|
Declan MacManus posted:Allen is 6'2 and actually runs a 4.4, he had a knee injury that made him look slow at his pro day and kept him out of the combine. I know. God, I was so happy when he ran that lovely time at his pro-day. I read an opinion stating that the NFL at large has failed to account for prevalence of the 3-4 in the league when drafting offensive linemen. i.e. Eric Fisher faced almost exclusively 4-3 in college but this didn't factor in to how high he was drafted. I'd always thought the the popularity of the two personnel schemes goes up and down over time, evening it all out. Maybe it's important to focus on when your division leans a certain way. Anyone think experience against the different fronts makes a huge difference in drafting an O-lineman?
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
The other side of that coin is that with the 3-4 becoming the new hot thing several years ago and many teams switching over to it, shouldn't it be easier to find 4-3 players nowadays?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
http://www.battleredblog.com/2013/12/18/5222864/2014-nfl-draft-making-the-case-for-jadaveon-clowney This is both a pretty cool read on the case for Clowney and an example of how little I know about scouting
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:I read an opinion stating that the NFL at large has failed to account for prevalence of the 3-4 in the league when drafting offensive linemen. i.e. Eric Fisher faced almost exclusively 4-3 in college but this didn't factor in to how high he was drafted. I'd always thought the the popularity of the two personnel schemes goes up and down over time, evening it all out. Maybe it's important to focus on when your division leans a certain way. That's something I like to bring up every year and I do believe that NFL teams take a hefty look at their schedule before selecting certain prospects. It's not the deciding factor, and I'm not sure if they actually do it or not, it just seems logical to do that. The issue with some 3-4 teams is how they use their DEs. It's not that they're overpowering guys like Fisher, it's that they're occupying guys like Fisher. OTs at the college level are used to having to chip and push away edge rushers every single down. They don't know what to do when they have to seal the edge or open a hole with a 6'4+ 290+ DE clamping down on their arms or pushing them away from the pocket without making a move towards the QB.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:Anyone think experience against the different fronts makes a huge difference in drafting an O-lineman? It must make some difference I'm sure. You kind of have to think that it's not on the same level as defensive players though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I don't actually think there's much of a distinction between the "good" and "bad" trades you've outlined, save for how you frame one as "informed" and the other as "paranoia." It's only paranoia if you're wrong, after all. 2014 NFL Draft: I seen tape, I stay noided
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Doltos posted:That's something I like to bring up every year and I do believe that NFL teams take a hefty look at their schedule before selecting certain prospects. It's not the deciding factor, and I'm not sure if they actually do it or not, it just seems logical to do that. I don't think teams should look at their schedule so much (since those teams may change scheme), but they should definitely look at the prevalence of schemes in the league. The NFL goes back and forth on defensive systems and as one becomes more prevalent, not only do you need to gameplan for it, but the type of players that work well in that scheme become more scarce as competition for them increases. This means that a team going "against the grain" can reap huge rewards by having easier pickings of players that are a more ideal fit for their scheme. HappyHelmet posted:Wasn't Parcells weirdly in love with Carpenter for some reason? Like it was clear Carpenter was poo poo, but he kept him out there with the 1st stringers because he was certain he would turn it around one day. And now that I think about it didn't Parcells go so far as bringing him to the Dolphins when he moved there too? Carpenter's dad played for Parcells, I believe. TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Dec 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Intruder posted:http://www.battleredblog.com/2013/12/18/5222864/2014-nfl-draft-making-the-case-for-jadaveon-clowney The fact that Brett used the Tennessee tape is pretty awesome considering it's the one I tell everyone to watch.  