Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="RF2044, post: 3102946, member: 40"]
We both know that not all DTs are the same, or asked to perform the same role.  Some get upfield and make plays in the backfield.  Some are run pluggers.  Some occupy double teams, which enable teammates to make play.  Very few are the "three technique" that Babers' affectionately referred to Slayton as.

The notion that all DTs are the same and have the same role and / or need to play at 300 pounds is as much bunk as suggesting that we're trying to grow all DEs into DTs.  We're not.

Here's an indicator to pay attention to: when you see a guy 6-4 or taller and listed as a DE, but lacks the type of DE attributes for our system, chances are he's being targeted as someone slated for inside.

I don't have to "defend" anything -- this is the approach that the staff is taking.  Pretending that it isn't is what's pointless.

Now, if your argument is that we need more traditional DTs to build depth alongside these athletic, taller, more mobile guys -- then I agree 100%.  Don't care about the stars -- land a 6-2 290 guy [perhaps Ialoa, if he doesn't end up at G as projected], plus a Dawson / Munoz / Tuazma type or two.  Eric Crume was an absolute home run as a two-star.  But in that mold -- agree 100%.

I'm not sure where you came up 30 pounds -- seems arbitrary and low -- I concede that some players / physiques aren't capable of adding that much weight, but others are.  There's nothing wrong with 280 - 290 pound DTs.  The number is irrelevant -- becuase 280 pounds is totally different on a 6-6 frame than on a 6-2 frame.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?