Big Blue Huddle

General Category => Big Blue Huddle => Topic started by: 4thand17 on March 19, 2017, 07:02:25 PM

Title: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: 4thand17 on March 19, 2017, 07:02:25 PM
Here's my thinking.

On running downs (we know these from studied tendencies and down and distance), we are better off with a run stuffer.  This was demonstrated last season.

On passing downs the Giants move JPP inside a lot or put another NASCAR rusher in. This will be more productive than any 3 tech we will acquire with our budget. (We are not getting another Aaron Donald.)  I know the NASCAR package needs upgrade but that just makes my point.  Put the effort there.

So are we going to squander our cap room for someone to play on the small set of downs that don't fall in either category.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Vette on March 19, 2017, 07:05:18 PM
You raise a good point there. Hankins is still a possibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Bob In PA on March 19, 2017, 07:12:18 PM
Here's my thinking.

On running downs (we know these from studied tendencies and down and distance), we are better off with a run stuffer.  This was demonstrated last season.

On passing downs the Giants move JPP inside a lot or put another NASCAR rusher in. This will be more productive than any 3 tech we will acquire with our budget. (We are not getting another Aaron Donald.)  I know the NASCAR package needs upgrade but that just makes my point.  Put the effort there.

So are we going to squander our cap room for someone to play on the small set of downs that don't fall in either category.

4th: You're right, but Hankins is only "right" for the Giants if his price is right.

Reportedly, Hankins wants the type of money reserved only for tackles who deserve to play all three downs.

However, he is a 2-down tackle (in my book, and I see you recognize that also), so if he reduces his demand by 33 percent he may be able to play another year for the Giants.

To me, it's just that simple.

Bob

Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Jolly Blue Giant on March 19, 2017, 07:13:53 PM
There was an article posted about this very thing. The fact that Hankins is more of a run stuffer than someone who upsets the apple cart in the offensive backfield, he is only on the field for about 60% of the snaps. Hence, one of the reasons teams aren't throwing big money at him. According to the article, the top of the heap 3-techs need to be on the field for a minimum of 70% of the snaps and preferably more than that. From what I gathered by the article (and if I wasn't so lazy I'd look it up and post it), Hankins is kind of a situation player when the team is expecting a running play. He was not in a lot on 3rd downs, especially if it was more than 3rd and 2 where they expected a pass play.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Dennis on March 19, 2017, 07:26:59 PM
We need someone who can do the job that Hankins did for half of what he seems to be asking.  The alternative would be to draft someone like the way the Giants always seem to do.  I wonder what the Giants think Hankins is worth.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: 4thand17 on March 19, 2017, 07:28:44 PM
Bob, Dennis and Jolly.

I want Hankins back.  Don't mess with success.  I leave it to the Giants to figure the price.   With Snacks, I think we can get by with a second tier run stuffer, if necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas can do the job.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: gregf on March 19, 2017, 07:44:57 PM
Agree, we need a 2 down player. To commit more big money to the D line doesn't seem fiscally responsible to me. I expect a draft pick between rounds 2 to 4 to rotate with Bromley and the other D tackle ( Hughes?)

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Philosophers on March 19, 2017, 09:37:47 PM
What we need is an effective 3Tech rookie playing for a rookie's salary.  That's our best balance for the higher wages of our veterans on the DL.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: MightyGiants on March 20, 2017, 07:07:17 AM
There is a reason for the 3 tech in a 4-3 defense.  While on obvious passing downs the 3 tech will often be subbed out (or moved over to the 1 tech), there are many passing downs that are not so obvious.   Plus it's not like the 3 tech doesn't have a role in run defense.   The 3 tech DT is supposed to be the disruptive DT who penetrates into the backfield.  That can cause issues with the rushing game as much as it can the pass.   Stopping a RB for a loss is what sets up those obvious passing downs where you can sub in your NASCAR type packages.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: COGiantFan on March 20, 2017, 12:09:25 PM
There is a reason for the 3 tech in a 4-3 defense.  While on obvious passing downs the 3 tech will often be subbed out (or moved over to the 1 tech), there are many passing downs that are not so obvious.   Plus it's not like the 3 tech doesn't have a role in run defense.   The 3 tech DT is supposed to be the disruptive DT who penetrates into the backfield.  That can cause issues with the rushing game as much as it can the pass.   Stopping a RB for a loss is what sets up those obvious passing downs where you can sub in your NASCAR type packages.