The bit at the end is pretty sweet, too:quote:As someone who gets to watch J.J. Watt prove how unlockable he is week in and week out, this soon to be ex-Gamecock is one of the few human beings on this planet who can replicate that complete and utter dominance. Rick Smith is already importing players from the Carolinas by the truck load, so he might as well add one more. Hell, putting two men who can’t be blocked on the same line would be great if just for the reactions from fans of every other AFC team. Clowney and Watt…Watt and Clowney…no matter which way you say it, it still sounds insanely unfair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Brannock posted:The other side of that coin is that with the 3-4 becoming the new hot thing several years ago and many teams switching over to it, shouldn't it be easier to find 4-3 players nowadays? No. The hard part about the 3-4 is finding an athlete to fill the positions. I believe the 3-4 is the superior version of a 4-3, but filling the roles you need is infinitely harder. All these teams that are swapping over have to find: 1. A 6'3-6'6 320lbs+ nose tackle who can occupy two blockers at once or shoot a gap. 2. A pair of 6'4+ 290lbs+ DEs that are either well accomplished run stuffers or incredible pass rushers, then ask them to man one or two gaps the entire game, which isn't too much fun for athletes of this caliber. 3. Two stout run thumping LBs that are smart enough to diagnose and fill the correct gaps every single down while being able to drop back into zone coverage, and preferably one of them should be good at man coverage. 4. A good to top tier pass rusher that doesn't mind lifting his hand off the ground and can periodically drop back into coverage. 5. A strong side line backer that can take on RT/TEs in the run game and man coverage. Worse than that, the 3-4 is an incredibly disciplined system that requires all parts to be working in sync for the front seven to look at all good. The 4-3 is way more forgiving, and in my opinion, more fun to play in. The linebackers are easier to find, but getting 3-4 DEs and especially 3-4 NTs involves many pricey free agent signings or high draft picks, or getting incredibly lucky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Yeah, that's what I was asking - with so many more teams looking for those particular sort of players for their new hot 3-4 schemes, wouldn't it end up being really hard to get those players given that they're already naturally rare when you account for the high demand? The 4-3 seems like it'd be easier to assemble especially given the "market conditions".
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
I think the issue is that getting players for the 4-3 is always easier than the 3-4, regardless of how popular the 3-4 was lately. I wonder if that will change for the future as seemingly everyone is a super-athlete now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Brannock posted:The other side of that coin is that with the 3-4 becoming the new hot thing several years ago and many teams switching over to it, shouldn't it be easier to find 4-3 players nowadays?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
This draft is gonna be rough for the Eagles because the switch to the 3-4 is still a work in progress. I don't even know who they're keeping, because Vinny Curry was in trade rumors and Trent Cole's turned it on lately but he's 31 and owed nearly $40m, and DeMeco Ryans has a base salary of $7m next year. But then Nate Allen is also gone, Pat Chung is for sure gone, and the Eagles won't go into next season with Williams/Fletcher as their starting corner tandem. So there's going to be so much roster turnover. So many positions to address. Cox, Kendricks, Logan, and Barwin are going to be around for a while, but otherwise the defense is going to look a lot different. I'm gonna have to watch the top college OLBs over the next couple of months. I assume that's where they'd start. The 7th Guest fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Dec 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Todd Bowles runs a 3-4, shouldn't they have the personnel in place already?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
They ran a 4-3 before Chip Kelly was hired. Even when Bowles was in town. The 3-4 switch began this offseason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Hmm, Bowles is killing it with the 3-4 in Arizona.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
If an LT ends up being the BPA available for the draft and your team has a hole at RT is it dumb to draft that player #1 to slot him as a RT for for most if not all of his rookie contract? Duane Brown is signed until 2018 and is only 27 or 28 years old. I know the Texans RT position sucks but can't you find good to great RT's later on? At #1 overall (should the Texans get that) wouldn't it be smarter to draft the best QB or pass rusher on the board and leave O-line to later rounds or free agency?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
b0ng posted:If an LT ends up being the BPA available for the draft and your team has a hole at RT is it dumb to draft that player #1 to slot him as a RT for for most if not all of his rookie contract? Duane Brown is signed until 2018 and is only 27 or 28 years old. I know the Texans RT position sucks but can't you find good to great RT's later on? At #1 overall (should the Texans get that) wouldn't it be smarter to draft the best QB or pass rusher on the board and leave O-line to later rounds or free agency? It seems to be working out ok for the Chiefs this year, but its not a guarantee. Some people can transition from one side to the other and some can't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Regnevelc posted:Hmm, Bowles is killing it with the 3-4 in Arizona. They actually had all the personnel already in place for it, though. The conversion is the hard part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
