PDA

View Full Version : No DT = failed draft?


IHaveALight
04-11-2012, 09:45 AM
Yet again we approach the draft and yet again DT is the weakest link, as has been for years. Is this the year the Broncos throw us a bone, or are we bound for another post draft DT meltdown?

Rabb
04-11-2012, 09:49 AM
I think just like any other year, it's not going to go like all of us armchair GMs would like it to and then things will be just fine although the sky is falling, then next year we will have this discussion again.

Lestat
04-11-2012, 09:49 AM
no not a failed draft, it means fans storm the gates at Dove Valley and we see Elway dragged out and dispense of through some old school drawn and quartering.

bronco militia
04-11-2012, 09:51 AM
from don banks latest mock draft



25 DT Michael Brockers LSU Soph. 6-6 306
The Broncos defense got run on in the second half of 2011, and Brockers is a prospect who can develop into a middle-of-the-line anchor for John Fox's team. Stanford tight end Coby Fleener is the name to know if Denver opts for offense in the first round.

lmao! .....this place will burn

http://www.cnnsi.com/2012/writers/don_banks/04/11/2012.nfl.mock.draft.5/index.html?sct=nfl_t11_a0

Garcia Bronco
04-11-2012, 09:54 AM
No it doesn't. Only an idiot would take a DT just to take one. It has to be the right fit otherwise one is better off taking BPA in relation to the teams grades

Rabb
04-11-2012, 09:55 AM
No it doesn't. Only an idiot would take a DT just to take one.

oh no, you have it all wrong, if we don't take DT no matter what in rounds 1 and 2 it's a failed draft

:~ohyah!:

Drunken.Broncoholic
04-11-2012, 09:57 AM
from don banks latest mock draft



25 DT Michael Brockers LSU Soph. 6-6 306
The Broncos defense got run on in the second half of 2011, and Brockers is a prospect who can develop into a middle-of-the-line anchor for John Fox's team. Stanford tight end Coby Fleener is the name to know if Denver opts for offense in the first round.

lmao! .....this place will burn

http://www.cnnsi.com/2012/writers/don_banks/04/11/2012.nfl.mock.draft.5/index.html?sct=nfl_t11_a0


Don Banks didn't do his broncos FA addition research.

BroncoBen
04-11-2012, 09:58 AM
from don banks latest mock draft



25 DT Michael Brockers LSU Soph. 6-6 306
The Broncos defense got run on in the second half of 2011, and Brockers is a prospect who can develop into a middle-of-the-line anchor for John Fox's team. Stanford tight end Coby Fleener is the name to know if Denver opts for offense in the first round.

lmao! .....this place will burn

http://www.cnnsi.com/2012/writers/don_banks/04/11/2012.nfl.mock.draft.5/index.html?sct=nfl_t11_a0

No kidding... the last thing the Broncos need is another TE.

Rohirrim
04-11-2012, 09:58 AM
We've got Warren and Vickerson. We're set.

bronco militia
04-11-2012, 09:59 AM
No kidding... the last thing the Broncos need is another TE.

since Sharpe retired, there's always at least one mock draft of the broncos taking a TE in the first round.

That One Guy
04-11-2012, 09:59 AM
I feel like I can give Fox the benefit of the doubt with DL in the way we could give Shanny the benefit with RB. Maybe not to the same scale but I thought there were a lot of times, particularly pre-Miller's injury, where the DL was playing well. When Shanny was running things, you knew DL was going to be a problem that noone had an answer to.

That said, I'd still like some DTs. I just wont be as annoyed as I was when they were passing on Bryant, Laws, and the 800 other DTs we all wanted them to take around here.

Rohirrim
04-11-2012, 10:00 AM
We just signed Bannan. /thread

v2micca
04-11-2012, 10:05 AM
I'm normally not one to declare a draft a failure if we do not pick up a specific position. But the fact is we don't have anything to start the defensive tackle position for us this year. The free agent market has largely dried up for the position at this point. We are going to be reduced to signing practice squad scrubs just to fill the position this year. I'm not going to go as far as calling our off season anything resembling a failure, but if we can't do something to fill that spot by opening day, I can definitely call it flawed.

