PDA

View Full Version : Top DE Units in NFC -- Sporting News


ny10804
05-19-2007, 02:24 PM
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=209041

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=208472

What are everyone's thoughts? Agree, disagree? Qualify?

ny10804
05-19-2007, 02:28 PM
1. Saints
2. Panthers
3. Giants
4. Bucanneers
5. Packers
6. Bears
7. Falconers
8. Rams
9. 69ers
10. Seahawks
11. Cowboys
12. Cardinals
13. Eagles
14. Vikings
15. Lions
16. Redskins

1. Julius Peppers
2. Will Smith
3. Aaron Kampman
4. Leonard Little
5. Osi Umenyiora

1. Patriots
2. Ravens
3. Chargers
4. Dolphins
5. Colts
6. Bills
7. Chiefs
8. Steelers
9. Texans
10. Titans
11. Bronocs
12. Raiders
13. Bengals
14. Jaguars
15. Jets
16. Browns

1. Jason Taylor
2. Richard Seymour
3. Dwight Freeney
4. Trevor Pryce
5. Aaron Schobel

For anyone too lazy to open the link...

Phrost
05-19-2007, 02:31 PM
For anyone to lazy to open the link...

Panthers and Bucs should be lower. Cool to see 3 of the top units are in the NFC south. Hell the top 4 could be Atlanta, Carolina, TB, and NO if Kerney stayed.

draftguru151
05-19-2007, 02:35 PM
12. Cardinals. Darnell Dockett has moved from tackle to end and seems to have the skills to play that spot. Antonio Smith has been a solid backup, but it's questionable how he'll hold up as the starter. Chris Cooper is the backup on both sides.

Is Dockett moving to DE? Haven't heard anything about that. And what about Okeafor and Berry?

Those are some pretty whack rankings.

Paul
05-19-2007, 02:43 PM
For anyone too lazy to open the link...

I need to go see these 69er's.

Go_Eagles77
05-19-2007, 03:01 PM
13th? That's a bit low for the eagles imo.

TigerBait45
05-19-2007, 03:05 PM
Assuming Kearse can stay healthy, you may be right.

PACKmanN
05-19-2007, 03:12 PM
can some explain to me how the Buccaneers have better DE then the Packers? also the Panthers better then the Packers.

My List-

1. Saints
2. Eagles
3. Giants
4. Bears
5. Packers
7. Buccaneers
7. Falcons
8. Panthers
9. Rams
10. Seahawks
11. Cowboys
12. Cardinals
13. 49ers
14. Vikings
15. Lions
16. Redskins

Phrost
05-19-2007, 03:15 PM
can some explain to me how the Buccaneers have better DE then the Packers? also the Panthers better then the Packers.

My List-

1. Saints
2. Eagles
3. Giants
4. Bears
5. Packers
7. Buccaneers
7. Falcons
8. Panthers
9. Rams
10. Seahawks
11. Cowboys
12. Cardinals
13. 49ers
14. Vikings
15. Lions
16. Redskins

You have to factor in depth, experience, potential, youth, and overall ability to play the run and their pass rush.

BuckNaked
05-19-2007, 03:27 PM
If Erasmus James stays healthy, we could soar in those rankings.

Flyboy
05-19-2007, 03:40 PM
Yeah, I posted this in the Smith vs. Osi thread.

Grizzlegom
05-19-2007, 03:52 PM
Is Dockett moving to DE? Haven't heard anything about that. And what about Okeafor and Berry?

Those are some pretty whack rankings.

im pretty sure they are assuming that arizona is going 3-4 full-time, which is completely false. they are supposed to be a base 4-3 with 3-4 looks. but if u look at it as a 3-4 then u have dockett at DE and okeafor and berry at OLB.

d34ng3l021
05-19-2007, 04:25 PM
Falcons are a bit too high IMO. John Abraham is way too injury prone and Jamaal Anderson is still a bit raw. Our DE's have potential, but to have them that high as of now, is a bit much I think.

Paranoidmoonduck
05-19-2007, 04:27 PM
Burgess not being called a top 5 AFC defensive end is a crime. He has outsacked all five of those players the last two years.

