Quote:
Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins
The toughest thing about the 3-4 IMO is that there are just not enough quality teams running it in college and therefore not enough quality nose tackles in the NFL comparatively. I do agree that if you have the pieces up front it is the better D.
|
Addressing the focal point of any unit (in the case of the D, the NT position) is certainly the most logical way of moving forward, which is why I’ve come away from some drafts scratching my head.
2010 for example, we needed someone to replace Chris Samuels. We took Trent (as well as 5 other offensive players) and he’s working out well. He’s not having a pro-bowl year by any stretch, but then none of the team is. Bottom line, we needed a franchise blind-side protector and the pick therefore made sense.
2011 though, and they turned their attention to the D. Priority seemed to be on improving the pass rush and so Kerrigan was taken in the 1st, Jenkins in the 2nd. Now, don’t get me wrong, I like Ryan. I think he’s a solid player who could look even better if he had an elite rusher on the other side, but the point I’m making is in a 3-4, it all starts with the guy in the middle of the 3, and everything else comes next. In other words, we should have been looking towards the best NT available, the build around that vital cog. Phil Taylor for example shot up draft boards that year and was picked later in the first round. But instead we seem to make attempts at solving problems (I won’t discredit the effort btw, especially considering the draft is always reliant on chance as much as doing your homework), but it’s almost done in a hit and hope manner (definitely more on the defensive side of the ball) as much as anything and typifies why we haven’t made enough sustained progress in the 4 years of the transition to a 3-4 scheme as we maybe should IMO.