TheReverend
04-11-2012, 10:09 AM
**** dt

BroncoBen
04-11-2012, 10:17 AM
I'm normally not one to declare a draft a failure if we do not pick up a specific position. But the fact is we don't have anything to start the defensive tackle position for us this year. The free agent market has largely dried up for the position at this point. We are going to be reduced to signing practice squad scrubs just to fill the position this year. I'm not going to go as far as calling our off season anything resembling a failure, but if we can't do something to fill that spot by opening day, I can definitely call it flawed.

For me this is not entirely true... I would pencil in Ty Warren and Kevin Vickerson as the Broncos starters on the D-Line. Granted we will not know until training camp how healthy these guys are. But I am sure the Broncos have a good idea... signing players and drafting for depth is the issue.

The Broncos really don't have to use a 1st round pick on a DT.

To me that first round pick is going to have to contribute if not start right away.

broncocalijohn
04-11-2012, 10:36 AM
We just signed Bannan. /thread

Have we forgot?

OrangeSe7en
04-11-2012, 10:43 AM
I learned my lesson last year and that was a better year for DTs. And hearing the way Elway spoke about Miller kind of suggested to me that he's looking at impact players and not at drafting out of desperation. At this point, I'm kind of giving Fox the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making do at DT. He did it last year. Bunkley cost us a late round pick. I'm hoping something like that might happen again.

While I recognize the benefit in investing in DTs, they also scare me and if we can do what we did with Bunkley last year, drafting other positions is something I'd be open to.

Requiem
04-11-2012, 10:46 AM
There are five players who are legitimate first round talents. There are about two or three guys you would take in the second. If the Broncos don't land one of those guys, I'd consider it a huge miss.

shalowlow
04-11-2012, 11:13 AM
My current opinion on the draft is bpa no matter what, even if we are talking about a position that the team seems to be set at (i.e. TE).

Having a pro bowl caliber player sitting on the bench is infinitely better than having a bad player picked at a position of need sitting on the bench behind a guy signed for the veteran minimum. Both are not playing, but one has value that can be taken advantage of either later down the line, or in terms of a trade.

It takes a lot of control to not fall in love with a guy strictly because it's a position of need, but if there is a better player at a different position, it is much much more valuable than picking a guy based only on his position and hoping you can coach him up.

I will not be upset if we don't pick a DT in this draft.

EmpireOrange
04-11-2012, 11:25 AM
Although all this whinning amongs OM posters (even after EFX just pulled off the greatest offseason coupe in free agency history) provides great enjoyment, this poll is just dumb. The whiny biatches here - for sake of account standards, I'll go ahead and categorize them as teboners too - are jus whiney biatches for the sake of whining. What is missing here (on OM), is an adjustment of attitude to account for the fact that the Broncos have an elite quarterback now, and in this NFL, elite QBs are gold.

Denver's defense currently is better the Pats and Green Bay and both ruled the league last year because of thier QB. In today's NFL super bowls are most often than not won with an Investment-grade, if not tripple-A rated, offense complimented by an medium-grade - or even speculative-grade - defense who exce; at limiting points scored - not stopping, but minimizing points (e.g., field goals). Defenses are better when the offense can dictate the game, because opposing offenses have to play differently. Von and Dumervile are going to have an all pro season, believe that!

Denver's priority is to have a triple-A rated offense. The defense will improve.

broncosteven
04-11-2012, 11:34 AM
It is hard to say the draft was a failure if we don't land a DT but get a bunch of other good picks, I don't think we need a 1st day DT pick to get good solid rotational guys but it would be nice if they could draft 1.

Bacchus
04-11-2012, 12:28 PM
Denver's defense currently is better the Pats and Green Bay and both ruled the league last year because of thier QB. In today's NFL super bowls are most often than not won with an Investment-grade, if not tripple-A rated, offense complimented by an medium-grade - or even speculative-grade - defense who exce; at limiting points scored - not stopping, but minimizing points (e.g., field goals). Defenses are better when the offense can dictate the game, because opposing offenses have to play differently. Von and Dumervile are going to have an all pro season, believe that!