The Unseen
05-19-2007, 04:39 PM
14th is waaayy low for the Jaguars.

fenikz
05-19-2007, 04:49 PM
the cards in the 4-3 have Berry & Chike at DE(when healthy is a good group)

in the 3-4 we have Dockett & Branch

remix 6
05-19-2007, 04:53 PM
Burgess not being called a top 5 AFC defensive end is a crime. He has outsacked all five of those players the last two years.

theres more to DEs than sacks(Seymour + Pryce)

Seymour is a DT playing DE in a 3-4..i'll let Burgess outsack him any day of the week but Seymour is more dominant and better all around

sodar21
05-19-2007, 05:10 PM
Cowboys are a bit high. The Vikings need to bench Udeze and have Scott start with James/Edwards and they could have one of the better DE units in the NFC.

Paranoidmoonduck
05-19-2007, 05:13 PM
theres more to DEs than sacks(Seymour + Pryce)

Seymour is a DT playing DE in a 3-4..i'll let Burgess outsack him any day of the week but Seymour is more dominant and better all around

Very true. However, Jason Taylor is hardly a defensive end these days and either way hasn't rushed the QB like Burgess. I'll give him a flyer due to the amazing year he had last season. However, Schobel has no business being ranked over Burgess. None.

My point is that Burgess has the most sacks of any player in the entire NFL the past two years, and he didn't crack a top 5 defensive end list. That is criminal.

Achilles33
05-19-2007, 05:15 PM
I like the Cowboys description. We have tons of potential but have yet to realize it.

bored of education
05-19-2007, 05:17 PM
If healthy.

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8870

thats how I feel about if healthy.

If Len Bias was alive still, he would be in the Hall of Fame and the Celtics would have won at least one ring in the early 90's with Len Bias, Reggie Lewis, Robert Parish, Kevin Gamble, Xavier McDaniel, Alaa Abdelnaby, Kevin McHale, Rick Fox, Sherman Douglas and Dee Brown.

iloxygenil
05-19-2007, 05:49 PM
NFC South Represent

bearsfan_51
05-19-2007, 05:51 PM
I'm suprised that they have us #2 in DT (another link) but 6th in DE. Personally I think we're better at DE. Whatevs though.

Bucs above us is stupid though. Simeon Rice is incredibly washed up. Usually I like Sporting News but that's just bad.

bearsfan_51
05-19-2007, 05:56 PM
Here are the DT rankings. I think these are a little better personally.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205736

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205133

Sportsfan486
05-19-2007, 06:40 PM
Can't complain too much about the Packer's spot but I'd rank us higher, personally.

Kampman was a top 3 DE last year, Jenkins brings an all-around strong game and KJB has to be up there for the best situational DE in the NFL. Plus with an incredibly strong middle of the line they're open for more plays and we don't have the injury concerns/lack of experience of some of the guys ahead of us.

I'd probably go..
1. Bears
2. Saints
3. Pack
4. Bucs
5. Giants

I think the rankings rely too much on star power ala Julius Peppers and Michael Strahan. Peppers rocks but they have nothing on the other side or behind him and Strahan/Osi were bad last year.

MP123
05-19-2007, 06:43 PM
Is Dockett moving to DE? Haven't heard anything about that. And what about Okeafor and Berry?

Those are some pretty whack rankings.

Are the Cards switching to the 3-4?

nobodyinparticular
05-19-2007, 06:47 PM
Not sure about the Raiders being below the Broncos. Sure Brayton didn't get any sacks, but he did a great job in contain on the right end. So he's not absolute trash at defensive end. On the other end, obviously, the Raiders have Burgess who has been mentioned.

The Broncos, however, have no one of any kind of solid caliber whatsoever. At least who has done anything in the league. I'm not saying you should completely take the rookies out of the equation, but it seems they are weighting the effect the Broncos' rookies will have a little too steeply.

GB12
05-19-2007, 07:14 PM
Can't complain too much about the Packer's spot but I'd rank us higher, personally.

Kampman was a top 3 DE last year, Jenkins brings an all-around strong game and KJB has to be up there for the best situational DE in the NFL. Plus with an incredibly strong middle of the line they're open for more plays and we don't have the injury concerns/lack of experience of some of the guys ahead of us.

I'd probably go..
1. Bears
2. Saints
3. Pack
4. Bucs
5. Giants

I think the rankings rely too much on star power ala Julius Peppers and Michael Strahan. Peppers rocks but they have nothing on the other side or behind him and Strahan/Osi were bad last year.

