PDA

View Full Version : Why not Smith as NT?


RT22
04-30-2011, 09:59 PM
Could Antonio Smith play NT in Wades defense? If Jay Ratliff can play NT why not Smith. Just listening to what Wade would like to do with his NT seems like Smiths strength. If his NT plays 1 gap Smith seems ideal to get quick pressure through his gap and this would allow Mario and JJ to be the ends. If I'm not mistaken Smith did some of this in Arizona. What do you think?

LikeMike
04-30-2011, 10:07 PM
And while we`re on it - why not Watt at OLB? He played LB in highschool...

Allstar
04-30-2011, 10:09 PM
"The best players will play", or so I've heard.

badboy
04-30-2011, 10:10 PM
Could Antonio Smith play NT in Wades defense? If Jay Ratliff can play NT why not Smith. Just listening to what Wade would like to do with his NT seems like Smiths strength. If his NT plays 1 gap Smith seems ideal to get quick pressure through his gap and this would allow Mario and JJ to be the ends. If I'm not mistaken Smith did some of this in Arizona. What do you think?just my opinion but Nose gets beat up more than any other player and I think SMith as a vet would not want that job. He is an emotional player that could pull a Hainesworth. Remember he tied up with coach last season. I think he may possibly be trade bait under new CBA.

Watt, Mitchell, Mario?

Jackie Chiles
04-30-2011, 10:10 PM
There will probably be a bit of mixing and matching at that spot but am I the only one that is excited to see Earl Mitchell in this role? I really think he could be an impact player for us at that spot, especially with the talent we have next to him at end. He is smallish for the position but he is compact, stout, athletic, and relentless. One of the players I can't wait to get a look at in preseason.

Ole Miss Texan
04-30-2011, 10:14 PM
From reading up on Watt a lot, it sounds like he can be used as the Nose sometimes. Apparently when he faced some Centers he destroyed them. I love the versatility that Wade now has in using these players all over.

CloakNNNdagger
04-30-2011, 10:26 PM
There will probably be a bit of mixing and matching at that spot but am I the only one that is excited to see Earl Mitchell in this role? I really think he could be an impact player for us at that spot, especially with the talent we have next to him at end. He is smallish for the position but he is compact, stout, athletic, and relentless. One of the players I can't wait to get a look at in preseason.

Mitchell doesn't have the bulk or strength to consistently take on double teams or the constant trauma of an NT. On short yardage, he will not hold the middle. He will not be that fire hydrant that we will need in that situation. Mario will have more double teams than Mitchell. Smith at NT, although still not ideal, is the closest to what might work at NT........and that ain't going to happen.

We need ONE big plug in the middle for appropriate situations.

CloakNNNdagger
04-30-2011, 10:29 PM
From reading up on Watt a lot, it sounds like he can be used as the Nose sometimes. Apparently when he faced some Centers he destroyed them. I love the versatility that Wade now has in using these players all over.

That won't happen with less than 1 yard situations where the O will have their entire team concentrated in a 3 foot area.:cutthroat:

HJam72
04-30-2011, 10:31 PM
That won't happen with less than 1 yard situations where the O will have their entire team concentrated in a 3 foot area.:cutthroat:

Great. Now we have concentrated fat.

CloakNNNdagger
04-30-2011, 10:39 PM
Simply illustrated, this is the concept of what the NT should be........

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRKXuY8wbCP3obdutLcZ431U-hH3b6btWkf7ex9d8WwQulK9XT&t=1

badboy
04-30-2011, 10:49 PM
Simply illustrated, this is the concept of what the NT should be........

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRKXuY8wbCP3obdutLcZ431U-hH3b6btWkf7ex9d8WwQulK9XT&t=1That guy has the weirdest belly button I've ever seen!

gary
04-30-2011, 11:26 PM
That guy has the weirdest belly button I've ever seen!
Me too.

Big Lou
04-30-2011, 11:36 PM
Simply illustrated, this is the concept of what the NT should be........

