Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Defensive Linemen Taken in the 1st Round of the NFL Draft over past two years


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#31 iamcline

iamcline

    Thou shalt not spilleth thy Red Bull!

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,739 posts
  • LocationGreensboro, NC

Posted 04 March 2012 - 10:18 PM

I think 'BPA' should be outlawed here until after the draft. It's a term being slung around like money in the Saints locker room.

#32 JawnyBlaze

JawnyBlaze

    Senior Member

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,609 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:26 AM

Anderson is a better OLB than any DT we have is at DT. By a lot. In other words he's a very solid but unspectacular OLB. Easily a starting quality LB. We don't have a DT that's easily a starting quality DT.

#33 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,023 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 05 March 2012 - 02:50 AM

Well, just because 2011 and 2010 had a lot of good prospects, doesnt mean that 2012 will...

But, I have to give you props for making a legitimate argument, and I will admit that you have swayed my thoughts some.

There definately are guys in that list that contributed heavily in year 1, and some really nice draftees from 2010 that are blue chips now.

Good post.

#34 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,742 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 05 March 2012 - 09:19 AM

What I laugh about are shoddy posts like the OP post. Jumbling DEs and DTs together, saying they all contributed with no stats or facts so we can make up our own mind whether the premise is true rather than blindly accepting the OP's premise.
Maybe it is true, maybe not who would know without any facts either way. Totally useless post which doesn't prove whether the concept has validity or not. You wonder if he did the work to begin with and formulated the idea after fact gathering or had an agenda before hand so the facts don't really matter.

#35 beach

beach

    |~~~~|

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,561 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 09:45 AM

So there seems to be this delusional myth by this certain segment of awkward people whom are overly obsessed with the term "BPA."
They seem to think, contrary to the evidence, that a DT takes 9 years to finally be able to contribute to a team. So I figured I'd post this here, and every time they say something to you like that in the future, you can point your finger and laugh and stuff.


Disclaimer: Frankly, I wanted to do a five year span, but began to wonder why I'm even bothering argue what is so apparent to everyone else, so this will have to do for now.

...


If the guys in the NFL offices feel there are good DLmen (which they obviously do..no e-nerd screaming zomg but he isn't Suh is going to sway the opinion of a fanbase who saw what the entire world saw last year-that our DT's arent good. (:eek6:)

Edit: For those who may be curious, the 2007 and 2009 drafts were also good for DLmen. '08 was poor but also saw like only four guys taken, so what does that tell you? I won't be bothered to write all it down...this is where you must became and man and type "Google" into your browser all by your lonesome.


really dude? We get that you're trying to act snarky and all but you're not convincing enough. Your good at being the asshole, but you need to check Fiz's playbook on the football side of things to do it correctly up in this mother fuga :)

Please try again

#36 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • ALL-PRO
  • 15,511 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:47 AM

DT is more important, DT can be played well in a player's first season, and while that last thing you said has no relevance to this thread, it sure looks that way at least on the surface, though I'd have to do some more digging.

If a DT is good his first year, chances are he will be a good player. If he isn't, the chances of him turning it around seem slim. That appears to be the trend.

Which obviously doesn't bode well for the whole "Sione Fua will be a magical Samoan powerhouse next season" theory.


First of all, you're shoddy assessment is trying to link a very select few Top 10 talents out of an entire draft to disprove that DT's aren't typically NFL ready and should play really good in their 1st year... Certainly you should see the wide gaping hole in your argument thus far.



Fact remains, it typically takes time to gain technique and strength/conditioning..

Edited by bleys, 05 March 2012 - 12:54 PM.


#37 jungleking

jungleking

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:23 PM

What I laugh about are shoddy posts like the OP post. Jumbling DEs and DTs together, saying they all contributed with no stats or facts so we can make up our own mind whether the premise is true rather than blindly accepting the OP's premise.
Maybe it is true, maybe not who would know without any facts either way. Totally useless post which doesn't prove whether the concept has validity or not. You wonder if he did the work to begin with and formulated the idea after fact gathering or had an agenda before hand so the facts don't really matter.

Perhaps he didn't need to write a doctoral thesis explaining why they are good players to people who follow the league as closely as the average message board poster does. If you would like to see an unending and spirited debate about what stats are relevant and which aren't, and what stats can be negated by situational variables, and whose stats aren't indicative of their actual performance, then go ahead and post the stats yourself. It's been pretty widely reported that most of those guys have had success. Common knowledge and common sense are sometimes better than the alternatives.

#38 Cat'sGrowl

Cat'sGrowl

    The Beast Lurks Once More

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,113 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:42 PM

First of all, you're shoddy assessment is trying to link a very select few Top 10 talents out of an entire draft to disprove that DT's aren't typically NFL ready and should play really good in their 1st year... Certainly you should see the wide gaping hole in your argument thus far.



Fact remains, it typically takes time to gain technique and strength/conditioning..


Except it isn't about strength, or technique. It's about a talented young defensive tackle prospect being able to come in and perform immediately-which we see here to be true. It also doesn't bode well for the notion that our mid round picks from last year will have some sort of magical epiphany and become great players.

