DL DT DL DT ??

[duckz]

Wher is all this DL panic coming from?

We have rarely had a high profile "star" (exception: Haloti) in the DT position for the Ducks, and guess what?

Our DTs do very well ,thank you.

Why all the panic about this yr, next yr, 6-2 240#, blah blah blah....?


Our DTs have taken verbal abuse and their share of doubt in most publications all year this year as well as years in the recent past...

Can any of you tell me the last time we had trouble stuffing the running game up the middle? (I have been confident all year when we were "3rd and 1" or "4th and 1-2 yds to go." I have been more worried with 3rd and 5-7 yds to go. Remember UCLA at the goal line?


Even in the Rose Bowl, our DTs played as well as any unit (outside of Barner and the return teams).

Going into the RB, everyone predicted OSU would control the clock with the power run game. Well guess what, they were unable to control the game in the trenches (up the middle). There RB did not have a very productive game. We were beat by Pryor on the edge AND by our overall defense (coverage) playing soft and getting beat repeatedly on 5- 8 yd passes. Why are we not screaming for DBs ? Our best DB in the RB was Harris. He was the only one denying the short pass repeatedly (and getting burned once in a while but not often).

All the Ducks had to do in the RB and really all year long is this:
Challenge the short pass and make them beat you deep (high risk, low success rate). If Pryor could beat us deep repeatedly in the RB, then tip your hat. But don't let him run around the edge and throw short 5-8 yd slants and passes in general. Bring the safety up and meet him on the edges (by ground) or in the slant (by air). If he beats you long, then at least our offense gets back on the field and we will score, facing them to beat us long consistently. How helpless was it watching the QB hit short passes and keeping the ball the entire game...what a joke. (sorry off topic)


Back to the DTs:

We can stop the run up the middle with guys like: Gibbs, Robby Valenzuela, Faeatete (?), Harris, Linehan, Bair, etc.

We have also had Awesome DE over recent years: Devin Long, Reed, Rowe, and this will continue.

Reed and Rowe have been at or near the top in P10 in sacks.


So here we are in 2010, getting high level interest from DTs and DEs. If they commit, GREAT. If not, we will do better than fine.

Hey Gabe, I hope you come to the UO but if you don't, then good luck to you at Cal, they have a great school and a solid football program. Just don't expect me to hold a spot for you if another good DT wants to be here.

Owa, I want to have you as our DE of the future, if not... have fun in Lincoln, they have a solid football history and a recent defense that is great. Good luck and thanks for considering us


So here is my challenge to all the Duck fans, back to an original thought that was hidden in this rant somewhere:



Anybody ever remember when we couldn't stop the run up the middle, even on 3rd and 2?


Go Ducks !!!

GO DTs... No worry here from my view !!

Just give me a helmet and I'll make the damn tackle !!! I am under 200# (last checked ) and you can pick me up 8 yds past the line of scrimmage but damn it...I aint letting go 'cuz I'm a Duck and you are going down !!



GO Ducks Go Ducks Go Ducks !!!!!

[greenyellow]

We actually do have a problem with DTs. It's the depth chart problem that has been developing over the last couple of years where we haven't been able to get almost all of our HS DT recruits in and having to rely on JC transfers to fill the holes. The DTs we do have are on the smallish side and do get pushed around a bit if we face a team that likes to run. Having big DTs that can plug the middle forces runs to the outside where our speedy LBs and safeties can run them down. Bigger DTs can help collapse a pocket by pushing the guards and center towards the QB, forcing him back or to the sides towards the DEs. Also, bigger DTs tend to be a stronger than smaller players so the strength and weight helps in both both aspects of defense.

[duckz]

We actually do have a problem with DTs. It's the depth chart problem that has been developing over the last couple of years where we haven't been able to get almost all of our HS DT recruits in and having to rely on JC transfers to fill the holes. The DTs we do have are on the smallish side and do get pushed around a bit if we face a team that likes to run. Having big DTs that can plug the middle forces runs to the outside where our speedy LBs and safeties can run them down. Bigger DTs can help collapse a pocket by pushing the guards and center towards the QB, forcing him back or to the sides towards the DEs. Also, bigger DTs tend to be a stronger than smaller players so the strength and weight helps in both both aspects of defense.

Yes, I hear you.... I hear you now and I have heard "you" for the past 5-6 yrs.

Now you hear me: Over the past 5 yrs that we have heard this rubbish, have you been more comfortable with 3rd and 2 or 3rd and 6?