Denver's priority is to have a triple-A rated offense. The defense will improve.

Quoted for truth!!

Taco John
04-11-2012, 12:46 PM
I don't think you "win" drafts by drafting specific positions. You win drafts by getting the best amount of value for your picks, regardless of position.

Mountain Bronco
04-11-2012, 12:48 PM
Was last years draft a bust because we didn't address DT? It was by far our biggest need last year and we didn't address it and I would call the draft a success so far. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-11-2012, 12:49 PM
I don't think you "win" drafts by drafting specific positions. You win drafts by getting the best amount of value for your picks, regardless of position.

agreed...that said. Lets not draft a TE in the first round :)

kappys
04-11-2012, 01:23 PM
Last year we had nothing and Elway pulled off a quick trade for Bunkley, resigned Marcus Thomas and got Ty Warren(who is effective though not spectacular if healthy). Not great but not terrible either. I'll wait until training camp before I decide our DT situation is beyond hope.

Lestat
04-11-2012, 01:32 PM
i really think it will be more relative to how many and how high(no movie jokes) than if we don't take one in the first round.

the reason i say this is i think most would rather see us take 3 DT's overall and them coming before the 5th rather than taking a DT in the first and not drafting another one at all.
since Pryce we have ignored the DT position as a whole in the draft and tried to use bandaids in FA or late round guys. i think Dorsett Davis was the highest drafted guy since Pryce. we have to put a lot of focus and resources into the DT position because it needs to be addressed and fixed not only for this year but moving forward for multiple seasons.

Kaylore
04-11-2012, 01:33 PM
Theoretically if we aren't able to find even one, that's a problem.

That said, if in one draft we selected the next Sharpe, TD, Atwater, Mecklenberg and Rod Smith but failed to get a defensive tackle, I think we could all live with that.

So techinically not drafting one position of need isn't a "fail" if the rest of the draft works out ok. Unfortunately this front office's draft record is looking mediocre at best, though it is only one draft to go off of.

Lestat
04-11-2012, 01:35 PM
I don't think you "win" drafts by drafting specific positions. You win drafts by getting the best amount of value for your picks, regardless of position.

this is very true. value and development is more important than need.
we've been burned in the past by drafting due to need. from Nash, to Middlebrooks,to Lelie, to Foster. we went with the highest value last season in Von rather than Dareus and it worked out well.

but DT is a huge need that has to be addressed early and often in the draft. you win the game in the trenches and we can't stop the run without talent at DT. we have the DE's to get it done, now we need the DT's to continue on(need a LB too)

Mountain Bronco
04-11-2012, 03:37 PM
Unfortunately this front office's draft record is looking mediocre at best, though it is only one draft to go off of.

Last years draft was good IMO. DROY, solid RT with the potential to be great (not easy to come by) development talent in the secondary (I think Moore will progress this year), TE and MLB (I still have great hope for Irving) and a rotational DE. Pretty good draft IMO.

CEH
04-11-2012, 04:45 PM
Drafting a 5 year DT starter is really hard. Something like 26% success rate
No thank you give me a guy that will be here for 5 years and let's draft a couple DTs later.

pricejj
04-11-2012, 06:11 PM
i think Dorsett Davis was the highest drafted guy since Pryce. we have to put a lot of focus and resources into the DT position because it needs to be addressed and fixed not only for this year but moving forward for multiple seasons.

Toviessi 2nd rounder was the last.

It's all good, get a 2nd rounder this year, and we're gravy for the next 15 years. :)

Drek
04-11-2012, 06:53 PM
As long as they get one somewhere in the draft I'd be happy. They should never over draft out of need, but if you can't move into a position where a DT you value is available then you just aren't doing the draft right. When a need is this pressing you find a way to make a DT you like the BPA for where you're picking by trading up, trading back, whatever it takes to line your picks up as best as possible for BPA and need to overlap.

