from the egg white" to make a point. What are you disagreeing with? That we didn't have an end that could collapse the pocket? maybe "disagree" was not the most accurate or appropriate word choice ... I only meant to infer that "I think we could" drastically improve our defensive performance by adding a DT or 2 that could really push the pocket backwards and allow our DE's to collapse the pocket from the outside in, off the edges, close in on the QB, etc ... for a lack of better words. Again, without getting caught up in the x's and o's (and I don't claim to be a coach or GM) ... they need to work together as a unit. And I think there is more than one way to skins a cat. That's all. Staying the same is not regressing. It's staying the same. Looking at other teams improve their defensive performance, and seeing that we are not improving (or staying the same as you see it), in my mind implies that we are regressing, because we are not keeping up with the rest of our division. I look at it like making the same pay every year, even though the cost of living increases each year. It's a relative term, and I don't mean to get caught up in word choice semantics in this discussion. I am doing the best I can while working at the same time, so some of my responses may not be as grammatically concise as they should be. But hey, I just need a break from reality sometimes. Jackson is alot like a young Phillip Daniels. Long arms, powerful frame. Research up I will do this! If it means Evans starting and Carter/Taylor rotating, sure. But Taylor/Carter both starting = scary thought. Agreed, I'd prefer to let JT walk. Agreed here. Orakpo is actually good sized at 260, and I wouldn't mind him, but I really like Jackson for our scheme. Agreed here 110%. well here's to finding some DT competition on the cheap. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 were never going to draft a defensive end or tackle in the first 3 rounds. we havent done it in over 10 years, 1997 was the last time. every year were projected to take one and we never do. offensive lineman, or vinny will trade it for something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Acre Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 There is no way Stafford doesn't go in the top 5 Why? No way Rodgers was supposed to go 23, but.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Well, maybe Orakpo would be an okay pick, if we were moving to a 3-4. But we're not, so its a stupid stupid pick. But regardless, the players we most need will definitely not be ther at 13. Aaron Curry, BJ Raji, and at least 3 of the Top 4 Tackles (maybe even all 4) will be gone by #13. 13th isn't that good of a spot for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Orakpo is 260 at the moment. Daneisl is 275. Orakpo could put on 5-10 pounds of muscle at the next level in a year and be at 265-270. Orakpo is also strong as an ox. That said, I'm not sold on him, either. But he could be the powerful DE we need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I appreciate your explanation, really I do. But I don't think I missed the point, thought I explained why I thought your stats weren't truly indicative of the actual situation, and that there are a lot of other variables that were not factored into your findings, that are not quantifiable. I'll conceded that the play did not drop off from a "statistical" standpoint. But again, I think that is like "separating the yolk from the egg white" to make a point. I know the game. The stats, although not backed up by anything you can see, I have backed them up with how I know a DL should play, how I know we have played, and what I see as the issue. Stats never tell the whole story, no matter what position you're talking, but they are a good talking point. maybe "disagree" was not the most accurate or appropriate word choice ... I only meant to infer that "I think we could" drastically improve our defensive performance by adding a DT or 2 that could really push the pocket backwards and allow our DE's to collapse the pocket from the outside in, off the edges, close in on the QB, etc ... for a lack of better words. Again, without getting caught up in the x's and o's (and I don't claim to be a coach or GM) ... they need to work together as a unit. And I think there is more than one way to skins a cat. That's all. I agree a DT would help. But getting into the X and Os a strong DE would help more, in my opinion, as I've stated. But you aren't wrong by any means. I disagree with your assessment that our DEs are okay, though. Looking at other teams improve their defensive performance, and seeing that we are not improving (or staying the same as you see it), in my mind implies that we are regressing, because we are not keeping up with the rest of our division. I look at it like making the same pay every year, even though the cost of living increases each year. It's a relative term, and I don't mean to get caught up in word choice semantics in this discussion. I am doing the best I can while working at the same time, so some of my responses may not be as grammatically concise as they should be. But hey, I just need a break from reality sometimes. You have to understand though that I don't know what you're trying to say, I only see what you type. I meant no offense to you at all, either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 ];6105604']Well' date=' maybe Orakpo would be an okay pick, if we were moving to a 3-4.But we're not, so its a stupid stupid pick. But regardless, the players we most need will definitely not be ther at 13. Aaron Curry, BJ Raji, and at least 3 of the Top 4 Tackles (maybe even all 4) will be gone by #13. 