b0ng posted:If an LT ends up being the BPA available for the draft and your team has a hole at RT is it dumb to draft that player #1 to slot him as a RT for for most if not all of his rookie contract? Duane Brown is signed until 2018 and is only 27 or 28 years old. I know the Texans RT position sucks but can't you find good to great RT's later on? At #1 overall (should the Texans get that) wouldn't it be smarter to draft the best QB or pass rusher on the board and leave O-line to later rounds or free agency? It would be very dumb. People bring up the Chiefs last year as an example of doing this, but that was within the context of Brandon Albert, their starting LT, having contract negotiations before being franchise tagged by the organization and potentially shopped before the draft. Houston, on the other hand, has an All-Pro caliber LT signed for another five years. Passing up on Clowney or Bridgewater for a RT would be a terrible idea, especially when you can find a good RT in the third round (assuming we go Clowney in the first; finding a tackle in the second if we grab Bridgewater would be just as nice if we aren't targeting a pass rusher).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Regnevelc posted:Hmm, Bowles is killing it with the 3-4 in Arizona. Arizona has some great talent and Bowles is about as good as the guys he has available.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
swickles posted:It seems to be working out ok for the Chiefs this year, but its not a guarantee. Some people can transition from one side to the other and some can't. Not really. Our best line has been when Fisher has been benched and Donald Stephenson has taken his place. It's been good in the sense that we know Stephenson can hold down the RT spot next year when Fisher moves to the left after Albert leaves, but Fisher has not been a smooth transition or even really one of the top 5 linemen on the team. We would have been better THIS year with any other offensive skill player. With someone like DeAndre Hopkins at #1 (which would have been a huge reach no doubt), I'm willing to bet our offense starts clicking much earlier in the year. It's all hypothetical but the 2013 Chiefs shouldn't be used as a gauge of taking an out of position RT #1 and expecting immediate returns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I think the issue is that getting players for the 4-3 is always easier than the 3-4, regardless of how popular the 3-4 was lately. I wonder if that will change for the future as seemingly everyone is a super-athlete now. This statement ignores the effects of supply and demand on the player market. The two schemes don't have that much overlap. quote:I believe the 3-4 is the superior version of a 4-3 This seems false, and is particularly odd to hear coming from a Giants fan. The 4-3 is all over the board right now, being employed by both the best and worst defenses in the NFL and there's little evidence to suggest that it is either inferior or superior to the 3-4. Let's take a look at stats from this year through week 15: Going just off base schemes, the top defenses in the NFL by DVOA right now are: - Seattle (4-3) - Arizona (3-4) - Carolina (4-3) - Buffalo (4-3) - Cincinnati (4-3) (4 out of the top 5 run the 4-3) the next 5: - Tampa (4-3) - Baltimore (3-4) - San Francisco (3-4) - New York Giants (4-3) - Kansas City (3-4) (5 of the top 10 run the 4-3) Note that this year, 21 teams ran the 4-3 (65%). It looks like so far, 3-4 teams have been slightly better against the run and 4-3 teams have been slightly better against the pass but as you'd expect, aggregate performance of both defenses hovers around 0%, i.e. average. Average Defensive DVOA of teams based on base DEF (lower/negative results are better): 3-4: 0.30% 4-3: -0.22% Pass DVOA: 3-4: 6.02% 4-3: 4.54% Rush DVOA: 3-4: -7.45% 4-3: -6.72% Sack Rates: 3-4: 7.38% 4-3: 6.77% Adjusted line Yards: 3-4: 3.84 4-3: 3.88 E: Assuming this 4-3/3-4 split continues next year, demand for 4-3 players will outpace demand for 3-4 players by a little less than 2:1. Good news if you're in the market for a big nose tackle or an inside linebacker. Also note that this underscores how dumb it was for the Cowboys to jump to a 4-3 from a 3-4 this season as it ensured that they'd have an even harder time finding good players for the scheme based on market demand for 4-3 players. TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Dec 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I don't think teams should look at their schedule so much (since those teams may change scheme), but they should definitely look at the prevalence of schemes in the league. The NFL goes back and forth on defensive systems and as one becomes more prevalent, not only do you need to gameplan for it, but the type of players that work well in that scheme become more scares as competition for them increases. This means that a team going "against the grain" can reap huge rewards by having easier pickings of players that are a more ideal fit for their scheme. This was how Carroll/Schneider got Seattle's defense turned around so quickly. The weird 3-4/4-3 hybrid that Carroll runs isn't run by anyone else in the league really (or at least it wasn't). It allowed them to grab FAs/draft players no one else was paying much attention to who fit their system on the cheap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