I assumed that the average Huddler would be able to look at this list and know which players had success and which did not, but it's evident some people have to have their hand held every step of the way.

#39 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • ALL-PRO
  • 15,511 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:57 PM

Except it isn't about strength, or technique. It's about a talented young defensive tackle prospect being able to come in and perform immediately-which we see here to be true. It also doesn't bode well for the notion that our mid round picks from last year will have some sort of magical epiphany and become great players.

I assumed that the average Huddler would be able to look at this list and know which players had success and which did not, but it's evident some people have to have their hand held every step of the way.


everything about that position is about strength, conditioning and technique.. Can a guy come in and perform immediately? Sure, depending on how you define "perform". Nothing you have stated takes away from the fact that mid round (and even early round) picks require time to gain technique, strength, conditioning..

How you would need your hand held to understand that an epiphany or magic has nothing to do with requiring time to ingrain better technique and build stamina and strength is the real question here..

Edited by bleys, 05 March 2012 - 01:00 PM.


#40 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • ALL-PRO
  • 11,571 posts
  • LocationConcord, NC

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:57 PM

Except it isn't about strength, or technique. It's about a talented young defensive tackle prospect being able to come in and perform immediately-which we see here to be true. It also doesn't bode well for the notion that our mid round picks from last year will have some sort of magical epiphany and become great players.

I assumed that the average Huddler would be able to look at this list and know which players had success and which did not, but it's evident some people have to have their hand held every step of the way.



Almost all DT's in the NFL are strong and have loads of talent, yes their is a gap in talent between the best and the worst. However a major ingredient in a DT or DE being successful against the run and the pass in the NFL is technique.

You can have all the talent in the world, but if your technique is shitty then your going to get pushed around by NFL Offensive linemen. Completely ruling out technique is well not very bright. If you look at the DT's you posted, they have talent, but they also play with excellent technique.

Technique is something that Brockers struggles with when rushing the QB a lot and occasionally when defending the run. Not saying that the coaching staff couldn't improve him in that area, but he plays upright which will eliminate his talent in the NFL. So yes, while talent is important so is technique. With out technique all that talent goes to waste.

#41 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 25,485 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 01:02 PM

Except it isn't about strength, or technique. It's about a talented young defensive tackle prospect being able to come in and perform immediately-which we see here to be true. It also doesn't bode well for the notion that our mid round picks from last year will have some sort of magical epiphany and become great players.

I assumed that the average Huddler would be able to look at this list and know which players had success and which did not, but it's evident some people have to have their hand held every step of the way.


most rookie DTs aren't ready to contribute right away...especially raw ones who didn't dominate like a Suh in college.

There is a reason you included DEs in such in your list. B/c DEs have shown they can perform certain duties (like pass rushing) very quickly.

You have posted nothing showing that raw DTs with talent who didn't dominate in college come into the NFL and perform immediately.

Edited by CRA, 05 March 2012 - 01:05 PM.


#42 Cat'sGrowl

Cat'sGrowl

    The Beast Lurks Once More

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,113 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 01:20 PM

Almost all DT's in the NFL are strong and have loads of talent, yes their is a gap in talent between the best and the worst. However a major ingredient in a DT or DE being successful against the run and the pass in the NFL is technique.

You can have all the talent in the world, but if your technique is pooty then your going to get pushed around by NFL Offensive linemen. Completely ruling out technique is well not very bright. If you look at the DT's you posted, they have talent, but they also play with excellent technique.

Technique is something that Brockers struggles with when rushing the QB a lot and occasionally when defending the run. Not saying that the coaching staff couldn't improve him in that area, but he plays upright which will eliminate his talent in the NFL. So yes, while talent is important so is technique. With out technique all that talent goes to waste.


Well for starters, you're assuming I'm completely on board the Brockers bandwagon. I partially am, but there are other DL in this class I'm looking at, as well.

Secondly, if the coaching staff disagrees with you, then I will take their word over yours, obviously.

Thirdly, part of Brockers' allure is how talented he's been when you include how unrefined he is, and the promise of astronomical growth, including the ability to be molded into whatever he needs to be to fit the system he's in, due to his youth. Obviously, you don't draft players exclusively on the idea that they contribute year one. The point of this thread was simply to show people that there isn't necessarily some 4 year incubation period for DT's, and anyone who believes there is, has deluded themselves. That said, potential plays a huge part in drafting, and people who want us to draft exclusively on the question of "Will this player be dominant year one?" don't have a firm understanding on the point of the draft.

Now, what separates Brockers from other young DT's (like oh say, Sione Fua) is his natural talent and ability. That is the distinguishing factor. If the FO feels he has the ability to overcome those deficiencies early on, then he'd be an even better pick. Fua, and to a slightly lesser extent Mclain, don't have that natural ability, and their ceiling appears to be too low to warrant giving any considerable effort developing. Why waste the time when you can begin to develop someone who can become dominant? The defensive line is too important to invest time developing average players. It's a portion of your team that you want to be as elite as possible. It was the biggest weakness on our team last year, and it should be one of the strongest.