Mediator12
04-11-2012, 07:04 PM
this is very true. value and development is more important than need.
we've been burned in the past by drafting due to need. from Nash, to Middlebrooks,to Lelie, to Foster. we went with the highest value last season in Von rather than Dareus and it worked out well.

but DT is a huge need that has to be addressed early and often in the draft. you win the game in the trenches and we can't stop the run without talent at DT. we have the DE's to get it done, now we need the DT's to continue on(need a LB too)

You can stop the run with average DT's, as long as they can do their jobs. You do NOT need talent, you need execution.

Look at DEN's fourth ranked run "D" from 2004. I would give you a $100 if you could name those 2 starting DT's without googling it! Their problem was neither were able to push the pocket on passing downs and the overall pass rush.

Also, you need to find NFL players in the draft. Period. Value is all about finding a guy who can start or be a key backup while learning to become a starter where others think they can not play. It's about finding guys who can play for your team and scheme. The first rounders are simply most attractive for the most teams. Lots of Great players have been low or undrafted selections. Teams just could not envision them playing better than the guys they drafted before them.

DENVERDUI55
04-11-2012, 07:12 PM
Toviessi 2nd rounder was the last.

:)

I wasn't around here during the Toviessi draft but wasn't he a DE? Were people excited or calling him what he was an injured bust? I was pretty young when we drafted him.

BroncoInSkinland
04-11-2012, 07:47 PM
Denver's defense currently is better the Pats and Green Bay and both ruled the league last year because of thier QB.

So which one of those two won the superbowl?

RaiderH8r
04-11-2012, 07:54 PM
What we lack for starters we can make up for in depth.

Lestat
04-11-2012, 08:05 PM
Toviessi was a DE.
Toviessi 2nd rounder was the last.

It's all good, get a 2nd rounder this year, and we're gravy for the next 15 years. :)

Lestat
04-11-2012, 08:10 PM
we don't need average guys or no name one year wonders.
we need guys who can do the job and do it well for 5-10 seasons.
people keep looking at this team as a all in for a SB run with Manning and then nothing. this is a young team that is still growing and still getting better. if Manning retires after 5 years the guys from last years draft and this years will still(ideally) be on the team and contributing.

we need to find our own BJ Raji,Vince Wilfork,Bradon MeBane or etc top DT/NT. those guys have to eat up blocks to keep our LB's and DE's freed up to do big things, if you can rush 4 and still get pressure that allows for a lot of things to happen on defense.
You can stop the run with average DT's, as long as they can do their jobs. You do NOT need talent, you need execution.

Look at DEN's fourth ranked run "D" from 2004. I would give you a $100 if you could name those 2 starting DT's without googling it! Their problem was neither were able to push the pocket on passing downs and the overall pass rush.

Also, you need to find NFL players in the draft. Period. Value is all about finding a guy who can start or be a key backup while learning to become a starter where others think they can not play. It's about finding guys who can play for your team and scheme. The first rounders are simply most attractive for the most teams. Lots of Great players have been low or undrafted selections. Teams just could not envision them playing better than the guys they drafted before them.

pricejj
04-11-2012, 08:22 PM
Toviessi was a DE.

whoops :)


we need to find our own BJ Raji,Vince Wilfork,Bradon MeBane or etc top DT/NT. those guys have to eat up blocks to keep our LB's and DE's freed up to do big things, if you can rush 4 and still get pressure that allows for a lot of things to happen on defense.

There is nobody like Raji or Wilfork in this draft. Mebane was a 3rd rounder, and had similar stats to Still/Worthy/Reyes.

pricejj
04-11-2012, 08:38 PM
I wasn't around here during the Toviessi draft but wasn't he a DE? Were people excited or calling him what he was an injured bust? I was pretty young when we drafted him.

