that's a lot of beef up front, and hopefully that is a big reason why the defense is winning all of these camp battles rather than just a failing offense.
Originally Posted by Slapstick
If I could mix and match parts from different teams, I would love to have:
The Giants front four, the Steelers linebackers (obviously they don't all fit in the schemes together, but that would be up to the coaches to fix hahaha), I would want the play making ability of the Packers, and the coverage ability of the Jets because they have Revis and have been the most consistently good coverage team of the past 3 years
Excellent point. The Giants have a dominant DL because they draft players to do what they have seen on film in college and not guesstimate what they might be able to convert to. That is why when the Giants draft a defensive lineman he can contribute early because he is being asked to do what he has always done.
Originally Posted by flippy
That has always been my issue with the 3-4. We lose 2, maybe 3 years of production from a player while he adjusts to the scheme or a new position. Some do it faster than others and some take longer but can we really afford to waste that time in a players short careers?
It took Aaron Smith 2 years. Was he worth the wait -- I'd say so. Casey started within a few games -- hard to argue with the value the Steelers got from that pick.
Originally Posted by Oviedo
Looking at the 2010 NFL draft, here are the first round DEs:
15 - Jason Pierre Paul
16 - Derrick Morgan
31 - Jerry Hughes
Here is 2011:
3 - Marcellus Dareus (DE/DT)
11 - JJ Watt
14 - Robert Quinn
16 - Ryan Kerrigan (converted to LB)
20 - Adrian Clayborn
24 - Cameron Jordan
30 - Muhammed Wilkerson
31 - Heyward
There is a lot of risk and a lot of development with traditional 4-3 DTs. A lot of busts over the last 2-3 years. And when they do succeed, pass rushing DEs are paid. Very well. Generally, second only to QBs. And I didn't even get into the NTs.
The Giants identify and draft defensive lineman very well. The Steelers do the same with LBers.
I think we use to draft very well when we were one of the few teams looking for the type of 3-4 OLB we have always had. With many more team dipping into that talent pool, is that really true now? Are we really that solid at LB?
Originally Posted by phillyesq
Worilds--I like the kid, but he is far from a sure thing converting to OLB. Many on the board gave up on him already
Carter--Same as above. Hardly has he proven he can be the type of dominant OLB we need to suceed, but it is only year #2.
Sylvester--Is he really anything more than a good Special teams player
Spence--has potential but what position can he really play with his size?
Foote--just a "duct tape" fix for this year
Harrison--can he really be dominant anymore or has his body given out on him?
Woodley--a star but can he do it for 16 games?
Timmons--a star but is he relaly utilized where his strengths are
IMO we have many more questions at LB than sure things. Timmons and Woodley are the only sure things on the roster, everyone else is a question mark.
If we were really honest you would have to consider this LB group the weakest it has been in years. If all the stars align and everyone stays healthy it could be very good, but it is not a great group right now.
Woodley and Timmons as you have said, are pretty much sure things. Larry Foote has played successfully in this defense for a number of years. He isn't a dynamic impact type player, but he is solid against the run and knows his responsibilities. Spence looks excellent in coverage already and should contribute as a nickel LBer. Harrison has health concerns, but he is still elite when healthy. Worilds was among the team leaders in QB pressures. Carter and Robinson are your developmental projects. That is a fine group.
Originally Posted by Oviedo
This group is at least equal to, if not better than, groups like Haggans-Foote-Farrior-Porter, which was good enough for a SB.