Are there any DTs in the world...

[TheSwagger1]

who meet the following criteria:
1. Elite talent
2. Have grades
3. Not total psychopath
4. Not SEC country or an SEC feeder JUCO?
???

Does such a creature exist?

 

[NVA CANE]

I'd add that want to potentially play right away. You would think DTs woukd be throwing themselves at the opportunity.

 

[rudebuddha]

who meet the following criteria:
1. Elite talent
2. Have grades
3. Not total psychopath
4. Not SEC country or an SEC feeder JUCO?
???

Does such a creature exist?

Olsen Pierre, Jalen Grimble, Earl Moore, Luther Robinson, Jury is still out on Porter being a psycho, but the talent is there.

 

[AUcane]

who meet the following criteria:
1. Elite talent
2. Have grades
3. Not total psychopath
4. Not SEC country or an SEC feeder JUCO?
???

Does such a creature exist?

Olsen Pierre, Jalen Grimble, Earl Moore, Luther Robinson, Jury is still out on Porter being a psycho, but the talent is there.

I think you're making Swagg's point.

 

[TheSwagger1]

who meet the following criteria:
1. Elite talent
2. Have grades
3. Not total psychopath
4. Not SEC country or an SEC feeder JUCO?
???

Does such a creature exist?

Olsen Pierre, Jalen Grimble, Earl Moore, Luther Robinson, Jury is still out on Porter being a psycho, but the talent is there.

I think you're making Swagg's point.

Exactly.

 

[rudebuddha]

who meet the following criteria:
1. Elite talent
2. Have grades
3. Not total psychopath
4. Not SEC country or an SEC feeder JUCO?
???

Does such a creature exist?

Olsen Pierre, Jalen Grimble, Earl Moore, Luther Robinson, Jury is still out on Porter being a psycho, but the talent is there.

I think you're making Swagg's point.

Exactly.

Point is that when these guys all signed on the dotted line we all thought it was Christmas morning. The talent is there it's up to the player and the coaches to bring it to the forefront.

 

[rudebuddha]

who meet the following criteria:
1. Elite talent
2. Have grades
3. Not total psychopath
4. Not SEC country or an SEC feeder JUCO?
???

Does such a creature exist?

Olsen Pierre, Jalen Grimble, Earl Moore, Luther Robinson, Jury is still out on Porter being a psycho, but the talent is there.

I think you're making Swagg's point.

Exactly.

All I'm saying is that every DT we have has flashed elite ability, even if only for a couple plays. It's there. You can see it.
We have to find a way to make those flashes constant. For us to become a top defense they don't even have to be great, just good.
A 2 deep of 4 good DT's each producing 4-5 sacks and 8-10 TFL's a season is good enough for us to be dominant.

 

[cowboycane]

If we get 20 sacks and 40 TFLs from our D Tackles they will be having conversations about us beating the Jaguars.

 

[bolivar]

Elite DT's are hard to find. There's probably only about 5 per recruiting cycle. For the record, I don't think Bryant is an elite DT. He's probably very good, but go compare his film to Montravious Adams and you'll see what I mean. That being said, I would love to have some "good" to "very good" DT's in this class..

 

[rudebuddha]

If we get 20 sacks and 40 TFLs from our D Tackles they will be having conversations about us beating the Jaguars.

That's my point. We don't need one great one kicking ***. Actually we do need that everyone needs that.
But just having 4 good ones each doing good production. Rotating them in and out so they come in like rampaging bulls ready to gore a matador's balls off.
4-5 sacks each and 8-10 TFL's a season is a sack each every 3 games, and one tackle of a running back for a loss 8 out of 12 games.
That a lot to demand from your DT's?

 

[caneinpsl]

If we get 20 sacks and 40 TFLs from our D Tackles they will be having conversations about us beating the Jaguars.

That's my point. We don't need one great one kicking ***. Actually we do need that everyone needs that.
But just having 4 good ones each doing good production. Rotating them in and out so they come in like rampaging bulls ready to gore a matador's balls off.
4-5 sacks each and 8-10 TFL's a season is a sack each every 3 games, and one tackle of a running back for a loss 8 out of 12 games.
That a lot to demand from your DT's?

Yes. Demanding 4-5 sacks a year out each DT in your rotation is a lot. Depending on what scheme you run, 10 sacks a year may be all you get out of ALL of your DT's in a season of good play.