Should we be looking at (and are there any viable candidates) at 3-4 DEs as possibly 3-technique guys.  Isn't that basically what they did with Canty?
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: MightyGiants on March 20, 2017, 12:13:46 PM
Should we be looking at (and are there any viable candidates) at 3-4 DEs as possibly 3-technique guys.  Isn't that basically what they did with Canty?

Rich,

You're correct, some 3-4 DEs are also suited to play the 3 tech DT (some but not all).  So yes, there are some guys that are listed as DE that have the strength to play DT.  Draft prospect DE Chris Wormley comes to mind.  He is 6' 5" and 298 pounds so with a little more weight he could play inside at the 3 tech. 
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Vette on March 20, 2017, 12:28:55 PM
Rich,

You're correct, some 3-4 DEs are also suited to play the 3 tech DT (some but not all).  So yes, there are some guys that are listed as DE that have the strength to play DT.  Draft prospect DE Chris Wormley comes to mind.  He is 6' 5" and 298 pounds so with a little more weight he could play inside at the 3 tech.
Romeo oh Romeo, where for art thou Romeo!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: MightyGiants on March 20, 2017, 12:35:34 PM
Romeo oh Romeo, where for art thou Romeo!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ed,

At the Combine last year Romeo 6' 4 5/8" and 265 lbs.   Asking a player to put on 40 pounds of mostly muscle may be a tall order.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Vette on March 20, 2017, 12:40:37 PM
Ed,

At the Combine last year Romeo 6' 4 5/8" and 265 lbs.   Asking a player to put on 40 pounds of mostly muscle may be a tall order.
He doesn't look 265 to me and he's listed at 275. If that's correct and I know you don't believe that but if he is, twenty pounds can do it. They have Bromley for run support so I can see them moving him inside to get him on the field in a rotation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Philosophers on March 20, 2017, 01:00:55 PM
Cant look at weight alone but weight, strength, endurance and anticipation.  A 285 pound 3 Tech with all 3 trumps a 310 pounder.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: MightyGiants 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. 
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Mr. Matt 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.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Jaime 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.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: MightyGiants 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. 
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Jaime 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:
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Mr. Matt 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:

(http://i.imgur.com/UwzNYoH.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/711yNpU.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/hQljgNo.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/NJif3nF.jpg)
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Jolly Blue Giant on March 20, 2017, 05:53:18 PM
Nice job Matt - thanks
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Philosophers 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.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Jaime 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.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Vette 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
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: 4thand17 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?
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Philosophers 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. 
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Cid in Dupont 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
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: MightyGiants 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.   
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Jaime 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. :-??
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: MightyGiants on March 21, 2017, 02:37:04 PM
I created these images to illustrate my point, seems like an over-simplified idea of Hankins' role is pervasive here:

(http://i.imgur.com/UwzNYoH.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/711yNpU.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/hQljgNo.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/NJif3nF.jpg)

Matt,

I have to say this is really well done.  I love the insights and the level of detail you brought with this post.   =D>
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Mr. Matt on March 21, 2017, 04:11:38 PM
Thanks Rich.
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Jaime on March 21, 2017, 04:12:06 PM
Snacks is every bit of 350 lbs. but yet look at Hankins. He it looks wider than Snacks does. I don't believe Snacks or Hankins have their actual weight reported. :no:
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: Hadron on March 21, 2017, 04:21:14 PM
I don't fully agree with Matt but he makes a compelling case when it comes to playing against certain run heavy teams!
Title: Re: So, do we really need a 3 tech DT?
Post by: 4thand17 on March 21, 2017, 09:07:32 PM
Mr. Matt,

Terrific job!!!