DE situation and draft (for discussion) (1 Viewer)

[Saint Droopy]

First off... I'd like to thank StChadwick for posting the Deke and Hokie "blueprint" discussion on WWL radio about what the Saints need to use as their "blueprint"... here's a link to the audio...

Deke and Hokie discuss and take calls on team's 08 blueprint.

http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/5190760/db7c05f3/sharing.html?rnd=9

The last 2 callers brought up points that I have been pondering...



The first guy mentioned moving C. Grant to DT, and he could have the "LaRoi Glover" dimension to our dline. I have said this numerous times here. Hokie brought up the fact that it could be be a good move since Grant fluctuates with his weight... and I believe that with his quickness he could be a great DT if we move him inside... but that would leave a hole at DE. Hoke mentioned we would be succeptible to the run if we put a smaller guy there. So that made me do some digging thru the statbook... and here's what I found.

Here are the top 5 defenses against the run... the guys that play DE for them... and their measureables.

5. Titans - Antwan Odom (6'5 274 lbs) and Kyle Van denbosch (6'4 278 lbs)
4. Redskins - Phillip Daniels (6'5 276 lbs) and Andre Carter (6'4 252 lbs)
*** 3. Steelers (3-4 defense where DEs are 300+ lbs)
2. Ravens - Trevor Price (6'4 286) and Terrell Suggs (6'3 260lbs)
1. Vikings - Kenechi Udeze (6'3 281 lbs) and Ray Edwards (6'5 268 lbs)

There are a few guys here that carry bulk, but for the most part... this is an average of 272 pounds per DE... My point is that you don't need mamoth DEs to stop the run in the NFL.

My 1st question is... would it make sense to move Grant inside if we can get a solid DE during the offseason? If not... why not?

Below is a list of potential FA DEs... this is assuming these guys don't get tagged.

Allen, Jared UFA Chiefs
Brayton, Tyler UFA Raiders
Canty, Chris RFA Cowboys
Davis, Chauncey RFA Falcons
Hicks, Eric UFA Jets
LaBoy, Travis UFA Titans
McCracy, Bobby UFA Jaguars
McDougle, Jerome UFA Eagles
Odom, Antwan UFA Titans
Rucker, Mike UFA Panthers
Smith, Justin UFA Bengals
Wallace, Al UFA Bills
Wynn, Renaldo UFA Saints

If we could a bonafied threat at DE whether from the list above or via the draft, and move grant inside... our DLine could rival other team's lines like the Giants, Titans and bears dlines.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In the last part of the audio clip above... Hokie brought up another point that I agree with. hoke said something to the affect of... he may be the only person that feel as though taking a DT at #10 would not be such a good idea. He mentioned that sure the young DT could "possibly" collapse the pocket... and maybe even get a few sacks from the DT position... but you are asking ALOT out of a guy coming out of college to beat consistant double-teams from NFL calibur olinemen.

I'm with hokie on this one. As promising as Ellis looks... and as great of a player and person Dorsey is... I'd rather take a LB at #10... because we only have one guy worth mentioning. I may be alone on this one here... but if Dorsey, Ellis, and Keith Rivers would all be available at #10... I'd go with the LB.

As we all know... the draft is one huge crapshoot... you don't know what you'd get... by taking a DT you could get a "Warren Sapp", or you could end up with a "Sully". At LB you could get a "Patrick Willis", or you could end up with "Courtney Watson".

Hey you never know... but I think that if we could sure up our dline by moving Grant inside... sign a guy like Suggs, or Allen to play DE... and take Rivers at #10... sure up the MIKE LB spot either thru FA or the draft (The MLB kid from OU at #42)... man our front 7 would be sick.

Just my opinion anyway... :dunno:

 

[basilisk]

it's true that i've read your prior posts showing your thoughts on moving grant inside, but i think (i've searched and can't find any earlier) i've long advocated moving grant inside and moving smith to LDE, freeing up the RDE spot for a smaller, quicker speed rushing RDE... whether we got that person thru FA or the draft makes no difference to me, but grant is right at 300 lbs and would be a force (imo) at DT 3-tech.... we'd still need a big body at the other DT... i also posted several times that grant and smith look, to me, to be better suited as 34 DEs because of their size and relative lack of speed

i for the life of me don't see the drawback of making the above changes, trading our #1 to atl for d. hall and their #2 and signing samuel or trufant (or the oakland kid)... we can then use both our #2s for the best LBs available and would immediately have a top 10 D

 

[Pookie]

Alright. Let's move Grant inside, switch Smith to LDE and sign Jared Allen.