I was just an occasional lurker on this board back then, but stuff wasn't like it is now. We have so many draft resources, and extra coverage, that there is a lot more information, and a lot more to talk about. I was hopeful about Toviessi, my housemate was Toviessi's financial advisor. Then, he got hurt two weeks into camp, and was done. Middlebrook's was the first round draft pick that year, what a disaster...both of those guys had injury histories (kinda like Devon Still, nothing personal Rev).

Drek
04-12-2012, 02:56 AM
Look at DEN's fourth ranked run "D" from 2004. I would give you a $100 if you could name those 2 starting DT's without googling it! Their problem was neither were able to push the pocket on passing downs and the overall pass rush.

My shot in the dark guess says Lionel Dalton and Chester McGlockton.

Looked it up. They were the 2002 starters. Damn.

cutthemdown
04-12-2012, 04:01 AM
It would be just like this place for Broncos to take Fleener, everyone to be pissed, then he scores 10 tds and is rookie of the yr and everyone will go buy his jersey.

misturanderson
04-12-2012, 04:21 AM
Last years draft was good IMO. DROY, solid RT with the potential to be great (not easy to come by) development talent in the secondary (I think Moore will progress this year), TE and MLB (I still have great hope for Irving) and a rotational DE. Pretty good draft IMO.

The 2nd best player (best for us) in the draft at the #2 pick, I'm glad they didn't whiff, but not necessarily an amazing feat considering that Dareus or Peterson would not be a massive talent drop off from Miller. They were in a win-win-win situation at that spot this past year. I guess you could call Franklin solid, but we will have to see how he continues to do.

Moore is a bust so far as are the TEs and Irving. Until they prove otherwise, you are projecting your hopes, not going off anything tangible.

The best players after Miller that we got last year were Carter and an undrafted FA in Harris with Franklin in the mix.

1 really good player and 2 solid players (plus a solid UDFA) in 9 picks is ok. I'm not sure that even counts as a "good" draft for a team with such a high pick in each round. Decent maybe.

That One Guy
04-12-2012, 05:57 AM
Was 2004 the influx of the Browncos? I'm trying to stay with the spirit of the challenge but it was so long ago. I can barely remember some details about games last year.

Mediator12
04-12-2012, 06:08 AM
we don't need average guys or no name one year wonders.
we need guys who can do the job and do it well for 5-10 seasons.
people keep looking at this team as a all in for a SB run with Manning and then nothing. this is a young team that is still growing and still getting better. if Manning retires after 5 years the guys from last years draft and this years will still(ideally) be on the team and contributing.

we need to find our own BJ Raji,Vince Wilfork,Bradon MeBane or etc top DT/NT. those guys have to eat up blocks to keep our LB's and DE's freed up to do big things, if you can rush 4 and still get pressure that allows for a lot of things to happen on defense.

You are mixing your metaphors here. The DT's in a one gap system simply do not occupy blocks, like a NT or DE who two gaps in a 3-4 front. They attack gaps and the NT usually will draw a double team on running plays in order to run the ball between the tackles. The UT will draw a Double team against passing plays as he is usually the most active pass rusher in a 4-3 front from the DT's.

Teams who rely on a 4 man front for pressure need DT's who can press their gaps and penetrate on the way to the QB or blow the running play up by shifting the LOS. That is what INDY has TRIED to do with inferior DT's for years. You must also have DE's who can attack the edges and stunt inside in order to create a consistent pass rush. Indy had the DE's, but never found the DT's who could penetrate consistently and push the QB out of the pocket to the outside Pass rushers.

I also agree that DEN needs a real Front seven. I have been saying that for years. However, the pass rush has been so important to fix that DEN has totally ignored the DT's for years. Stopping the run has also been given a back seat.

It all Starts with the DT's, as those are the players closest to the ball. Every Offensive play is designed to negate those guys stopping the play before it starts, whether it is a run or pass. It starts inside out, and having a disruptive interior presence who commands a double team makes a difference on every play. Also, not having a player who can command double teams every play hurts the defense schematically and in making plays. Having to devote extra resources at the initial POA can stifle an offensive gameplan before it starts.

