Whats more critical?

[SteelerOfDeVille]

I'm all for a capable 3 down NT ... if that guy doesn't belong on the field for passing situations then I'm not interested.

I'm all for taking a SS .... wouldn't be against an OLB either.

problem is, the guy WON'T be on the field in certain formations (i.e., when they only go with 2 DLmen)... doesn't matter which NT you select.

[SteelerOfDeVille]

Exactly! If the Steelers spend 60% of defensive snaps in a sub package without an NT, why pick one in the first?

If the Steelers spend 60% of defensive snaps with an extra DB on the field, wouldn't it make sense to get a DB?

t.o. has it right. They just need to take the best player possible...

you contradict yourself. do you want BPA or not? you say take BPA... but, not if he's only gonna be in 60% of snaps.

Point is, I contend that number of snaps you expect him to play is virtually irrelevant... you're talking BEST player available (BPA), right? Not "most snaps guy" - unless you'd take a long snapping guard every year to maximize plays..

[Oviedo]

I don't see the Steelers abandoning their tried and true philosophy of "BPA at a position of need" for a decent Safety. They would have to have a serious man crush on one of those guys to pull the trigger at 25. I don't think that they go corner either for that matter. IMO one of the group of DL such as Rankins, Reed, Billings, Robinson etc. is sitting at 25 and they go in that direction. In most years, any one of those guys is a 15 range pick. This year one is available due to overwhelming supply of big, fat defensive guys.

By comparison, after Ramsey and Hargreaves, you have a lot of borderline 1,2 round guys. None of Fuller, Apple, Jackson, Burns etc. is worthy of a higher pick except in a draft with a serious lack of corner talent. Given that option, historically the Steelers go DL.

On the mark. After the first two CBs are off the board there is a gap. DL is tightly bunched group of talent. At #25 you will get a much better player on the Defensive Tackle (Not Nose Tackle) than reaching for a CB. Wouldn't even consider a Safety in Round 1. Would consider OT.

[SidSmythe]

problem is, the guy WON'T be on the field in certain formations (i.e., when they only go with 2 DLmen)... doesn't matter which NT you select.

This is true in a perfect situation....however if Heyward or Tuitt ever were hurt (or needed a breather) i'd want this guy to be able to stay on the field in passing situations and be effective.

[Northern_Blitz]

This is true in a perfect situation....however if Heyward or Tuitt ever were hurt (or needed a breather) i'd want this guy to be able to stay on the field in passing situations and be effective.

Or a DT who would normally play DT in base, but could spell Heyward and Tuitt occasionally in 2 DL formations. A guy that could be competent in a rotation so we can give our best a breath once in a while so they perform better when they are on the field.

[Slapstick]

you contradict yourself. do you want BPA or not? you say take BPA... but, not if he's only gonna be in 60% of snaps.

Point is, I contend that number of snaps you expect him to play is virtually irrelevant... you're talking BEST player available (BPA), right? Not "most snaps guy" - unless you'd take a long snapping guard every year to maximize plays..

How is it a contradiction? Why in the world would a team spend their one first round pick on a player who would be on the bench for most of the game?

A draft pick is an investment...40 percent of snaps is a bad return on investment...you can find someone who sits for 60% of the game and then comes in and is effective in later rounds...

The percentage of snaps played is far from irrelevant...in fact, I would use that as part of the formula to determine value and BPA...

[SS Laser]

Or a DT who would normally play DT in base, but could spell Heyward and Tuitt occasionally in 2 DL formations. A guy that could be competent in a rotation so we can give our best a breath once in a while so they perform better when they are on the field.

This is the idea but also the main question. Does any of the 1st rd D line guys project to do this? I will take a guy who is say Hoke or Mclendon like for base 3-4. But able to not drop off in pass rush when they take either Tuitt or Heyward off the field in any formation. The Nickle or dime D still need to stop the running game also of course. I have to add this opinion also to this. It seems to me in the new passing league the Steelers are using high draft picks for both lines first or the drafts have just worked out that way.

[Oviedo]

A draft pick is an investment...40 percent of snaps is a bad return on investment...you can find someone who sits for 60% of the game and then comes in and is effective in later rounds...

The percentage of snaps played is far from irrelevant...in fact, I would use that as part of the formula to determine value and BPA...

40% of the snaps...sounds like Jarvis Jones??????

[RuthlessBurgher]

In the base 3-4, the rookie NT could play a two gapping 0-technique occupying multiple blockers while Heyward and Tuitt play 5-technique DE.