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRKXuY8wbCP3obdutLcZ431U-hH3b6btWkf7ex9d8WwQulK9XT&t=1

Looks like that guy ate Travis Johnson and Frank Okam!!!!!!!!

thunderkyss
05-01-2011, 04:53 AM
"The best players will play", or so I've heard.

This.

Jay Ratliff was an overachiever in Dallas. He should have supplanted Spears in Dallas, but Spears was a first round pick. Ferguson couldn't stay healthy & Dallas was desperate.

Ratliff was given an opportunity to stay on the field. He took it, & never looked back.

If Antonio Smith wants to play, it's up to him.


Looks like that guy ate Travis Johnson and Frank Okam!!!!!!!!

I can remember many people complaining about TJ's weight. He played NT & they wanted him to lose weight..... :toropalm:

kiwitexansfan
05-01-2011, 09:32 AM
Smith hated being a 3-4 end, imagine how he would feel if you now said "ok big feller, now you move inside permanently".

infantrycak
05-01-2011, 09:45 AM
Smith hated being a 3-4 end, imagine how he would feel if you now said "ok big feller, now you move inside permanently".

Where is this hated quote? I saw a comment where he said he preferred playing outside but this seems overblown. But to the original question, no Smith will not be the NT except in some sort of situational package and we most likely would be showing 4-3 at that point.

HJam72
05-01-2011, 09:55 AM
I'm actually very happy with what Smith did for our 4-3 defense, but I think he's trade bait now. I don't think he'll do well in it and I don't think he'll like it at all....and that's before it hypothetically gets worse by asking him to play NT.

CloakNNNdagger
05-01-2011, 09:55 AM
This 2008 thread ARE AMOBE OKOYE AND TRAVIS JOHNSON A BUST? (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57194) should be mandatory reading for all MB members when you have time................interesting, sad and prophetic............

FirstTexansFan
05-01-2011, 10:06 AM
This 2008 thread ARE AMOBE OKOYE AND TRAVIS JOHNSON A BUST? (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57194) should be mandatory reading for all MB members when you have time................interesting, sad and prophetic............

Very interesting! I wonder what happened to the original poster, it looked as if the mob mentality had him burned at the stake LOL

Rey
05-02-2011, 10:54 AM
That won't happen with less than 1 yard situations where the O will have their entire team concentrated in a 3 foot area.:cutthroat:

I doubt well be in base 34 alignment in short yardage situations. We will likely have a short yardage package. I think that having a big nt is good but I don't think it's absolutely necessary.

Bring in Cody and put him next to watt inside. Or whatever combo. It's not like the nt will have to hold the middle by their self in those situations.

CloakNNNdagger
05-02-2011, 10:58 AM
I doubt well be in base 34 alignment in short yardage situations. We will likely have a short yardage package. I think that having a big nt is good but I don't think it's absolutely necessary.

Holding on short yardage situations? It certainly didn't happen for us last year.

Rey
05-02-2011, 11:03 AM
Holding on short yardage situations? It certainly didn't happen for us last year.

There are a lot of things we didn't do well defensively last yr. I don't think it was all due to personnel.

BigBull17
05-02-2011, 11:10 AM
And while we`re on it - why not Watt at OLB? He played LB in highschool...

He was worked out at OLB...

CloakNNNdagger
05-02-2011, 11:22 AM
There are a lot of things we didn't do well defensively last yr. I don't think it was all due to personnel.

There are some D situations (3rd down and inches) that are unlikely to be solved without strength and weight.

LikeMike
05-02-2011, 11:36 AM
He was worked out at OLB...

So any chance he gets some reps there? Especially if Barwin is not 100%? I don`t know his game enough, so I don`t know how well he could play OLB...

CloakNNNdagger
05-02-2011, 12:00 PM
So any chance he gets some reps there? Especially if Barwin is not 100%? I don`t know his game enough, so I don`t know how well he could play OLB...