I don't think the idea of 3-4 players or 4-3 players makes a lot of sense. It's about positioning and responsibility, and in a lot of cases that differs between the variants of both fronts to the point where guys in totally different defenses might have more in common than other similarly described fronts. For example, Red Bryant is a 4-3 DE, but he's got more in common with a 2-gap 3-4 DE than he does probably any other 4-3 DE, 1-gap 3-4 DEs, etc. There is a rarity for certain kinds of players, but I think its less specific than there aren't enough 3-4 players or whatever. A 2-gap 3-4 defense NEEDS defensive ends whom are have the reach/strength to engage and shed offensive tackles, the pass rushing skill to be Nickel DEs, etc. It's a significant need for them, and something that generally teams will expended resources on... But those traits might also mean that player is being eyeballed as a 3-technique by most of the defenses in the league, a 1-technique for Tampa-2 style teams, a 5-technique for Under front 4-3s, a 6-technique DE/reduction end in others, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:This statement ignores the effects of supply and demand on the player market. The two schemes don't have that much overlap. I don't see how liking the 3-4 over the 4-3 is odd for a Giants fan considering... well... Bill Parcells. You're right the DVOA supports your claims, though. It's just a personal belief that I think the 3-4 requires stricter discipline in its players, and produces some wonder defenses like the Ravens/Steelers/49ers over the last decade or so. 4-3 defenses of course can be very good as well, but I'd definitely run a 3-4 if I was a coach and had the players available. Just personal preference. I think the supply for the 3-4, particularly the d-line, is always in short supply regardless of the demand. If there was zero demand for 3-4 players, they'd all go to the 4-3 and fit quite well. I mean who doesn't want a 3-4 NT manning your NT in the 4-3 (Prime Kris Jenkins)? Huge 3-4 DEs have also proven to be very good once they land in the 4-3 (Seymour, Cullen Jenkins, etc.). b0ng posted:If an LT ends up being the BPA available for the draft and your team has a hole at RT is it dumb to draft that player #1 to slot him as a RT for for most if not all of his rookie contract? Duane Brown is signed until 2018 and is only 27 or 28 years old. I know the Texans RT position sucks but can't you find good to great RT's later on? At #1 overall (should the Texans get that) wouldn't it be smarter to draft the best QB or pass rusher on the board and leave O-line to later rounds or free agency? It depends on the prospect. I thought Fisher would excel at RT before sliding to LT because he was a mean streak mauler in college and at the senior bowl. Kind of what made him a household name because I certainly didn't watch him at all until his name started popping up after bowl practices. Otherwise I don't think it matters much. Defensive ends are becoming so great at their job that you're facing some considerable pass rush on both sides of the field now. The issue really does come down to run blocking, and that's got more to do with a lot of other factors than starting a LT at RT. The other issues you worry about is who would you select instead of your new RT, and will this create drama in the clubhouse over who will eventually inherit LT like it did in Kansas City.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:I don't think the idea of 3-4 players or 4-3 players makes a lot of sense. It's about positioning and responsibility, and in a lot of cases that differs between the variants of both fronts to the point where guys in totally different defenses might have more in common than other similarly described fronts. For example, Red Bryant is a 4-3 DE, but he's got more in common with a 2-gap 3-4 DE than he does probably any other 4-3 DE, 1-gap 3-4 DEs, etc. The differences in positioning and responsibility are what create that difference in player types between a 4-3 and 3-4. Certainly some players and positions can be moved around with little hassle, and you've got enough hybrid looks that many players can be a fit in either a 3-4 or 4-3 defense. But what you are asking of your front 7 in a 3-4 and a 4-3 is very different, leading to different requirements when it comes to size/speed athleticism. Players that can transition seamlessly from a 4-3 DE to a 3-4 OLB are not the norm and there's less room for say, a Terrence Cody-type player in a 4-3 defensive line where you don't need a big space-eating nose tackle. Likewise you can have guys who are better-suited to a rangier MLB role than a run-thumping ILB role.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Here's McShay's 1.0 mock. Accuracy isn't expected since his first mock last year had Star, Damontre Moore, and Bjoern Werner 1-3. http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2014/story/_/id/10150969/2014-nfl-mock-draft-todd-mcshay-projects-every-first-round-pick quote:1. HOU - Teddy Bridgewater QB