Eh, Jenkins is a bit unproven yet. I think we were placed fairly.

remix 6
05-19-2007, 07:18 PM
Here are the DT rankings. I think these are a little better personally.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205736

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205133

wilfork should be ahead of Hampton...Hampton should be #5 :\

remix 6
05-19-2007, 07:23 PM
i think suggs deserves more respect. Hes a freak :)

eaglesfan_45
05-19-2007, 07:33 PM
Im really confused is Corey Simon still with the colts

ny10804
05-19-2007, 07:35 PM
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205736

Now that is some NFC North representation!

Mr. Stiller
05-19-2007, 08:05 PM
can some explain to me how the Buccaneers have better DE then the Packers? also the Panthers better then the Packers.

My List-

1. Saints
2. Eagles
3. Giants
4. Bears
5. Packers
7. Buccaneers
7. Falcons
8. Panthers
9. Rams
10. Seahawks
11. Cowboys
12. Cardinals
13. 49ers
14. Vikings
15. Lions
16. Redskins

Please,

The Steelers, Patriots and Chargers all have better DE's than everyone from 8 on.. atleast. I can't believe you put the Cowboys over them.

Steelers - Smith/Keisel
Patriots - Seymour/Warren
Chargers - Olshansky/Castillo

GB12
05-19-2007, 08:07 PM
Please,

The Steelers, Patriots and Chargers all have better DE's than everyone from 8 on.. atleast. I can't believe you put the Cowboys over them.

Steelers - Smith/Keisel
Patriots - Seymour/Warren
Chargers - Olshansky/Castillo

Since when are the Steelers, Patriots, and Chargers in the NFC? Come on man, I know it's hard, but use your brain.

Mr. Stiller
05-19-2007, 08:08 PM
wilfork should be ahead of Hampton...Hampton should be #5 :\

It's by 2's.. Hampton > Wilfork... not by a whole lot, slightly, but Hoke is definitely a lot better than NE's backup.

Mr. Stiller
05-19-2007, 08:08 PM
Since when are the Steelers, Patriots, and Chargers in the NFC? Come on man, I know it's hard, but use your brain.

I didn't even think of NFC, I was just reading some of the teams and I couldn't believe Dallas was in the top 16, Now that I realize it's NFC only, it makes sense.

remix 6
05-19-2007, 08:11 PM
It's by 2's.. Hampton > Wilfork... not by a whole lot, slightly, but Hoke is definitely a lot better than NE's backup.

i was talking about the individual list that has

1. Stroud
2. Henderson
3. Hampton
4. Williams
5. Wilfork

Williams should be #2 or #3..Wilfork #4 and Hampton 5

im not sold that Stroud and Henderson are BOTH the best DTs in AFC individually

Phrost
05-19-2007, 08:13 PM
Here are the DT rankings. I think these are a little better personally.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205736

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205133

Washed up?

Sacks:
01-11.0
02-15.5
03-15.0
04-12.0
05-14.0
06-2.0

Last year he was injured, and at this rate he didn't show signs of slowing down.

Mr. Stiller
05-19-2007, 08:30 PM
i was talking about the individual list that has

1. Stroud
2. Henderson
3. Hampton
4. Williams
5. Wilfork

Williams should be #2 or #3..Wilfork #4 and Hampton 5

im not sold that Stroud and Henderson are BOTH the best DTs in AFC individually

I agree. I think Williams is #1, Stroud #2, Hampton #3, Henderson #4, and Wilfork #3.

bearsfan_51
05-19-2007, 08:34 PM
Washed up?

Sacks:
01-11.0
02-15.5
03-15.0
04-12.0
05-14.0
06-2.0

Last year he was injured, and at this rate he didn't show signs of slowing down.
Ok I'm going to assume that you are talking about my comments on Rice since you quoted the wrong post.

Simeon Rice has always been overrated. Hell Keyshawn Johnson called him out. Most Bucs fans know that he's nothing anymore and have stated as much. His stats are nice, but they've always been misleading. He's 33 and coming off a big injury. I honestly wouldn't be suprised to see him take the KGB route and finish his career as a situational pass rusher.

Phrost
05-19-2007, 08:48 PM
Ok I'm going to assume that you are talking about my comments on Rice since you quoted the wrong post.

Simeon Rice has always been overrated. Hell Keyshawn Johnson called him out. Most Bucs fans know that he's nothing anymore and have stated as much. His stats are nice, but they've always been misleading. He's 33 and coming off a big injury. I honestly wouldn't be suprised to see him take the KGB route and finish his career as a situational pass rusher.