 

[LuCane]

Khairi Clark?

 

[LuCane]

Elite DT's are hard to find. There's probably only about 5 per recruiting cycle. For the record, I don't think Bryant is an elite DT. He's probably very good, but go compare his film to Montravious Adams and you'll see what I mean. That being said, I would love to have some "good" to "very good" DT's in this class..

I said this here:http://canesinsight.co/showthread.php?39547-Keith-Bryant-senior-highlights&highlight=keith+bryant

 

[rudebuddha]

If we get 20 sacks and 40 TFLs from our D Tackles they will be having conversations about us beating the Jaguars.

That's my point. We don't need one great one kicking ***. Actually we do need that everyone needs that.
But just having 4 good ones each doing good production. Rotating them in and out so they come in like rampaging bulls ready to gore a matador's balls off.
4-5 sacks each and 8-10 TFL's a season is a sack each every 3 games, and one tackle of a running back for a loss 8 out of 12 games.
That a lot to demand from your DT's?

Yes. Demanding 4-5 sacks a year out each DT in your rotation is a lot. Depending on what scheme you run, 10 sacks a year may be all you get out of ALL of your DT's in a season of good play.

Not with the attacking scheme we use to run in the good old 25 year run we had as College Football's most dominant program.
This whole "tie up the offensive linemen so our lb's can attack" scheme doesn't really work for me. That scheme is us reacting to the offense instead of us making the offense react to us pile driving their qb and running back.
I've been so sick of seeing our D line just engage with our patented bull rush that hardly ever works. Knife through and penetrate.
If you say we don't have the talent to penetrate then that is B.S. because we flash that talent.
When's the last time we saw a d linemen be it tackle or end do a spin move?
**** when is the last time we saw a d lineman draw a holding call because he was getting ready to decapitate a quarterback?
No need to hold a d lineman when all they do is run right at you.

 

[caneinpsl]

If we get 20 sacks and 40 TFLs from our D Tackles they will be having conversations about us beating the Jaguars.

That's my point. We don't need one great one kicking ***. Actually we do need that everyone needs that.
But just having 4 good ones each doing good production. Rotating them in and out so they come in like rampaging bulls ready to gore a matador's balls off.
4-5 sacks each and 8-10 TFL's a season is a sack each every 3 games, and one tackle of a running back for a loss 8 out of 12 games.
That a lot to demand from your DT's?

Yes. Demanding 4-5 sacks a year out each DT in your rotation is a lot. Depending on what scheme you run, 10 sacks a year may be all you get out of ALL of your DT's in a season of good play.

Not with the attacking scheme we use to run in the good old 25 year run we had as College Football's most dominant program.
This whole "tie up the offensive linemen so our lb's can attack" scheme doesn't really work for me. That scheme is us reacting to the offense instead of us making the offense react to us pile driving their qb and running back.
I've been so sick of seeing our D line just engage with our patented bull rush that hardly ever works. Knife through and penetrate.
If you say we don't have the talent to penetrate then that is B.S. because we flash that talent.
When's the last time we saw a d linemen be it tackle or end do a spin move?
**** when is the last time we saw a d lineman draw a holding call because he was getting ready to decapitate a quarterback?
No need to hold a d lineman when all they do is run right at you.

I agree our scheme doesn't encourage penetration by our DT's, but even if we did run a scheme that was conducive to DT pressure, asking for 5 sacks from each of your DT's is a lot. Wilfork was the definition of an elite DT, and he had 14 sacks in 3 years here. You expect to have a rotation of four Vince Wilforks? I get your point though that we need a solid rotation of guys, not necessarily an elite guy. I just don't agree with the production you were projecting. I Right now I'll settle for a group of guys who don't give up 7-10 yards on every **** 1st down running play.

 

[rudebuddha]

If we get 20 sacks and 40 TFLs from our D Tackles they will be having conversations about us beating the Jaguars.

That's my point. We don't need one great one kicking ***. Actually we do need that everyone needs that.
But just having 4 good ones each doing good production. Rotating them in and out so they come in like rampaging bulls ready to gore a matador's balls off.
4-5 sacks each and 8-10 TFL's a season is a sack each every 3 games, and one tackle of a running back for a loss 8 out of 12 games.
That a lot to demand from your DT's?

Yes. Demanding 4-5 sacks a year out each DT in your rotation is a lot. Depending on what scheme you run, 10 sacks a year may be all you get out of ALL of your DT's in a season of good play.

