Author Topic: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?  (Read 964 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MightyGiants

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47878
  • Liked: 1115
    • View Profile
    • Giants Fans
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2017, 01:12:54 PM »
Cant look at weight alone but weight, strength, endurance and anticipation.  A 285 pound 3 Tech with all 3 trumps a 310 pounder.

You also need to consider height.  The lower the center of gravity the less weight you need to pull it off.   For example, Aaron Donald is only 285 pounds but he is only 6' 1".  Chris Canty, on the other hand, was 6' 7" so it was good that he went 317 pounds.   There is a certain amount of "sand in the pants" required to hold your ground against those big strong NFL guards. 
"THE 2007 and 2011 GIANTS WERE NEVER PERFECT, NOR MEANT TO BE.  THEY WERE FIGHTERS, SCRAPPERS, NOW THEY CAN BE CALLED SOMETHING ELSE....WORLD CHAMPIONS!"

Mr. Matt

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2191
  • Liked: 331
    • View Profile
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2017, 03:32:58 PM »
To answer the OP, no, they don't need one.

The Giants utilize the "four aces" type package on obvious passing downs anyway. If they had an elite pass-rushing DT, sure, they could add him to that package, but there are only a handful of those guys in the league at any time.

Hankins plays the under technique against the run fantastic. Everyone is talking like that is just a pass rush position. We're so spoiled by the impenetrable run defense they had last year that we're just taking it for granted. It was the combination of Harrison and Hankins that made that work. Hankins had seven tackles for a loss. Just watch film of any game and you'll see it was not Harrison that was most often doubled, it was Hankins. Hankins played about 10% more snaps than Snacks. He swims under the guard's inside shoulder and forces the center to come over and chip him, leaving Harrison freed to slide down the line and make tackles. You can watch tape of the Dallas game, for example. You'll see Zach Martin tapping Tyler Frederick on the hip over-and-over, asking for help with Hankins whenever he shades inside of him.

The fronts Spags used last year are a hybrid of the old Jim Johnson schemes he came up with and the unique fronts the Ravens use where guys play hybrid techniques. So the equivalent you might be familiar with would be Haloti Ngata, who can play multiple techniques effectively. He doesn't put up huge sack numbers, but his ability to penetrate/eat double teams is critical to their effectiveness against the run. Ngata is 6-4/350, he's got a Hankins-type body.

Jaime

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12283
  • Liked: 198
    • View Profile
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2017, 04:21:54 PM »
Rich, u r stealing my thunder with Wormley. Excluding DT's that are just not within our reach, I think this guy will be a good fit for us. He can play inside and outside. So Wormley's versatility is desirable & generates a good fit.

I don't think the Giants want Hankins back even at their price. He's not a good fit for us as a three technique. they've seen it, been there done that. They're looking to upgrade and they will in the draft I believe.

MightyGiants

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47878
  • Liked: 1115
    • View Profile
    • Giants Fans
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2017, 04:28:32 PM »
Rich, u r stealing my thunder with Wormley. Excluding DT's that are just not within our reach, I think this guy will be a good fit for us. He can play inside and outside. So Wormley's versatility is desirable & generates a good fit.

I don't think the Giants want Hankins back even at their price. He's not a good fit for us as a three technique. they've seen it, been there done that. They're looking to upgrade and they will in the draft I believe.

A thousand pardons.   The draft master that brought Wormley to my attention is none other than Jamie.   Having been looking over the regular DTs, Wormley is looking better and better as he seems to be one of the cleanest prospects. 
"THE 2007 and 2011 GIANTS WERE NEVER PERFECT, NOR MEANT TO BE.  THEY WERE FIGHTERS, SCRAPPERS, NOW THEY CAN BE CALLED SOMETHING ELSE....WORLD CHAMPIONS!"

Jaime

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12283
  • Liked: 198
    • View Profile
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2017, 04:46:37 PM »
All good Rich, just poking a little fun is all. Just hoping that Wormley is there for us in the second round? I'm worried, because his stock is on the rise reportedly. :ok:
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 04:54:06 PM by Jaime »

Mr. Matt

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2191
  • Liked: 331
    • View Profile
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #20 on: March 20, 2017, 05:10:59 PM »
I created these images to illustrate my point, seems like an over-simplified idea of Hankins' role is pervasive here:








Jolly Blue Giant

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 215
    • View Profile
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2017, 05:53:18 PM »
Nice job Matt - thanks

Philosophers

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4533
  • Liked: 150
    • View Profile
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2017, 07:48:24 PM »
I prefer two run stuffing DTs than a 3 tech who is very deficient in run stuffing. Need to make offenses 1 dimensional before you can do anything.

Jaime

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12283
  • Liked: 198
    • View Profile
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2017, 08:33:06 PM »
That's the conundrum Phil. A 3-technique in a 4-3 front has to be a run-stuffer AND a pass-rusher. Hankins is a capable run-stuffer, but he just doesn't generate enough pass rush .  He's not a good fit in our 4 - 3 front. With a three technique that' not a credible threat as a pass-rusher, the opposing OL can concentrate on the DE's in pass protection. Having a third pass rusher really makes life miserable for the opposing OL.