In the nickel or dime, you have options. The rookie NT could remain in the game as a one gapping 1-technique penetrating DT with Tuitt as your 3-technique DT, Heyward as your strongside DE, and Dupree as your weakside DE. Or you could remove the rookie NT, and use Tuitt as the 1-tech DT, Heyward as the 3-tech DT, Dupree as the strongside DE, and Deebo as the weakside DE. You could also give Heyward and Tuitt occasional breathers so they aren't on the field 99.8% of the defensive snaps.

I don't think a rookie NT has to be able to do what Tuitt and Heyward does on early downs, but the rookie NT will have a role in the many of our nickel and dime formations also, so that Tuitt and Heyward aren't completely overworked. Rankins, Robinson, Reed, Billings, and Butler should all be able to do this. And if our front office deems that to be a better use of resources than drafting Apple, Jackson, or Alexander, so be it.

[SidSmythe]

Or a DT who would normally play DT in base, but could spell Heyward and Tuitt occasionally in 2 DL formations. A guy that could be competent in a rotation so we can give our best a breath once in a while so they perform better when they are on the field.

I'm still confused why McClendon couldn't be that (and never was) that guy

[phillyesq]

How is it a contradiction? Why in the world would a team spend their one first round pick on a player who would be on the bench for most of the game?

A draft pick is an investment...40 percent of snaps is a bad return on investment...you can find someone who sits for 60% of the game and then comes in and is effective in later rounds...

The percentage of snaps played is far from irrelevant...in fact, I would use that as part of the formula to determine value and BPA...

The Steelers were in sub package football the majority of the time. Heyward and Tuitt played an insane amount of snaps, and we saw Heyward in particular wear down as the season progressed.

The ideal player is somebody who plays NT in the 3-4 base while also spelling Heyward / Tuitt in the nickel. You drop those guys down to about 80% of the snaps - still a lot, but enough to keep them fresh and effective. I think that Billings can be that guy, if he makes it to 25. He's strong against the run and also provides an interior pass rush. You could have him on the field 60-70% of the time. You'd also have a ton of flexibility in rushing the passer, particularly after Harrison retires. You could line up Dupree / Tuitt / Billings / Heyward and get pressure with 4. Or move from more of a 2-4-5 nickel, where the Steelers were gouged against the run, to a 3-3-5.

Both Super Bowl teams this year had outstanding defensive lines. The Steelers are one player away from an outstanding defensive line right now. If you can get an exceptional DT/NT, you take that over a corner unless the corner is really good - and I don't see an exceptional corner being available at 25. There is depth in the safety class, and you can address safety later.

Edit: I responded before reading the rest of the thread. I could have just said "I agree with Ruthless."

[Slapstick]

Essentially, several of us are saying very similar things...I was also agreeing with Ruthless and Philly when I posted this:

If there is a player who can stop the run and has the stamina and movement skills to stay on the field for multiple WR formations, I'll be ecstatic...

In the first round, I don't want to draft a role player...I'd prefer to draft a great player...

[SteelerOfDeVille]

This is true in a perfect situation....however if Heyward or Tuitt ever were hurt (or needed a breather) i'd want this guy to be able to stay on the field in passing situations and be effective.

I would agree with this (in a perfect situation) - except, not at the expense of being a better run defender at the NT spot

MY point is, I take the better pure run stuffing NT out of this bunch. We're all in agreement that they're not significantly different and that there isn't a truly elite NT...

Putting it into perspective: Having watched a lot of him, Rankins, wouldn't be as good as a 34 NT, IMO, but, would be a better 34 DE in passing situations. I wouldn't want him for that very reason - he'd be the bottom of the list for me. I want a run-stuffing NT - if he can sub at DE in sub-packages, that's gravy

[RuthlessBurgher]

In my mind, the best run stuffing DT's this year are Jarran Reed and Andrew Billings. And I think both could also play some nickel/dime as well, so they wouldn't just be "2 down" players. I wouldn't be upset with either guy in round 1.

[SteelerOfDeVille]

In my mind, the best run stuffing DT's this year are Jarran Reed and Andrew Billings. And I think both could also play some nickel/dime as well, so they wouldn't just be "2 down" players. I wouldn't be upset with either guy in round 1.

Funny how we can debate the most miniscule details - cuz those are the top two choices in MY book. If either is there and they pass on him for a Rankins because he could double as a backup at DE, I'd be really disappointed.