The biggest problem I see is that there are very few DT's in the whole league who are those kinds of guys. Let alone selecting one from the draft. It does not mean you do not try and get one like DEN has avoided forever. This year, there are more chances to find a severe upgrade at DT than DEN has had in a while. You will not find much of an Upgrade at NT on running plays unless they get Brockers and he might take a year or 2 to be playing at his best.

There are 4 solid UT's that I like though and a couple tweeners. Fletcher Cox is by far the best pure UT in this class. The next tier is Jerel Worthy, Devon Still, and Kendall Reyes. All have the physical talent to dominate at the next level. However, they all lack the mental ability to be sure things right now. My favorite guy is Mike Martin. He can play either NT or UT and he is a lot more mentally prepared to play right away than those other 3. Another great option would be Brandon Thompson. He would not be as ready right away IMHO, but he could play meaningful snaps in the run game like Bunkley did last year. He might not play as well as Bunkley did right away, but he sure would be a factor right away in that aspect.

Mediator12
04-12-2012, 06:10 AM
My shot in the dark guess says Lionel Dalton and Chester McGlockton.

Looked it up. They were the 2002 starters. Damn.

I'll save everyone the google search. It was Darius Holland at NT and Mario Fatefehi at UT. They were outstanding run gap players, but not mobile or active enough to push the pocket or rush the passer effectively.

Bmore Manning
04-12-2012, 11:11 AM
I agree on you Mike Martin and Brandon Thompson takes. Their play was every bit as good as Worthy/Still/Reyes, but less heralded, because they ultimately project to the NT position, and lack prototypical size. It is tough to find impact UT's in the draft. If I was the FO, I would take my chances with Crick, Wolfe, or Ta'amu @ #57.

Mike Martin has exceptional athleticism and work ethic. Surprisingly, he may be the most athletically gifted of the entire bunch (other than Cox), though lacking elite size. His strength and footspeed is superior to most of his peers. Ultimately, he may develop into a slightly more effective Bunkley/Bannan-type player, with a little more consistent pass rush than either of those players. Martin will not require a double-team.

Brandon Thompson shows good ability to collapse the pocket, and make stops. He has a well developed game, with great strength, size, and moves, for the DT position, but lacks prototypical size, and elite quickness which may limit him at the next level. Thompson won't require a double-team in the NFL, which is why his effect will be limited as an NT, he may not have the athletic ability to be an effective UT.

Alameda Ta'amu shows just as much ability to get to the passer, AND has ideal size and strength for a 4-3 NT (6'024" 348 lbs, with a 7.52 three-cone). This is what sets him apart from Martin and Thompson...his ability to command a double-team, and is a possible 2-gap NT. I like Ta'amu better than Poe.

Both Crick and Wolfe, have shown great ability to rush the passer. Both players are in the 6'5" range, and can certainly hold their own against the run. Both players generated significantly more TFL's and sacks over their college careers than Worthy/Still/Reyes. I believe both Crick and Wolfe would be effective situational impact 1-gap UT's, who are versatile enough to play 4-3 DE if needed.

Where are you getting this analysis that certain people won't require a double team I.E. Martin and Thompson? If both played NT they are used to double teams...

TheReverend
04-12-2012, 11:15 AM
I'll save everyone the google search. It was Darius Holland at NT and Mario Fatefehi at UT. They were outstanding run gap players, but not mobile or active enough to push the pocket or rush the passer effectively.

I thought it was Pope with Fatafehi :(

Requiem
04-12-2012, 11:16 AM
I thought it was Pope with Fatafehi :(

I knew one was Fatafehi, I just couldn't remember the other. Darius Holland? Rollercoasters.

TheReverend
04-12-2012, 11:16 AM
I thought it was Pope with Fatafehi :(

Aha. It WAS!

Holland was 03.

Requiem
04-12-2012, 11:18 AM
Looks like you win a 100 bucks.

pricejj
04-12-2012, 12:04 PM
Where are you getting this analysis that certain people won't require a double team I.E. Martin and Thompson? If both played NT they are used to double teams...