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Ozu posted:Here's McShay's 1.0 mock. Accuracy isn't expected since his first mock last year had Star, Damontre Moore, and Bjoern Werner 1-3. Scott Wright's is pretty similar, with Bridgewater/Matthews going 1/2 and Atlanta getting Clowney. Right now it's more differences in projected team draft order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Ozu posted:Here's McShay's 1.0 mock. Accuracy isn't expected since his first mock last year had Star, Damontre Moore, and Bjoern Werner 1-3. Do I even want to know?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Most of Cincinnati's CBs are old and/or broken. They're going CB in the first barring them going nuts in free agency. Linebacker is also an option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Do I even want to know? It's his cousin, though pronounced differently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
I thought Miami would go for a OT first? Though it looks like with how few linemen he has going in the first they could probably get a 1st round quality in the second which I suppose would be awesome but it is not likely.
PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Dec 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Scott Wright's is pretty similar, with Bridgewater/Matthews going 1/2 and Atlanta getting Clowney. Right now it's more differences in projected team draft order. Walter has the same top two, but went with Clowney to Jax: quote:1. Houston Texans: Teddy Bridgewater, QB, Louisville
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Obviously, it's an early mock, but that draft looks like a worst case scenario for the Vikings. Khalil Mack only makes sense if they intend to switch to a 3-4, which I think is unlikely. Given how that mock has played out, trading down would be my first option, followed by drafting Nix (350 lb guy with knee issues is a concern), Clinton-Dix, Gilbert, or maybe Tuitt in that order. I'd probably move down a couple picks, try to draft Clinton-Dix and then trade back into the late first for a QB. I guess McCarron, since I'm not sold on Boyd at this juncture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:The differences in positioning and responsibility are what create that difference in player types between a 4-3 and 3-4. A lot of the time you got guys lined up in the same spot and with similar responsibilities and get called different names because of what is occurring around them. A weakside 3-4 DE in a 1-gap scheme is going to line up at the same 3-technique position, with the same general responsibilities as a large chunk of the 4-3 defensive tackles in the league, with the real difference being he gets called a different thing because of what the guy next to him is doing. I'd pretty strongly disagree with the idea of 4-3 DEs not transitioning to 3-4 OLBs. Overwhelmingly, I think that does work out historically, and even a lot of the guys you've come to know as 3-4 OLBs were defensive ends in college, their early NFL career, and frequently continue to split their time between 2 and 3-point stances once they're known as linebackers. If you've got a defensive end who lines up in a 7 to 9-technique kind of position, you'd be better off sticking him at an 3-4 OLB position and giving him minimal coverage responsibilities that he's over-qualified athletically to handle than you would than trying to switch him to a 6-technique 4-3 DE position where he might end up lining up between a TE and RT in a base defense frequently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
I'm really interested to see what the Chargers do in the first couple of rounds. We obviously need tons of defensive help, but we'll go into this offseason with a huge question mark at Left Tackle as well. King Dunlap is obviously not the future and has missed time on three different occasions this year. Fluker has filled in admirably at the LT spot, but he was drafted as an RT to play RT.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Bortles in the top 5? Wow. E: I wonder how much time on draft night is going to be spent on his girlfriend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Azhais posted:Walter has the same top two, but went with Clowney to Jax:
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
If Bortles can't keep it in his pants for one night then he isn't first round material. Or he's definitely first round material. Big Ben muddied up those waters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 00:01
|
|