Not with the attacking scheme we use to run in the good old 25 year run we had as College Football's most dominant program.
This whole "tie up the offensive linemen so our lb's can attack" scheme doesn't really work for me. That scheme is us reacting to the offense instead of us making the offense react to us pile driving their qb and running back.
I've been so sick of seeing our D line just engage with our patented bull rush that hardly ever works. Knife through and penetrate.
If you say we don't have the talent to penetrate then that is B.S. because we flash that talent.
When's the last time we saw a d linemen be it tackle or end do a spin move?
**** when is the last time we saw a d lineman draw a holding call because he was getting ready to decapitate a quarterback?
No need to hold a d lineman when all they do is run right at you.

I agree our scheme doesn't encourage penetration by our DT's, but even if we did run a scheme that was conducive to DT pressure, asking for 5 sacks from each of your DT's is a lot. Wilfork was the definition of an elite DT, and he had 14 sacks in 3 years here. You expect to have a rotation of four Vince Wilforks? I get your point though that we need a solid rotation of guys, not necessarily an elite guy. I just don't agree with the production you were projecting. I Right now I'll settle for a group of guys who don't give up 7-10 yards on every **** 1st down running play.

I agree, 4-5 sacks from a DT is a lot to ask in this day and age. It never used to be. Christ, it's a sack every 3 games. That's a lot to demand from your DT's? Tackle that running back once a game for a one yard loss. That's not too much to demand.
Demand excellence and if you only get greatness or even only good, then that works.
You can't ask for a rotation of 4 Wilfork's, but we can ask for a rotation of 4 Regis's.

 

[caneinpsl]

That's my point. We don't need one great one kicking ***. Actually we do need that everyone needs that.
But just having 4 good ones each doing good production. Rotating them in and out so they come in like rampaging bulls ready to gore a matador's balls off.
4-5 sacks each and 8-10 TFL's a season is a sack each every 3 games, and one tackle of a running back for a loss 8 out of 12 games.
That a lot to demand from your DT's?

Yes. Demanding 4-5 sacks a year out each DT in your rotation is a lot. Depending on what scheme you run, 10 sacks a year may be all you get out of ALL of your DT's in a season of good play.

Not with the attacking scheme we use to run in the good old 25 year run we had as College Football's most dominant program.
This whole "tie up the offensive linemen so our lb's can attack" scheme doesn't really work for me. That scheme is us reacting to the offense instead of us making the offense react to us pile driving their qb and running back.
I've been so sick of seeing our D line just engage with our patented bull rush that hardly ever works. Knife through and penetrate.
If you say we don't have the talent to penetrate then that is B.S. because we flash that talent.
When's the last time we saw a d linemen be it tackle or end do a spin move?
**** when is the last time we saw a d lineman draw a holding call because he was getting ready to decapitate a quarterback?
No need to hold a d lineman when all they do is run right at you.

I agree our scheme doesn't encourage penetration by our DT's, but even if we did run a scheme that was conducive to DT pressure, asking for 5 sacks from each of your DT's is a lot. Wilfork was the definition of an elite DT, and he had 14 sacks in 3 years here. You expect to have a rotation of four Vince Wilforks? I get your point though that we need a solid rotation of guys, not necessarily an elite guy. I just don't agree with the production you were projecting. I Right now I'll settle for a group of guys who don't give up 7-10 yards on every **** 1st down running play.

I agree, 4-5 sacks from a DT is a lot to ask in this day and age. It never used to be. Christ, it's a sack every 3 games. That's a lot to demand from your DT's? Tackle that running back once a game for a one yard loss. That's not too much to demand.
Demand excellence and if you only get greatness or even only good, then that works.
You can't ask for a rotation of 4 Wilfork's, but we can ask for a rotation of 4 Regis's.

To be honest I think we have a group of guys that will be exactly that. They were just all kids this year. DT is the LAST position on the field that I'm comfortable throwing a kid out there who was attending his Senior prom 6 months earlier.

 

[rudebuddha]

I agree that's my point. We have 8 DT's right now and every one of them has the potential to be very good if not great.
We just have to work with them and develop them.

 

[CaneSuger]

I'm more worried about Miami's Defensive Ends than our DTs.

Go watch Notre Dame or Kansas State games again. We got owned on the ends, that's the problem. What are we doing about THAT?