[RuhlandAsherBestEver]

Stanford

[duckz]

We actually do have a problem with DTs. It's the depth chart problem that has been developing over the last couple of years where we haven't been able to get almost all of our HS DT recruits in and having to rely on JC transfers to fill the holes. The DTs we do have are on the smallish side and do get pushed around a bit if we face a team that likes to run. Having big DTs that can plug the middle forces runs to the outside where our speedy LBs and safeties can run them down. Bigger DTs can help collapse a pocket by pushing the guards and center towards the QB, forcing him back or to the sides towards the DEs. Also, bigger DTs tend to be a stronger than smaller players so the strength and weight helps in both both aspects of defense.

** Had to respond twice to this quote ***


Did you watch the Rose Bowl...?

Did you see our small, weak, DTs push the offense to the edges. They did exactly this, yet no other unit (safety, linebacker, DE) was able to stop the edge...

My point EXACTLY.....

[greenyellow]

The DTs that we have don't put much pressure on the QB on throwing situations so Alliotti is forced to bring LBs or DBs to help bring additional pressure. That many players blitzing often requires the rest of those who aren't blitzing to play softer so they be in position in case the pressure doesn't get to the QB in time and they don't get beat long. Also, on 3rd and shorts, I am more comfortable since you already know they more than likely won't pass, so a run is easily stopped by crashing the middle and bringing the DBs and LBs in to stop the run on the edges

[greenyellow]

We actually do have a problem with DTs. It's the depth chart problem that has been developing over the last couple of years where we haven't been able to get almost all of our HS DT recruits in and having to rely on JC transfers to fill the holes. The DTs we do have are on the smallish side and do get pushed around a bit if we face a team that likes to run. Having big DTs that can plug the middle forces runs to the outside where our speedy LBs and safeties can run them down. Bigger DTs can help collapse a pocket by pushing the guards and center towards the QB, forcing him back or to the sides towards the DEs. Also, bigger DTs tend to be a stronger than smaller players so the strength and weight helps in both both aspects of defense.

** Had to respond twice to this quote ***


Did you watch the Rose Bowl...?

Did you see our small, weak, DTs push the offense to the edges. They did exactly this, yet no other unit (safety, linebacker, DE) was able to stop the edge...

My point EXACTLY.....

But that is very rare for the DTs to push the offense to the edges. Over the course of a game, small DTs tend to tire against bigger OL since they have to worker harder to push them than a big DT would. The tiring of small DTs is usually when running up the middle becomes easier.

[duckz]

We actually do have a problem with DTs. It's the depth chart problem that has been developing over the last couple of years where we haven't been able to get almost all of our HS DT recruits in and having to rely on JC transfers to fill the holes. The DTs we do have are on the smallish side and do get pushed around a bit if we face a team that likes to run. Having big DTs that can plug the middle forces runs to the outside where our speedy LBs and safeties can run them down. Bigger DTs can help collapse a pocket by pushing the guards and center towards the QB, forcing him back or to the sides towards the DEs. Also, bigger DTs tend to be a stronger than smaller players so the strength and weight helps in both both aspects of defense.

** Had to respond twice to this quote ***


Did you watch the Rose Bowl...?

Did you see our small, weak, DTs push the offense to the edges. They did exactly this, yet no other unit (safety, linebacker, DE) was able to stop the edge...

My point EXACTLY.....

But that is very rare for the DTs to push the offense to the edges. Over the course of a game, small DTs tend to tire against bigger OL since they have to worker harder to push them than a big DT would. The tiring of small DTs is usually when running up the middle becomes easier.

Again, did you watch the Rose Bowl? I did not see any of this. In fact I saw the opposite, as the game wore on, TP was getting to the edge more often.

I'm not picking on you nor do I care if anybody agrees with me, I'm mostly just offering some support to our current and past DTs who I think have done a great job.

Many people hold the view that you do, it's just funny that it is not as obvious as it should be ON the field vs on paper.

[duckz]

The DTs that we have don't put much pressure on the QB on throwing situations so Alliotti is forced to bring LBs or DBs to help bring additional pressure. That many players blitzing often requires the rest of those who aren't blitzing to play softer so they be in position in case the pressure doesn't get to the QB in time and they don't get beat long. Also, on 3rd and shorts, I am more comfortable since you already know they more than likely won't pass, so a run is easily stopped by crashing the middle and bringing the DBs and LBs in to stop the run on the edges

You bring up some valid thoughts, however:

Shouldn't you also be "more comfortable" on 3rd and long, knowing they "more than likely won't run."?