#43 carpanfan96

carpanfan96

    play hard, hit harder

  • ALL-PRO
  • 11,571 posts
  • LocationConcord, NC

Posted 05 March 2012 - 01:43 PM

Well for starters, you're assuming I'm completely on board the Brockers bandwagon. I partially am, but there are other DL in this class I'm looking at, as well.

The reason I used Brockers is most are high on him and he's probably the weakest technique wise of the top 3 DT's in the draft. My two first round DL players that I'm looking at are Cox and Coples. Later in the first via a trade down, Perry from USC.

Secondly, if the coaching staff disagrees with you, then I will take their word over yours, obviously.

Of course, I'd expect everyone to do the same.

Thirdly, part of Brockers' allure is how talented he's been when you include how unrefined he is, and the promise of astronomical growth, including the ability to be molded into whatever he needs to be to fit the system he's in, due to his youth. Obviously, you don't draft players exclusively on the idea that they contribute year one. The point of this thread was simply to show people that there isn't necessarily some 4 year incubation period for DT's, and anyone who believes there is, has deluded themselves. That said, potential plays a huge part in drafting, and people who want us to draft exclusively on the question of "Will this player be dominant year one?" don't have a firm understanding on the point of the draft.

I understand the allure of Brockers, he has amazing size and looks natural defending the run. I think he would be better served with gaining 15 pounds and playing NT in the NFL or as a 3-4 end at his current weight because of how good he is against the run. However he's weak when rushing the passer and that part of his game would take a while to develop because of how raw he is.

Now, what separates Brockers from other young DT's (like oh say, Sione Fua) is his natural talent and ability. That is the distinguishing factor. If the FO feels he has the ability to overcome those deficiencies early on, then he'd be an even better pick. Fua, and to a slightly lesser extent Mclain, don't have that natural ability, and their ceiling appears to be too low to warrant giving any considerable effort developing. Why waste the time when you can begin to develop someone who can become dominant? The defensive line is too important to invest time developing average players. It's a portion of your team that you want to be as elite as possible. It was the biggest weakness on our team last year, and it should be one of the strongest.

"I agree that he has more natural ability then Fua, but that doesn't mean that Fua can't develop into a nice player or even an very good player. (Look at Shaun Cody, played really well this season for the Texans in their 3-4, but was horrible with the Lions for years. Just took him a while to develop, doesn't mean it always happens, but it's possible.) My only major concern with Brockers is his lack of pass rush skills and technique and how little he's played DT. If the Panther's do indeed draft a DL player with the 9th pick, I'd prefer if they picked Cox. However I'd support whoever they selected.


Rep + Pie for cutting down on the smart ass answers and the stupid pictures and responding with a well thought out post. Thanks, I enjoy discussions and even arguments about players and draft picks if they are kept civil. It helps pass the time while I'm battling a few diseases stuck at home in bed.

Edited by carpanfan96, 05 March 2012 - 01:45 PM.


#44 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • ALL-PRO
  • 15,511 posts

Posted 05 March 2012 - 03:00 PM

Except it isn't about strength, or technique. It's about a talented young defensive tackle prospect being able to come in and perform immediately



The point of this thread was simply to show people that there isn't necessarily some 4 year incubation period for DT's, and anyone who believes there is, has deluded themselves. That said, potential plays a huge part in drafting, and people who want us to draft exclusively on the question of "Will this player be dominant year one?" don't have a firm understanding on the point of the draft.



So I figured I'd post this here, and every time they say something to you like that in the future, you can point your finger and laugh and stuff.



I see the point you have eventually tried to clarify, but at the end of the day, we come back to improving technique and implying there is an incubator period of some sort... especially considering DT in the 1st round has one of the highest bust rates among all other positions and if our coaches cannot do their job (improving technique, strength/conditioning), we are left knowing just because a DT is drafted in the 1st round does not ensure success..

#45 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,742 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:53 PM

Perhaps he didn't need to write a doctoral thesis explaining why they are good players to people who follow the league as closely as the average message board poster does. If you would like to see an unending and spirited debate about what stats are relevant and which aren't, and what stats can be negated by situational variables, and whose stats aren't indicative of their actual performance, then go ahead and post the stats yourself. It's been pretty widely reported that most of those guys have had success. Common knowledge and common sense are sometimes better than the alternatives.


It this were my thread and post I would have done just that. And common knowledge and common sense are laughable terms around here. Who has reported that these guys have had success?? What exactly is success? Are you comparing their performance to the average in the league, breaking down by 3-4 or 4-3?? Separating DEs from Dts based on scheme? What about a guy who was drafted out of college as a DE but played OLB in a 3-4. Is he a DE or a linebacker for comparison purposes?? If you have these articles and stats why didn't you post them yourself. Just like him you have nothing but speculation until you prove it. Doesn't sound like it is common knowledge to me. Go back and do some homework and then post. Otherwise you sound just as clueless as he did.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com