I would have to question the wisdom of trying to split a rookies responsibilities, especially from the beginning.

Rey
05-02-2011, 02:20 PM
There are some D situations (3rd down and inches) that are unlikely to be solved without strength and weight.

Strength sure. But I've seen plenty of teams make short yardage stops without 330 pound linemen clogging the middle.

Short yardage stops are really more about attitude. I'd rather have a bunch of talented, nasty 295 pound linemen than a bunch of fat guys who's best attribute is what the scale says when they step on it.

I'm not opposed to them getting a big guy. But big doesn't always equal successful. Gotta have some talent and attitude.

DocBar
05-02-2011, 02:24 PM
I would have to question the wisdom of trying to split a rookies responsibilities, especially from the beginning. I tend to agree, but I would take that as a case by case basis. Remember that crazy attempt to make a rookie linebacker the MLB and play caller back in '06? There were some that questioned that. I say find the rookies limit and don't ask too much too soon.

TimeKiller
05-02-2011, 02:30 PM
As an everydown measure, Smith would get eaten alive and it would only lead to more off field blow ups/on field penalties. Frankly, he'll be lucky to play as a backup when Mario goes OLB for a down or when they go nickel. Between Mitchell, D Lewis (if he's still signed) and Cody, with Watt pulling situational duty, I think we're all blowing the NT thing out of proportion. Seems like if Wade wanted one, he would've gotten one draft wise.

Smith's best bet would be to QUIETLY ask Smithiak for a trade or just man up and QUIETLY bust balls/OLmen's heads. I don't think Wade would flinch to send him to a permanent bench seat and if he would, then we're already doomed.

kiwitexansfan
05-02-2011, 04:20 PM
Where is this hated quote? I saw a comment where he said he preferred playing outside but this seems overblown. But to the original question, no Smith will not be the NT except in some sort of situational package and we most likely would be showing 4-3 at that point.

I remember hearing/reading somewhere that was a factor in him leaving the Cardinals as a FA, he no longer wanted to play in a 3-4 because he does not like it. Hate might be too strong a workd.

Ndevine7
05-02-2011, 05:10 PM
I remember hearing/reading somewhere that was a factor in him leaving the Cardinals as a FA, he no longer wanted to play in a 3-4 because he does not like it. Hate might be too strong a workd.

I have heard that also that the reason he left the Cardinals was because he wanted to play in a 4-3. My thinking on this is if he doesnt want to be here then get rid of him. He is not good enough to be complaining about not wanting to be in this system and if he is going to complain all he is going to be is a distraction that his time does not need.

thunderkyss
05-02-2011, 05:40 PM
I have heard that also that the reason he left the Cardinals was because he wanted to play in a 4-3. My thinking on this is if he doesnt want to be here then get rid of him. He is not good enough to be complaining about not wanting to be in this system and if he is going to complain all he is going to be is a distraction that his time does not need.

I think the reason he left the Cardinals, is because he was a free agent & someone made him an offer the Cardinals didn't want to match.

If Smith was the kind of guy that would balk on playing in a 4-3, I think he would balk on kicking inside on 3rd down & obvious passing situations.

The only guys who don't want to play DE in a 3-4, are the guys who want to/likes to rack up sacks. The guys who kick inside on passing downs & play DE (or NT for that matter) in the 3-4 are guys who go to work & don't worry about the superficial crap.

Rey
05-02-2011, 05:42 PM
There are some D situations (3rd down and inches) that are unlikely to be solved without strength and weight.

I see you asked about this on the Texans chat...

Nick pretty much echoed my sentiments...

drs23
05-02-2011, 06:16 PM
I see you asked about this on the Texans chat...

Nick pretty much echoed my sentiments...

Hmmm...

Well Rey, what did Nick have to say? Just axin'.:fingergun:

CloakNNNdagger
05-02-2011, 08:54 PM
I see you asked about this on the Texans chat...

Nick pretty much echoed my sentiments...

Hmmm...

