Defensive Linemen Taken in the 1st Round of the NFL Draft over past two years

[carpanfan96]

Well for starters, you're assuming I'm completely on board the Brockers bandwagon. I partially am, but there are other DL in this class I'm looking at, as well.

The reason I used Brockers is most are high on him and he's probably the weakest technique wise of the top 3 DT's in the draft. My two first round DL players that I'm looking at are Cox and Coples. Later in the first via a trade down, Perry from USC.

Secondly, if the coaching staff disagrees with you, then I will take their word over yours, obviously.

Of course, I'd expect everyone to do the same.

Thirdly, part of Brockers' allure is how talented he's been when you include how unrefined he is, and the promise of astronomical growth, including the ability to be molded into whatever he needs to be to fit the system he's in, due to his youth. Obviously, you don't draft players exclusively on the idea that they contribute year one. The point of this thread was simply to show people that there isn't necessarily some 4 year incubation period for DT's, and anyone who believes there is, has deluded themselves. That said, potential plays a huge part in drafting, and people who want us to draft exclusively on the question of "Will this player be dominant year one?" don't have a firm understanding on the point of the draft.

I understand the allure of Brockers, he has amazing size and looks natural defending the run. I think he would be better served with gaining 15 pounds and playing NT in the NFL or as a 3-4 end at his current weight because of how good he is against the run. However he's weak when rushing the passer and that part of his game would take a while to develop because of how raw he is.

Now, what separates Brockers from other young DT's (like oh say, Sione Fua) is his natural talent and ability. That is the distinguishing factor. If the FO feels he has the ability to overcome those deficiencies early on, then he'd be an even better pick. Fua, and to a slightly lesser extent Mclain, don't have that natural ability, and their ceiling appears to be too low to warrant giving any considerable effort developing. Why waste the time when you can begin to develop someone who can become dominant? The defensive line is too important to invest time developing average players. It's a portion of your team that you want to be as elite as possible. It was the biggest weakness on our team last year, and it should be one of the strongest.

"I agree that he has more natural ability then Fua, but that doesn't mean that Fua can't develop into a nice player or even an very good player. (Look at Shaun Cody, played really well this season for the Texans in their 3-4, but was horrible with the Lions for years. Just took him a while to develop, doesn't mean it always happens, but it's possible.) My only major concern with Brockers is his lack of pass rush skills and technique and how little he's played DT. If the Panther's do indeed draft a DL player with the 9th pick, I'd prefer if they picked Cox. However I'd support whoever they selected.

Rep + Pie for cutting down on the smart ass answers and the stupid pictures and responding with a well thought out post. Thanks, I enjoy discussions and even arguments about players and draft picks if they are kept civil. It helps pass the time while I'm battling a few diseases stuck at home in bed.

[bleys]

Except it isn't about strength, or technique. It's about a talented young defensive tackle prospect being able to come in and perform immediately

The point of this thread was simply to show people that there isn't necessarily some 4 year incubation period for DT's, and anyone who believes there is, has deluded themselves. That said, potential plays a huge part in drafting, and people who want us to draft exclusively on the question of "Will this player be dominant year one?" don't have a firm understanding on the point of the draft.

So I figured I'd post this here, and every time they say something to you like that in the future, you can point your finger and laugh and stuff.

I see the point you have eventually tried to clarify, but at the end of the day, we come back to improving technique and implying there is an incubator period of some sort... especially considering DT in the 1st round has one of the highest bust rates among all other positions and if our coaches cannot do their job (improving technique, strength/conditioning), we are left knowing just because a DT is drafted in the 1st round does not ensure success..

[panthers55]

Perhaps he didn't need to write a doctoral thesis explaining why they are good players to people who follow the league as closely as the average message board poster does. If you would like to see an unending and spirited debate about what stats are relevant and which aren't, and what stats can be negated by situational variables, and whose stats aren't indicative of their actual performance, then go ahead and post the stats yourself. It's been pretty widely reported that most of those guys have had success. Common knowledge and common sense are sometimes better than the alternatives.

It this were my thread and post I would have done just that. And common knowledge and common sense are laughable terms around here. Who has reported that these guys have had success?? What exactly is success? Are you comparing their performance to the average in the league, breaking down by 3-4 or 4-3?? Separating DEs from Dts based on scheme? What about a guy who was drafted out of college as a DE but played OLB in a 3-4. Is he a DE or a linebacker for comparison purposes?? If you have these articles and stats why didn't you post them yourself. Just like him you have nothing but speculation until you prove it. Doesn't sound like it is common knowledge to me. Go back and do some homework and then post. Otherwise you sound just as clueless as he did.