Recruiting Hierarchy

[CaneSuger]

Right but "good DT's" are easier to find than good DE's... so DE is more important.

****, USF has good DT's. They're all over the place.

I understand why my fellow Miami fans have a hardon for DT's... I mean look at all the great DT's that have come thru this place.... but DE is really more important.

Besides, football has changed since the days of Russell Maryland. Look at the average size of an offensive lineman, for example. In the 1980s, the average offensive lineman was 6'4", 272 pounds. They used to do a lot more pulling with guards and so forth, so they were smaller and quicker.

In 2011, In 2011, the average offensive lineman was 6-foot-5, 310 pounds. All they do is pass protect. That's a 40 pound friggin increase they're going up against.

Offensive linemen are bigger and slower nowadays due to the emphasis on the pass vs the run.

It's impossible to find a human bowling ball who can pound through that kind of size the way we used to. The game is different.

It's a passing league now, and things have evolved. DE's are more important.

DE is the most important spot on the defense. More so than DT.

Wholly disagree with this, especially when you take into account supply/demand.

This.

DTs anchor a defense, without good DTs you can't have a dominant defense.

 

[cowboycane]

I think true DTs are more valuable in recruiting for reasons I already stated plus the following: you can find a running back or linebacker in high school and make them in to an elite pass rusher (Jerry Hughes at TCU off the top of my head). Harder to do with tackles. Not many kids that are 300 pounds in high school play with burst, and it is hard to project a smaller kid that you will have to put 40 pounds on (will they keep their burst or become just another big body).

That's why, in terms of recruiting, a kid like Marcus Forston is more valuable than a kid like Matthew Thomas. Not by much, but gun to my head I am taking the guy that wrecks the middle of the line over the guy who attacks from the edge.

Ask Oregon how their new-age gameplan did against Nick Fairley busting up everything in the middle.

 

[LuCane]

Then why are NFL Defensive Ends paid more than Defensive Tackles?

DE is the most important spot on the defense. More so than DT.

Wholly disagree with this, especially when you take into account supply/demand.

What's the support for your statement that DEs are more important than DTs? Is it that they're paid more in the NFL or is it that football has become a passing game?

 

[CaneSuger]

The fact that offensive lines have evolved is the reason Ends are more valuable in today's game, more so than ever. Putting pressure on the QB is the focal point of the defense, and most pass pressure will come from the ends.

The fact that the NFL generally pays Defensive Ends better is evidence that I'm on to something. At least, it proves that the NFL values Defensive Ends over Defensive Tackles (though both are very important).

Also, why are offensive tackles considered to be more valuable than offensive guards? Same reason.

Then why are NFL Defensive Ends paid more than Defensive Tackles?

DE is the most important spot on the defense. More so than DT.

Wholly disagree with this, especially when you take into account supply/demand.

What's the support for your statement that DEs are more important than DTs? Is it that they're paid more in the NFL or is it that football has become a passing game?

 

[CaneSuger]

Who is worth more.... Fairley or Jadaveon Clowney?

I guarantee you that Clowney will be out-earning Fairley in the NFL. I'm not saying a DT can't be hugely disruptive, hugely valuable, and highly paid... all I'm saying is that elite edge rusher is a bit harder to find.

Put Clowney next to our own Darius Smith, and you've got an elite half of a defensive line. Put FSU's Eddie Goldman next to Ojomo when he played end, and you've got a good line, but not quite as scary.

I think true DTs are more valuable in recruiting for reasons I already stated plus the following: you can find a running back or linebacker in high school and make them in to an elite pass rusher (Jerry Hughes at TCU off the top of my head). Harder to do with tackles. Not many kids that are 300 pounds in high school play with burst, and it is hard to project a smaller kid that you will have to put 40 pounds on (will they keep their burst or become just another big body).

That's why, in terms of recruiting, a kid like Marcus Forston is more valuable than a kid like Matthew Thomas. Not by much, but gun to my head I am taking the guy that wrecks the middle of the line over the guy who attacks from the edge.

Ask Oregon how their new-age gameplan did against Nick Fairley busting up everything in the middle.

 

[DiegoCane]

Right but "good DT's" are easier to find than good DE's... so DE is more important.

****, USF has good DT's. They're all over the place.I understand why my fellow Miami fans have a hardon for DT's... I mean look at all the great DT's that have come thru this place.... but DE is really more important.

Besides, football has changed since the days of Russell Maryland. Look at the average size of an offensive lineman, for example. In the 1980s, the average offensive lineman was 6'4", 272 pounds. They used to do a lot more pulling with guards and so forth, so they were smaller and quicker.

In 2011, In 2011, the average offensive lineman was 6-foot-5, 310 pounds. All they do is pass protect. That's a 40 pound friggin increase they're going up against.

Offensive linemen are bigger and slower nowadays due to the emphasis on the pass vs the run.

It's impossible to find a human bowling ball who can pound through that kind of size the way we used to. The game is different.

It's a passing league now, and things have evolved. DE's are more important.

DE is the most important spot on the defense. More so than DT.

Wholly disagree with this, especially when you take into account supply/demand.

This.