Mike Martin is very intriguing...He actually has more footspeed than any DT in this draft class, except Fletcher Cox. However, Martin has short arms (32"), so it is difficult for me to envision him requiring a double-team, though he may be able to shoot the gap well enough to disrupt plays consistently, garnering a double-team.

Thompson is similar athletically to most Offensive Lineman he will face in the NFL, therefore I don't believe that he will require a double-team. However, he does have good footwork, and moves, so he may be effective.

Bunkley didn't require a double-team, because he is not able to athletically dominate an opposing Offensive Lineman (thus requiring a double-team). He is solid, and can fight the block enough to stuff the run, but not dominant enough to 2-gap, or give any pass rush. If the Offensive Line is able to line up man-to-man with the Defensive Line, run blocking will be easy, and the OL will generally be able to protect the QB on passing downs, even in the event of a blitz, because they have an extra man.

Drek
04-12-2012, 01:04 PM
I'll save everyone the google search. It was Darius Holland at NT and Mario Fatefehi at UT. They were outstanding run gap players, but not mobile or active enough to push the pocket or rush the passer effectively.

Come on, we could have had a rousing game of Guess That Bronco Scrub going here.

ZONA
04-12-2012, 01:34 PM
I think in rounds 1 and 2 the Broncos go for BPA on their board. Then at round 3 you can start to address needs.

pricejj
04-12-2012, 02:10 PM
It is tough to say who would be more effective on the DL, Mike Martin, or Derek Wolfe. Both have similar speed, and blazing 3-cone, both have similar jumping ability, and strength...Wolfe is tall and lean, Martin is shorter and stout. It basically comes down to 2 separating factors:

1. Production - Martin (64 tackles, 6 TFL's, 3.5 sacks), Wolfe (70 tackles, 21.5 TFL's, 9.5 sacks)
2. Arm length - Martin (32"), Wolfe (33 1/4")

Martin is said to be the strongest player in the Big Ten. Martin says he is better at playing against the run than the pass, but has experience at both positions, playing at UT during his Senior year.

Even though Derek Wolfe played in a weaker conference, his stats suggest that he was not only able to sack the QB, but continuously wreaked havok behind the line, which is imperative in the pass happy NFL.

I give a slight edge to Derek Wolfe. Wolfe is my pick for the Broncos @ #57. Although, I suspect the Patriots will select him #48 overall. If so, then pick Martin.

CEH
04-12-2012, 03:31 PM
My guess is Denver addresses DT twice in the draft. I really think Denver needs to bring in a situational pass rusher like the kid from Virginia Irvin . If that extra pass rusher is coming up the middle better for Denver but I think the G/C in the NFL are far superior in techique than the DTs. It's asking alot to try and find the next Suh or Ngata

What it does if you have 3 pass rushers it forces to offense to accomadate and at that point it becomes a numbers game. You can't go 5 wide and hope to block 3 supreme pass rushers with your Oline.

OrangeSe7en
04-12-2012, 03:37 PM
It is tough to say who would be more effective on the DL, Mike Martin, or Derek Wolfe. Both have similar speed, and blazing 3-cone, both have similar jumping ability, and strength...Wolfe is tall and lean, Martin is shorter and stout. It basically comes down to 2 separating factors:

1. Production - Martin (64 tackles, 6 TFL's, 3.5 sacks), Wolfe (70 tackles, 21.5 TFL's, 9.5 sacks)
2. Arm length - Martin (32"), Wolfe (33 1/4")

Martin is said to be the strongest player in the Big Ten. Martin says he is better at playing against the run than the pass, but has experience at both positions, playing at UT during his Senior year.

Even though Derek Wolfe played in a weaker conference, his stats suggest that he was not only able to sack the QB, but continuously wreaked havok behind the line, which is imperative in the pass happy NFL.

I give a slight edge to Derek Wolfe. Wolfe is my pick for the Broncos @ #57. Although, I suspect the Patriots will select him #48 overall. If so, then pick Martin.

Who has the thickest ankles? I like a DT with thick ankles.