JR's DT Philosophy

ago as well. Makes me think you go to well to draft a DT, but you can fill your roster out with bargain veterans and undrafted FAs. If a good DT is available in FA, like a Canty was, then you sign one. However, I think it's draft 1 or 2, and fill the rest with bargain buys from the clearance rack.

I think that's the LB philosophy too. I remember on ESPN he asked the hosts to name the starting LBs for the 2 Sbs and they couldn't proving Reeses point that you can get Lbs that aren't blue chip guys.

but they don't seem compelled to pay their homegrown talent when they find it, and they have not had luck finding that rush DT. Austin washed out. Alford got hurt.

There is always a run-stop first DT (Hankins, Joseph, Cofield) and a pocket-pushing rush DT (Robbins, Canty at his best, Jenkins)

The problem is when you drop the ball in the draft and take a stiff like Austin with the second pick. Then your developmental guy is not there to step up when you let the proven DT like Joseph walk. Hopefully Hankins will fill one spot and a one year rental will fill the other spot next year. If not our solid DL defense from last year will be gone again.

the NYG will pay a ot for. Neither will the starting 1 technique DT be a guy that they invest a lot in either for that matter, which is part of the reason why they let Linval walk.

If a beast DT is sitting there on draft day and is BPA, I don't think Reese would pass him up in lieu of sticking to a "cheap vet" strategy. I think a more trending DT philosophy for Reese would be to not pay big FA bucks on them, including re-signing our own draft choices like Joseph. Obviously Chris Canty is an exception to this, but that's ancient history by now.

Reese like to have veteran depth so he has experienced, proven players and to keep guys fresh. If you notice, the giants have all run stopping d linemand including DE's. JPP is a good pass rusher, but i wouldn't consider him an elite one right now. I am sure he can be, but reality is, he hasn't proven it recently.

You don't need studs. There's better value in getting a B- performance out of very low paid veterans than there is in paying top dollar for top performance. Similarly, it's better to draft and get 3-4 years of cost-controlled performance from rookie contracts than to be the one rewarding the player with the big payday.

I know I know DT is vital it does X/Y/Z, but some positions are necessarily more/less valuable than others. It's not equal.

That's especially true for a player like Linval Joseph. A tough run stopper who doesn't provide enough pass rush or penetrating disruption to warrant the FA contract. I suppose the situation could differ with a really outstanding all around DT, but the Giants unfortunately haven't been in a position to have to deal with that yet.

About the play of DT's itself, while I understand the 3-technique and the 1-technique designations, does DT play vary much from system to system? Is that a factor that lends itself to this type of approach?

For instance, we've been made well aware for how long it took some WR's to understand our former offensive systems.

Do responsibilities ever vary greatly for DT's?

Parcells disagrees with about the C. According to Bill very important & hard to find.

Sure, some are two gap, others plays in a 1 gap system. And then you add 43 and 34 defenses into the equation and sub divide from there. For example, 34 1 gap system vs the traditional 34 2 gap system.

You can get variation between DTs that have to do different things in different systems. You have specific body types and technique used. It's up to the GM, DC, or Director of Scouting to figure out of that body type and what the guy has on tape can fit in your system.

that today's NFL is becoming more and more multiple on the defensive front. Teams aren't really pigeonholing themselves into the neat little labels anymore.

Fans have been slow to catch up to that.

may be the last bastion of 'sandlot' football, that may be that: currently players know their responsibilities and talk amongst themselves regarding the play by play variations, or at least that this part of scheming is less dynamic as instructions come in.

IMHO teams that have success, are, or will be, using much greater variety on a play by play basis, this being worked out in detail pre-season, (not scripted, but named and thought out fully) and that elements of what is currently called 3/4, 4/3 and even '46' (not same derivation as above, name wise) will be more mixed.

and just say 'a 3 tech' or 'a nose' or 'a DE'...each player is different, work to maximize them.

Wade Phillips has had one gap 34 alignments as a feature in his defenses for years. And lots of teams have been playing around with that recently.

Teams like the Patriots switch from 43 to 34 week to week depending on opponent. Seattle has all sorts of alignments in their defense. You'll have 43 teams play two gap alignments

The league is probably more multiple on defense now than ever.

he is a one gap player in a 34, look how much success Phillips had with him.

Phillips was always a one gap 34 guy.