Well Rey, what did Nick have to say? Just axin'.:fingergun:

He basically said that he thought the D was best at the run defense..............that he did recollect a problem with the run in short yardage. But he would not really have stats he could think of that would support that. He was concerned about the pass defense in 3rd and short.

It did not seem to answer the 3rd and inches against the run (vs "short yardage") where my main concern lies.

Rey, I agree, not every man has to be a 340 pound bruiser in the middle, but for every pound you knock off, you better have added an increment of strength and nasty to each. I saw no one last year that fit the bill.

Rey
05-02-2011, 08:57 PM
Hmmm...

Well Rey, what did Nick have to say? Just axin'.:fingergun:


Nick Scurfield:
Was that a big problem for the Texans last year? I don't know their stats in 3rd and short on defense off the top of my head, but they were much better at defending the run than the pass. What I remember as the Achilles' heel of the defense was getting beat on 3rd & long - 3rd and 12, 3rd and 15, situations where you thought they were definitely going to get the opposing offense off the field.

http://prod.www.texans.clubs.nfl.com/news/live-chat/article-3/Texans-live-chat-at-11-am-CT/c63f671f-535c-48d2-8053-287b8b161cac

drs23
05-02-2011, 09:36 PM
Thanks guys. And Nick's right. :toast2:

CloakNNNdagger
05-02-2011, 09:58 PM
A reason more/most concerning of run D in cases of "inches" is actuall 4th and inches (and that was where I was going with this), which tend to come up in the most critical of circumstances, not uncommonly determining winning or losing. No actual stats, but I seem to remember not generally faring very well in those run situations (including QB sneaks).

Jackie Chiles
05-02-2011, 10:02 PM
A reason more/most concerning of run D in cases of "inches" is actuall 4th and inches (and that was where I was going with this), which tend to come up in the most critical of circumstances, not uncommonly determining winning or losing. No actual stats, but I seem to remember not generally faring very well in those run situations (including QB sneaks).

I also recall our offense being quite successful in similar situations so I question whether any defenses are great in a situation like that which favors the offense. For all I know we could be the worst in the league against such situations but I would have to see some stats before I jump to any conclusions.

HJam72
05-02-2011, 10:25 PM
I also recall our offense being quite successful in similar situations so I question whether any defenses are great in a situation like that which favors the offense. For all I know we could be the worst in the league against such situations but I would have to see some stats before I jump to any conclusions.

Yeah, if I'm a HC, I go for it most of the time on 4th and inches. If we can't win that battle most of the time, I start drafting O-linemen like we just focused on the D in the draft this year. 4th and inches for O-linemen should be WIN-or-find-another-job time.

Could be that our D was even worse than most at it though... I'm not sayin' it wasn't.

thunderkyss
05-02-2011, 10:41 PM
Yeah, if I'm a HC, I go for it most of the time on 4th and inches. If we can't win that battle most of the time, I start drafting O-linemen like we just focused on the D in the draft this year. 4th and inches for O-linemen should be WIN-or-find-another-job time.

Could be that our D was even worse than most at it though... I'm not sayin' it wasn't.

Except there is always someone like Rex Ryan or Dom Capers thinking exactly the opposite.

They all on scholarship in the NFL.

CloakNNNdagger
05-02-2011, 10:42 PM
Yeah, if I'm a HC, I go for it most of the time on 4th and inches. If we can't win that battle most of the time, I start drafting O-linemen like we just focused on the D in the draft this year. 4th and inches for O-linemen should be WIN-or-find-another-job time.

Could be that our D was even worse than most at it though... I'm not sayin' it wasn't.

You might be interested in this "4th and inches" Nov. 2010 ESPN article I found.

Fourth-down analysis met with skepticism (http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/garber_greg/1453717.html)

CloakNNNdagger
05-02-2011, 10:58 PM
Here are 2010 conversion rates for 3rd and 4th downs for Offenses, and defend rates for Defenses (by team)

Unfortunately, it doesn't divide stats by yards required or pass vs run.