13th isn't that good of a spot for us.[/quote'] Why is every guy under 275 lbs automatically a 3-4 tweener? One of the problems with DEs who are lighter than that is they don't have the strength to do much other than speed rush on the edge. Orakpo is a freak of nature as far as strength goes. Someone posted his bench numbers, etc earlier. It is insane. He also isn't a "workout warrior", unless he completely fooled the people who vote for the Nagurski trophy, Hendricks award, Lombardi award and the All American team. I've seen him play and he has great speed but can also just flat out overpower OTs. He went up against Phil Loadholdt, who may not be a top 10 pick or even a 1st round pick but is still one of the better OTs in the country, and made him look like a complete scrub. If he is there at 13 and Raji or one of the top OTs isn't there I would have no problem with the Skins grabbing him. EDIT: He is also easy to nickname. If he turns out to be a stud you have O-Sack-Po If he is a big time bust he is O-Krapo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbleedBnG83 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 well here's to finding some DT competition on the cheap. Hail. Colin Cole!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheREALJBird Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Why is every guy under 275 lbs automatically a 3-4 tweener? I've wondered that myself. Orakpo has a HUGE frame, he could definitely add some bulk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Colin Cole!!!!!!!!! I wouldn't mind them grabbing him, but he isn't really much of a force as far as getting into the backfield, which is what we need. He is more of a space eating fattie which is great for the run game but doesn't necessarily help in the pass rush department which is where we really need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HitStickTaylor21 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I've wondered that myself. Orakpo has a HUGE frame, he could definitely add some bulk. I don't know, he's already added 50 lbs since he stepped foot on Texas' campus. I'm not sure how much more you can keep adding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I don't know, he's already added 50 lbs since he stepped foot on Texas' campus. I'm not sure how much more you can keep adding. I don't think he necessarily needs to put on more weight. Kiwi is a beast of a 4-3 DE at 265 and is fine against the run along with being a great pass rusher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Edds Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I know the game. The stats, although not backed up by anything you can see, I have backed them up with how I know a DL should play, how I know we have played, and what I see as the issue. Stats never tell the whole story, no matter what position you're talking, but they are a good talking point.I agree a DT would help. But getting into the X and Os a strong DE would help more, in my opinion, as I've stated. But you aren't wrong by any means. I disagree with your assessment that our DEs are okay, though. You have to understand though that I don't know what you're trying to say, I only see what you type. I meant no offense to you at all, either! no worries it is all good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Why does everybody keep regurgitating the tired line that all 4-3 DE's have to be 285 lbs to play in the NFL, and if they aren't they're labeled a tweener? Off the top of my head, the following teams all run the 4-3 and have smaller DE's.... Eagles - Cole 270, Parker 250, Clemons 240 Giants - Kiwi 265, Tuck 274, Osi 261 Colts - Freeney 268, Mathis 245 Orakpo and Carter would be fine together... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsMaster88 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I don't know, he's already added 50 lbs since he stepped foot on Texas' campus. I'm not sure how much more you can keep adding. Lots of D-linemen put on a lot of weight from when they come in as freshman from HS. The thing is I still feel we need the playmaker at DT more. We need to collapse the pocket. There were times when Carter/Taylor could get around the edge, then the QB would just step up. That's our main problem. Now, if the top 4 and Raji are gone at #13, I'd be OK with Orakpo because I do feel he'll be a good player and is a great athlete. We just need to get a better scheme to use him than this past year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C26 Run Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Don't like it - grab the best OT available... Absolutely we don't need yet another DE to "rush the passer" we need a DT to collapse the middle or we need a OG to better protect from the middle. :helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Colin Cole!!!!!!!!! hes 30 years old. havent we been down this road before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.