Vette

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4651
  • Liked: 492
    • View Profile
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2017, 08:57:43 PM »
In all fairness to Hankins he wasn't prepared and Likely expected to be the Nose and then Snacks was signed. Would he have dropped 20 lbs had he known? Even now if I had to guess, he's looking for the 0-1 spot in a 4/3. I want him back and I hope they sign him. It would be a shame for some team to snatch him up for a slightly higher contract because he was insulted by the Giants offer. I think his best days are yet to come like Joseph's were.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"There is a greater purpose...that purpose is team. Winning, losing, playing hard, playing well, doing it for each other, winning the right way, winning the right way is a very important thing to me... Championships are won by teams who love one another, who respect one another, and play for and support one another."
~ Coach Tom Coughlin

4thand17

  • All-Pro
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 320
  • Liked: 40
    • View Profile
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2017, 10:12:45 PM »
That's the conundrum Phil. A 3-technique in a 4-3 front has to be a run-stuffer AND a pass-rusher. Hankins is a capable run-stuffer, but he just doesn't generate enough pass rush .  He's not a good fit in our 4 - 3 front. With a three technique that' not a credible threat as a pass-rusher, the opposing OL can concentrate on the DE's in pass protection. Having a third pass rusher really makes life miserable for the opposing OL.

Jaime,

Doesn't the third pass rusher come from the NASCAR/Four Aces package?

Philosophers

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4533
  • Liked: 150
    • View Profile
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2017, 10:25:50 AM »
In an ideal world, I'd love a 3 Tech that can do all, but if I have to give something up, it'd be pass rushing skills.  If you can't stop the run up the middle, a defense is finished as it opens up play action and lots of other stuff.  I've seen Chris Wormley play a lot.  He plays more like Chris Canty as I noted in another email than Aaron Donald and part of that is his size as he is tall and lean looking.  My guess is that he will continue to grow in the NFL in weight/strength.  At Michigan, he played a lot as a DE, but played inside as well.  Very versatile.  He played under 3 different DCs which must have stunted his growth a bit, but he has really grown as a player. 

Cid in Dupont

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 113
  • Best SB ever!!
    • View Profile
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2017, 11:32:03 AM »
I have a question about big Hank that I'm hoping one of you has the answer too...What changed from 2014 when he had 7 sacks?  Everyone (at least on this board) was ecstatic about him.  Why does the crux of this group think he can't generate a pass rush when he had 7 in 2014 alone, (just about the same as Vernon & JPP last year), from a much more difficult position to do it from?  Who was opposite of him, Mike Patterson?  Was Patterson garnering all of the double teams so big Hank could run roughshod over the OL to get those 7 sacks?  (I seriously doubt it).  Plus not to mention we had JPP and Kiwi as DEs.  I'd have to say last year's line was a far cry better stocked than the one in 2014.

So I'd really like to know what changed?  I know he came into camp in 2015 out of shape, but in 2016 that wasn't the case.  Snacks is 1000 times better than Patterson (is he even in the league still?) was, so Hank should be flourishing, right?  Something is different and Spags and his staff need to figure that out because...I'm with Vette...I believe that his best days are ahead of him and if resigns with the Giants he's going to get >5 sacks in 2017.

IMHO...Cid
Even a fool when he holds his peace is considered wise; when he closes his lips he is esteemed a man of understanding.

MightyGiants

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47878
  • Liked: 1115
    • View Profile
    • Giants Fans
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2017, 11:40:03 AM »
Don't forget everyone, the real value of a proper 3 tech DT.   The 3 tech is a guy who is strong enough to hold up against the run but more importantly, he is a guy that can get penetration up the middle.   You have a 3 tech getting penetration up the middle and suddenly JPP's and Vernon's jobs just got a whole lot easier as there is nowhere for the QB to step up to, to avoid their rush.   Plus when dealing with those pesky mobile QBs, the one place those QBs don't like to see pressure coming is right up the middle right into their face.   That tends to flush them out right into the hands of your DEs.   
"THE 2007 and 2011 GIANTS WERE NEVER PERFECT, NOR MEANT TO BE.  THEY WERE FIGHTERS, SCRAPPERS, NOW THEY CAN BE CALLED SOMETHING ELSE....WORLD CHAMPIONS!"

Jaime

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12283
  • Liked: 198
    • View Profile
Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2017, 01:56:00 PM »
Hey 4th, believe Spags comprised the NASCAR as a situational DL for an obvious passing down front.
Thinking he used mostly DE's & a SAM. Been a long time since we had a DT that could get after the QB.

Ed, Hankins has had a weight problem since high school. Early In college he was tipping the scales at 370 at one point. He got fed up one day when he couldn't tie his shoes. He lost 50 pounds and then hit the gym real hard. He fought to stay at 330 in College, but usually played heavier. Recall he lost significant weight to be competitive  at his Combine.. I think he was playing at 340 or above last year.
Guessing it would be a tall task for Hankins to play lighter. :-??