Offense (http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs)

Defense (http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/position/defense)

thunderkyss
05-02-2011, 11:47 PM
Here are 2010 conversion rates for 3rd and 4th downs for Offenses, and defend rates for Defenses (by team)

Unfortunately, it doesn't divide stats by yards required or pass vs run.


Offense (http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs)

Defense (http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/position/defense)

So, we were the worst. (http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/sort/fourthDownConvPct/position/defense/order/false) San Francisco, Oakland, & Cincinnati were the best.

What exactly is this supposed to tell us?

The Pencil Neck
05-03-2011, 01:44 AM
A reason more/most concerning of run D in cases of "inches" is actuall 4th and inches (and that was where I was going with this), which tend to come up in the most critical of circumstances, not uncommonly determining winning or losing. No actual stats, but I seem to remember not generally faring very well in those run situations (including QB sneaks).

Well, just for straight up 4th down conversions, our team gave up 11/13. 85%. Wow. If you're wondering, that's the worst in the league. The next worse was the Browns who gave up 11/15 for 73%.

And our team gave up 4 yards per rush.

Teams didn't take advantage of how bad our rush defense was because our pass defense was even worse and you might as well take advantage of that.

Hopefully, having Watt and Mario on the ends and Demeco and Cush in the middle improves our rush defense, but we need whoever's playing NT to solidify the middle of that line. If Mitchell and Cody can do that, great. But I would have liked some sort of space eater in the draft. Hopefully we get an NT in FA that can do that. Hopefully we get two or three.

The Pencil Neck
05-03-2011, 01:47 AM
So, we were the worst. (http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/sort/fourthDownConvPct/position/defense/order/false) San Francisco, Oakland, & Cincinnati were the best.

What exactly is this supposed to tell us?

That we were probably not stout against the run and that we need some sort of presence on the line that's going to fix that.

Rey
05-03-2011, 02:23 AM
He basically said that he thought the D was best at the run defense..............that he did recollect a problem with the run in short yardage. But he would not really have stats he could think of that would support that. He was concerned about the pass defense in 3rd and short.

It did not seem to answer the 3rd and inches against the run (vs "short yardage") where my main concern lies.

Rey, I agree, not every man has to be a 340 pound bruiser in the middle, but for every pound you knock off, you better have added an increment of strength and nasty to each. I saw no one last year that fit the bill.

I agree with all you have said here. I not against adding big nasties in the slightest.

thunderkyss
05-03-2011, 08:42 AM
That we were probably not stout against the run and that we need some sort of presence on the line that's going to fix that.

Or maybe it's not that big of a deal...... I mean Oakland, San Francisco, Cincinnati..... That's the top three & it didn't get them anywhere.

I understand it says something about the toughness of our team. I am not saying we should ignore it all together. Just that there are more important things we need to work on, like 3rd & long.

The Pencil Neck
05-03-2011, 01:15 PM
Or maybe it's not that big of a deal...... I mean Oakland, San Francisco, Cincinnati..... That's the top three & it didn't get them anywhere.

I understand it says something about the toughness of our team. I am not saying we should ignore it all together. Just that there are more important things we need to work on, like 3rd & long.

And I think they've made moves to improve the 3rd and long issues.

I think that Smith/Watt/Mario as our front line during passing situations with Reed and Barwin off the edges gives us a pretty fierce pass rush (it will be interesting to see which LB comes off the field in the Nickle). And hopefully our DBs will improve with the change of scheme, coaching staff, and shifting of players. So that addresses 3rd and long.

But we've still got to improve against the rush. I'm not sold on Mitchell and Cody in the middle. Maybe they'll fit the new scheme better but if we fix our passing D but still allow 4 yards per carry on the ground, we're still going to get pounded.

thunderkyss
05-03-2011, 08:08 PM
FYI...

Greenbay was like 4th or 5th on that list. When they went nickel, they took one of the 3 linemen off the field.

I thought it was interesting, but it worked.