 

[Conrad]

I don not think that the Saints need a full time new defensive end. What they need is a 4-6th round pick or mid level free agent that can come in as a pass rush specialist. They need a guy that can allow Charles Grant to kick in to DT on passing downs.

Charles Grant can not play an entire game at DT I don't think that he can hold up inside. What Grant needs to do is loose some weight and get back down to 290lbs. instead of 305lbs. Plus they payed Charles Grant as a top flight DE and that is a lot more then a DT makes.

The Saints can't afford to spend free agent money at a position where they are already very strong.

The Saints need to focus on DT where all the players on the team are either small or lazy.

 

[kevison]

During that "Blueprint" discussion, Hokie also states that it is up to Grant to want to move inside. Also, do we want to pay a DT the kind of money that is in his new contract? This is all part of the equation.

 

[BoNcHiE]

Grant just needs to lose some weight. He hasn't suddenly forgotten how to rush the passer.

 

[basilisk]

what we pay grant is certainly worth discussing, but it seems to me that more to the point is, where can we play him that helps the team best? as for a 3rd down specialist, that's fine if you have time to get him on the field (ie, you aren't playing the colts, pats, or other good teams that don't allow you that time) and it's fine when teams fall in line by not passing on 1st or 2nd downs... freeney doesn't play only on 3rd down, and nobody has ever said playing the run is his strong suit

 

[Nevimeister]

The Titans have Albert Haynesworth, the Ravens Haloti Ngata and Kelly Gregg, the Vikings have Pat and Kevin Williams. With DTs like that it makes it easier to have smaller DEs. Lofa Tatupu, DeMeco Ryans, Paul Posluszny and David Harris have all been drafted in the 2nd round the last 3 years. Add in the mix Leroy Hill, Kirk Morrison, Freddie Keiaho have been taken in the 3rd round I think there's a high probability we could get an impact linebacker in the 2nd round. It's dangerous to make generalisations on positions and where you can get those players in the draft, but I don't see any linebacker worth a top 10 pick. If we were drafting later I would not be jealous f higher picking teams and wanting to trade up for a linebacker (as I was with Patrick Willis). The linebacker class looks deep. If we do our due dilligence I think we can draft a playmaking LB in the 2nd (possibly have to move up a few spots dependent how the draft falls). As a sidenote it might be worth waiting till next year via making doing with a stop gap (not Simoneau) at MLB as with Ray Mayeleuga, James Laurinitis and to a lesser extent Jasper Brinkley coming out. There's nothing worse than reaching for a player at a position of need one year, it not really working out but you have to give them time and then passing over a can't miss prospect the next year at that position

 

[NPs6724]

In the last part of the audio clip above... Hokie brought up another point that I agree with. hoke said something to the affect of... he may be the only person that feel as though taking a DT at #10 would not be such a good idea. He mentioned that sure the young DT could "possibly" collapse the pocket... and maybe even get a few sacks from the DT position... but you are asking ALOT out of a guy coming out of college to beat consistant double-teams from NFL calibur olinemen.

I'm with hokie on this one. As promising as Ellis looks... and as great of a player and person Dorsey is... I'd rather take a LB at #10... because we only have one guy worth mentioning. I may be alone on this one here... but if Dorsey, Ellis, and Keith Rivers would all be available at #10... I'd go with the LB.

The only thing I disagree with is going LB in the 1st if Dorsey and/or Ellis is on the board. There are a ton of good LBs in this draft, many who will be available in the 2nd and 3rd, but after Sed and Glenn the DT talent drops off. Not only that, but these 2 DTs made their names known in the actual games as opposed to the Combine. I'm not saying Rivers or any other LB didn't, but it's just another positive for the DTs. And we currently have 2 good DEs and a space-eater in Hollis, who is usually doubled, so either DT would be coming into a good situation.

 

[BoNcHiE]

The only thing I disagree with is going LB in the 1st if Dorsey and/or Ellis is on the board. There are a ton of good LBs in this draft, many who will be available in the 2nd and 3rd, but after Sed and Glenn the DT talent drops off. Not only that, but these 2 DTs made their names known in the actual games as opposed to the Combine. I'm not saying Rivers or any other LB didn't, but it's just another positive for the DTs. And we currently have 2 good DEs and a space-eater in Hollis, who is usually doubled, so either DT would be coming into a good situation.

I think as it stands now, theres little to no chance we take a LB with our first pick. Loomis is a strict BPA guy, and even if he decides to go BPA on defense, it won't be a LB. Conner has rarely been projected above the 20th pick, and Rivers has sort of came out of nowhere.

And who can blame him with the names at LB we can get in the 2nd round.