DTs anchor a defense, without good DTs you can't have a dominant defense.

Again disagree. Great DTs are extremely difficult to find.

USF had Jason Pierre-Paul too so not sure what the point of that was. You can do the position game with anything, Jared Allen went to Idaho St, does that mean pass rushing DEs are everywhere?

IMO you can still generate a pass rush without good/great DEs with schemes and creativity, its tough to be a good run defense without good DTs.


Its a passing league now so OL are bigger and slower. What?

 

[CaneSuger]

Just thinking about the teams we played last year. Alright, forget USF then. Kansas State had good DT's. There's another example. A lot of teams do. How many teams have game-changing Defensive Ends?

It is tough to generate a pass rush without DE's (in a 4-3 obviously) without blitzing, but that leaves you wide open somewhere. You are much better off if you can get pressure from the front four.

The problem if your tackles are over aggressive is you can be open to screens. Look at Miami vs FSU from 2010.

And finally, yes, pass blocking offensive lines are normally bigger. That is because in the 1980's and before, when teams mostly ran the ball, there was a lot of pulling and moving on the offensive line.... those guys had to run a lot more laterally and so they had to be a bit quicker.

Since they were quicker, they were a bit smaller, and that left them more vulnerable to getting straight up mauled by the big *** DT's Miami used to parade out there.

Right but "good DT's" are easier to find than good DE's... so DE is more important.

****, USF has good DT's. They're all over the place.I understand why my fellow Miami fans have a hardon for DT's... I mean look at all the great DT's that have come thru this place.... but DE is really more important.

Besides, football has changed since the days of Russell Maryland. Look at the average size of an offensive lineman, for example. In the 1980s, the average offensive lineman was 6'4", 272 pounds. They used to do a lot more pulling with guards and so forth, so they were smaller and quicker.

In 2011, In 2011, the average offensive lineman was 6-foot-5, 310 pounds. All they do is pass protect. That's a 40 pound friggin increase they're going up against.

Offensive linemen are bigger and slower nowadays due to the emphasis on the pass vs the run.

It's impossible to find a human bowling ball who can pound through that kind of size the way we used to. The game is different.

It's a passing league now, and things have evolved. DE's are more important.

DE is the most important spot on the defense. More so than DT.

Wholly disagree with this, especially when you take into account supply/demand.

This.

DTs anchor a defense, without good DTs you can't have a dominant defense.

Again disagree. Great DTs are extremely difficult to find.

USF had Jason Pierre-Paul too so not sure what the point of that was. You can do the position game with anything, Jared Allen went to Idaho St, does that mean pass rushing DEs are everywhere?

IMO you can still generate a pass rush without good/great DEs with schemes and creativity, its tough to be a good run defense without good DTs.


Its a passing league now so OL are bigger and slower. What?

 

[umhurricano]

The most elite DEs earn nearly twice as much as the top earning DTs, which pulls the average for the position way up. What that tells me is that there is a bigger gap between production and value of top DEs and average NFL DEs than there is between top DTs and average DTs, so teams pay a premium for their services.

I think the supply and demand dynamics are a little different in college because there are so many teams. In college, more athletes can be molded into DEs who wouldn't play the position in the NFL. While there are plenty of 6'-6'4", 300 lb guys to go around a 32 team league, there aren't enough to go around 112 (or whatever it is) D1 football programs.

Not sure whether I would rather have an elite DE or DT in college, but leaning towards DT based on the success of the past few national champions with monster interior defensive linemen.

 

[UMcanesfan420]

I'm gonna take the DT side here. This is college. When you have a DT that dominates it takes away the middle. You can chip and do little things to disrupt a DE. Throw quick passes and whatnot.


The Canes are the best example. When is the last time we had a dominant DT? Wilfork? We were good then. We have had DE's and still sucked. Calais Campbell, etc. Bama has DT's and they dominate. So does LSU. Oklahoma has had some DT's as well.

 

[RepTheGables]

Suger makes some good points, but I think that DT is the second-most important position on the field (after punter, of course).

Elite DEs put pressure on the QB. Elite DTs put pressure on the QB and make the offense one-dimensional. An excellent example of this is the 2010 season's championship game. Fairley took LaMichael James out of the game and put undue pressure on Darron Thomas. As it was noted earlier, he- not Cam, won the game for his team.

Of course, game-breaking DEs are always something you want on your team. But it ain't just nostalgia for Cortez Kennedy, Russell Maryland, and Warren Sapp that makes me love the DT position. They bring complete dominance to the defense in a way that no other position typically does.

 

[LuCane]

The fact that offensive lines have evolved is the reason Ends are more valuable in today's game, more so than ever. Putting pressure on the QB is the focal point of the defense, and most pass pressure will come from the ends.

The fact that the NFL generally pays Defensive Ends better is evidence that I'm on to something. At least, it proves that the NFL values Defensive Ends over Defensive Tackles (though both are very important).

Also, why are offensive tackles considered to be more valuable than offensive guards? Same reason.

Then why are NFL Defensive Ends paid more than Defensive Tackles?

DE is the most important spot on the defense. More so than DT.

Wholly disagree with this, especially when you take into account supply/demand.

