Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
I think you just want disruptive players at any spot, I don't see anything particularly special or different about NT. We got a guy on the DL in Allen who could turn into a guy like Calais Campbell or some semblance of Watt. Those are the standard-setting 3-4 defenses (Texans and Cards), and my point was that you can win with or without a traditional NT, as long as you're disruptive from the edge and from somewhere in the interior.
Top two picks this year went to the line and the edge. That's what they're doing, trying to get disruptive players wherever they can.
I don't get the obsession with this one position.
|
I don't believe it is an obsession as much as a healthy concern, the team has been trying to fit square pegs in round holes much like they have at safety.
I believe the results the team have gotten at safety and NT are pretty predictable considering they have been converting CBs, LBs, 4-3 3 tech guys like Cofield. When they haven't been trying to convert people to S or NT, they have been relying on the over the hill gang like Ryan Clark, Whitner, Golston, (Cofield was a bit of both)
I guess my biggest gripe with the team is playing a scheme that calls for a NT and not having anyone who can play it effectively and not making any real effort or investing any real resources into getting someone who can.
I have the same gripe with the team on the S position.
It is probably overblown.
I believe from a moneyball, metric standpoint a 4-3 is the way to go from a pure numbers perspective. I believe there are more players available through the draft and college ranks who skill set match up with a 4-3. I think DE are easier to find than OLB.
If there are more players to pick from, then the team has a better shot at making quality picks or signing quality FA. (and the Patriots switched back, which is probably the best reason)