In comment 11621226 alligatorpie said:

Quote:

and just say 'a 3 tech' or 'a nose' or 'a DE'...each player is different, work to maximize them.

Certainly players have their strengths and weaknesses, but these two do seem rather similar. Their projections were similar at the time they were drafted, and they served similar roles on their college teams.

The Giants very first snap on defense last year against Dallas was a 34 look if I recall correctly

If a John Henderson were available when they were on the clock, he'd wear NYG colors. But, the value typically hasn't been there in the draft and they've invested their heavy cap dollars in DEs and had a ton tied up in Rolle + Webster in the past.

Director of Scouting have their models for what they like about certain positions. I read the Ron Wolf book, and it was excellent. He talked about liking big Cbs. One year a CB with talent was there but didn't meet his ideal model. He drafted the player anyways. That was Terrell Buckley, or T buc from GB, but played a lot with the Dolphins.He was the 1992 5th overall pick in the draft.

5'10 180. Wolf said the player had talent, but didn't fit his model for CB. Yet, against his better judgement, he drafted him. He stated that was regret in the book because he should have stuck with the model. If that player fit the need so be it, he had to fit the model, and he learned that the hard way.

So it all depends on our model of how we view these DTs. If we like our DTs bigger than even if a smaller DT is in free agency or available in the draft, it comes down to does he fit our model? Do we have an established model?

Tom Brady cited our size on the DL. Remember him mic'd up during the SB saying, " It's like throwing in a forest. Their arms are like... " He was sitting next to Welker telling him this.

So if we like size to our DTs no matter what, does a smaller DT fit no matter how good he can be? How about another position as well? This could apply to QB if the FO have a model that they want a QB to have X,Y,Z body dimensions as a starting point.


Terrell Buckley - ( New Window )

No premium on DTs of LBs, then we get all pissed when teams abuse the D by going straight up the middle. And we pay 9M for a safety and are impressed because he leads the team in tackles.

sorry

I am sure Reese and Ross can say they won 2 Sbs, Reese for 2, with not putting a premium at those positions. You can't put a premium at all spots. So I am sure we have spots we do, and others you draft later on, sign on the FA market, and bring in undrafted FAs.

Draft good players high but don't expect to retain them beyond their rookie contract.

Cornelius Griffin(2nd 2000)
William Joseph(1st 2003)
Barry Cofield(4th 2006)
Jay Alford(3rd 2007)
Linval Joseph(2nd 2010)
Marvin Austin(2nd 2011)

This list includes every significant draft pick spent at the DT position since 2000(14 years). Not a single player regardless of performance has signed a second contract with the NY Giants.

This data promotes several possible conclusions.

One: the team wasn't in financial position to retain their services(not supported by this years free agent activity as compared to the FA contract Linval Joseph signed).

Two: the team feels they can readily find capable replacements in the draft so sees no need to spend premium cap dollars on the position.

Three: The team doesn't see value in allocating premium level cap dollars at the position.

IMO it's a combination of the latter two driving the Giants decision making process regarding DT.

Great post Anish.

Except for Linval & Cofield, the rest of the drafted DTs which Torrag listed were all one-gap tackles.

As noted, Tom likes big dominating tackles lie the ones he had at JAX (where he didn't have to check with anybody to OK his draft picks). Tom, has often reiterated that he emphasizes dominant line play - that's HIS philosophy.

Reese, I suspect is still inclined to go back to the Accorsi philosophy of drafting one-gap types.

So, I think now it's a compromise between the two types (with the emphasis on run stoppers, but a sprinkling of one gap guys like Austin and Patterson).

Seattle, showed last year that a flu corps of both types is hard to beat. This year, they lost Red Bryant (which I think will hurt them).

Not "flu" corps, but if all of them had the flu, they could give it to the opposition, and they would be hard to stop !

When a rare talent comes along.

For instance the position Reese has clearly spent the least amount of high picks on is LB. He has even been quoted as saying the position is deemphasized in our system. However our love for pass rush is so big he drafted Sintim high due to his belief he could generate pass rush. Also if a guy like Mack fell to 12 , I could see him easily being the pick due to his rare do it all ability as a LB.

I think this exception also applies to Donald. There hasnt been a DT since Suh (whos College numbers still werent as good as Donalds) that comes close to his pass rush ability. With that said if hes still there at 12, that will be hard to pass up.