What's the support for your statement that DEs are more important than DTs? Is it that they're paid more in the NFL or is it that football has become a passing game?

5 of the last 7 NFL drafts have a DT (3-4 SSDE, the Richard Seymour position, counts as a DT to me) taken before a DE. I strongly believe that, whatever the glamour position may be, a defense starts inside. The reason is shockingly simple: the most efficient play for an offense (who's charged with the task of marching toward its goal, the end zone, in the most efficient way possible) is to run directly down the middle in a straight line for as many yards as possible. The defense's natural reaction is to be able to control the middle of every play.

In fact, I think you've seen general managers believe in this so much that it forced an emphasis on DTs --> which led to offenses adjusting to a spread sets --> which led to the need you've described for edge guys. However, what will you see if teams decide to de-emphasize DTs? Offenses will once again adjust for efficiency. They'll run I-Formation HB Slams for 6-8 yards at a time until defenses once again adjust.

And, therein lies the beauty of football. It's like the Free Market. Supply, demand, corrections, adjustments in the name of efficiency. And, in the end, the name of the game is whatever produces the most output (for an offense) or whatever slows down that output (defense).

Football is life?

 

[Canesfan1899]

Love the debate, lot's of great info and ideas in this thread.

 

[OkieCane]

Think what Suh did in college from the DT position, he single handedly dominated teams

 

[cowboycane]

Think what Suh did in college from the DT position, he single handedly dominated teams

Exactly. And while he was busy tearing up the middle, his defensive ends were getting one on one matchups that any good defensive end should win a few times a game. And even better, if they were really getting off then a tight end or fullback had to stay in and chip, which meant a blitzing corner or 'backer had a clear path to the quarterback. And all of a sudden, instead of a QB having 5 seconds to get comfortable and find a target, they had 3 or less. So their corners could be left on an island (made Prince Amakumara look good enough to be a first round pick) without safety help, and their safeties turned in to center fielders.

All because you had one awesome guy in the middle. Now make Suh a great defensive end. He gets doubled on the outside, but that doesnt mean the interior linemen are preoccupied. Teams can run up the gut and minimize his impact.

 

[killa1storm]

Elite DE over elite D-Tackle?

Cmon man. An elite D-tackle effectively takes away the middle of the field. Him forcing a double team creates lanes for linebackers to run free to the ball carrier. And in the passing game it collapses the pocket forcing the QB outside where he can be gobbled up. With an elite DE you can run away from him, draw him, screen him, etc. You can't escape a dominating presence in the middle. Not to mention 300+ lb. guys who can move are rare. You're going to have a tougher time finding those than a 240 lb. guy who can move.

 

[Canezach]

DE is the most important spot on the defense. More so than DT.

Then why are NFL Defensive Ends paid more than Defensive Tackles?

Right but "good DT's" are easier to find than good DE's... so DE is more important.

****, USF has good DT's. They're all over the place.

Who is worth more.... Fairley or Jadaveon Clowney?

I guarantee you that Clowney will be out-earning Fairley in the NFL. I'm not saying a DT can't be hugely disruptive, hugely valuable, and highly paid... all I'm saying is that elite edge rusher is a bit harder to find.

Put Clowney next to our own Darius Smith, and you've got an elite half of a defensive line. Put FSU's Eddie Goldman next to Ojomo when he played end, and you've got a good line, but not quite as scary.

ETA: What Killa1storm said is all the truth. With a great DT, which are far, FAR more rare than great DEs, your entire defense's job is made easier, especially at the college level. You can argue a great DE might be more valuable at the pro level, but not in college.

 

[CaneLB]

QB
Pass Rusher (end or tweener)
Elite corner
Offensive playmaker (a go to guy like Duke Johnson or Sammy Watkins)
Every-down/bell cow back
Blindside OT
Disruptive DT
Middle Linebacker
Smart C that can lead and make the line calls

 

[Ethnicsands]

While i get the discussion of general theory here, it's not helpful as applied to specific kids or years, IMO. This is all about needs and individuals. And it's game theory.

Kirkland is incredibly important, IMO, because we have only gotten 3 OL in two years, and have only one other this year, and we generally have a harder time finding great OL prospects than Lb ones. So think NEED. He is also a physical beast, elite level OL prospect, and can be an anchor on our interior line for 3+ years. By contrast, while i love Thomas's potential, i think we will be very good at LB whether we get him or not. So in the game theory of recruiting, i rank Kirkland higher.

Likewise, DTs are always valuable, but if we get Bain, Bryant and Bostwick this year, next year DT will be less of a priority. Again, needs play in year to year, een if over time, on average, they seem less important that positions.

 

[TheSwagger1]

I don't like that the thread has "recruiting" in it, implying CFB, and the discussion took a strong turn to NFL salaries. I don't think position values are the same in college as they are in the NFL.

 

[moshated305]

With game being more pass happy I would want an elite pass rushing end over a dominated DT. My top 5:

QB
OL
pass rushing DE
lock down CB
dominate DT

Of course elite playmakers at WR and RB makes things easier as well but you get by good to serviceable guys if have the above. Same thing defensively at LB and S.