I realize that the DTs have a role in pass rush but I don't think I would give them the biggest blame on 3rd/long, as it appears this is what you are alleging. Also, on 3rd long, aren't we substituting the smaller/weaker/faster DTs for the heavier/stronger/slower DTs ? if this is the case, then it seams that the faster/smaller DTs are not doing the job and our heavier/stronger DTs are still doing just fine.
Again, I'm not saying I am wrong or right, just that the results of the reputed poor DT play should be more obvious

[oreducks77]

Hmmm, I thought it was common knowledge that our d-line was our weakness.

[greenyellow]

Hmmm, I thought it was common knowledge that our d-line was our weakness.

Trying to say it's not is like saying that's it not windy when there is a tornado nearby.

[gofightingducks]

Our D-line's inability to pressure the opposing QB gives the QB too much time to find an open receiver. Even the best CB's in the country can't cover a receiver forever. Besides we haven't always had the best talent in the secondary or at LB but the last couple of years we have gotten some top talent at those positions. I think the only thing we are lacking is a good DC and bigger more talented D-linemen to pressure the QB.

[RPDuck21]

For what they have been up against, our D-line has survived pretty well over the last few years. That being said, we had Nick Reed, Will Tukuafu, Devan Long, Haloti Ngata, Igor Olshanksy, etc. during those years. This year we survived with a weak line because our linebackers actually made plays whereas in previous years they didn't exist and our DBs made every tackle. No one is saying our D-line sucks, but we have no depth now since we have had so many graduates. We need good D-line recruits more than anything for the future.

And Stanford did tear us apart, and throughout the Rose Bowl, Ohio State was getting 4 and 5 yard rushes regularly on first down. They just didn't have to do it all the time because Pryor was doing whatever he wanted. The D-line is also extremely important for pressure. We always have to blitz to get pressure on a QB unless Rowe makes a spectacular play and gets there. Case in point Pryor having all day to throw. We don't face hardly any power running games in the Pac 10 either, so when we get a chance to play the best teams in the country, we aren't used to that kind of a game and the size they bring. USC was so dominant defensively because their line was always stacked. You win games in the trenches.

We need these recruits. Getting a combo of King, Owa, Werner, and Hemuili (sp?) would be the best gets for us this recruiting season, even over Lache IMO.

[duckz]

Stanford

Well stated.

Although this was probably the poorest performance by the DTs all year, it was still an exception and not the rule for this year. Also, although Gearhart (sp?) tore us up, I thought Andrew Luck ultimately did us in. Once again, we had multiple 3rd and longs in that game and could not get the Cardinal off the field because of plays that Luck made. Sure, you can blame the DTs for not getting a sack or creating the pressure, but the DTs are usually not the primary focus for generating a pass rush. Also, on 3rd/long don't we substitue the faster/leaner DTs and remove the stronger/heavier DTs. If this is the case than it would seem once again that the stoutest of our DTs (although not very stout) are still doing their part, and other units are perhaps not.
In addition, Stanford did the same thing to USC (Notre Dame, etc) and as we all know, USC has the NFL prototype DTs, so it's not just as simple as getting a "bigger, stronger DT."

[wlduck]

We actually do have a problem with DTs. It's the depth chart problem that has been developing over the last couple of years where we haven't been able to get almost all of our HS DT recruits in and having to rely on JC transfers to fill the holes. The DTs we do have are on the smallish side and do get pushed around a bit if we face a team that likes to run. Having big DTs that can plug the middle forces runs to the outside where our speedy LBs and safeties can run them down. Bigger DTs can help collapse a pocket by pushing the guards and center towards the QB, forcing him back or to the sides towards the DEs. Also, bigger DTs tend to be a stronger than smaller players so the strength and weight helps in both both aspects of defense.

** Had to respond twice to this quote ***


Did you watch the Rose Bowl...?

Did you see our small, weak, DTs push the offense to the edges. They did exactly this, yet no other unit (safety, linebacker, DE) was able to stop the edge...

My point EXACTLY.....

But that is very rare for the DTs to push the offense to the edges. Over the course of a game, small DTs tend to tire against bigger OL since they have to worker harder to push them than a big DT would. The tiring of small DTs is usually when running up the middle becomes easier.

Again, did you watch the Rose Bowl? I did not see any of this. In fact I saw the opposite, as the game wore on, TP was getting to the edge more often.

I'm not picking on you nor do I care if anybody agrees with me, I'm mostly just offering some support to our current and past DTs who I think have done a great job.

Many people hold the view that you do, it's just funny that it is not as obvious as it should be ON the field vs on paper.

I have posted several times that all this teeth gnashing about our D-line in the Rose Bowl is not warranted based on actually watching the game. Glad someone else sees it that way.

We do need to develop depth on the D-line in this class.