119 career sacks, 2nd most active---behind Strahan. 13th alltime. The 2nd fastest to 100 career sacks, behind Reggie White.

Yeah, overrated.

bearsfan_51
05-19-2007, 08:56 PM
119 career sacks, 2nd most active---behind Strahan. 13th alltime. The 2nd fastest to 100 career sacks, behind Reggie White.

Yeah, overrated.

Yeah, overrated. He might be the worst DE against the run in the history of professional football. He would have been even worse had the rest of the talent around him not compensated.

Phrost
05-19-2007, 08:58 PM
Yeah, overrated. He might be the worst DE against the run in the history of professional football. He would have been even worse had the rest of the talent around him not compensated.

THis bad?
http://images.chron.com/photos/2006/12/10/4418041/311xInlineGallery.jpg

niel89
05-20-2007, 03:29 AM
im very comfortable with both of the ravens rankings. the thing i love about our d-linemen is their versatility. i love that suggs can play 4-3 DE and 3-4 OLB, pryce can be a DE in both fronts as well as a DT in certain times, Kelly Gregg is a good NT and DT and Ngata is solid in both also

TheChampIsHere
05-20-2007, 03:53 AM
Raiders got hated on real hard. Burgess is one of the best in the biz and we might not have a great group of guys to complement him but Brayton, Moses, Huntley aint horrible. Considering some of the groups they put ahead of us (Broncos, Titans, Steelers, Texans), I would say we are really getting underrated.

And on the NFC, the Eagles got hated on real hard. I know Howard is coming off a bad season and Kearse off an injury but a healthy Kearse to go with Howard, Cole and now Abiamiri has to rank among the best DE rotations in the league. How they rank em behind the Cowboys, 49ers, Seahawks, Rams and Cardinals is beyond me.

TheChampIsHere
05-20-2007, 03:58 AM
Yeah, overrated. He might be the worst DE against the run in the history of professional football. He would have been even worse had the rest of the talent around him not compensated.

Regardless, Simeon Rice has been an elite pass-rusher in this league for a long time and in the cover 2 scheme hes in his job is to put heat on the passer and he did a great job at that and was a key to a great, superbowl winning defense.

niel89
05-20-2007, 04:05 AM
Raiders got hated on real hard. Burgess is one of the best in the biz and we might not have a great group of guys to complement him but Brayton, Moses, Huntley aint horrible. Considering some of the groups they put ahead of us (Broncos, Titans, Steelers, Texans), I would say we are really getting underrated.



its really just amazing how the offenses failure reflects so poorly on the defense. the raiders had a championship defense but a high school offence, and for their d-line to be ranked behind denvers is misguided. denver was very ok last year.

7-11
05-20-2007, 04:08 AM
if the redskins have a better pair of ends then the colts ill eat my hat, some might say theyre one dimensional but essentially they are asked to be

7-11
05-20-2007, 04:09 AM
oh wait, i got that really wrong. my bad

TheChampIsHere
05-20-2007, 04:57 AM
its really just amazing how the offenses failure reflects so poorly on the defense. the raiders had a championship defense but a high school offence, and for their d-line to be ranked behind denvers is misguided. denver was very ok last year.

high school offense? we had a pop warner offense.

Our defense really was incredible last year and they did play at a championship level. To be honest, I wonder if they will be able to repeat the kind of performance they had last year. Guys like Sapp and Asumgha played at incredibly high levels that I dont know they'll keep up. And also we didnt have any injuries of note last year, and if we should find our D depleted by injurieslike our offense it could be a different story. But theres also reason for optimism about it...We got 2 young safeties who I believe are getting better, young LBs in Morrison and Howard who should continue to progress and Fabian Washington I expect to really break out in the near future and we added Quentin Moses to help our pass-rush and just overall we have a lot of youth on the defense.

MaxV
05-20-2007, 10:55 AM
Im really confused is Corey Simon still with the colts

Yes, but as of right now it looks likely that he will get cut.

cunningham06
05-20-2007, 11:22 AM
The Eagles are too low, 13th? They belong in the top 10. They don't have the top end talent at DE like some teams, we don't have a Julius Peppers, but assuming Kearse is healthy (which I am for this scenario) the Eagles have one of the deepest DL's in the NFL. At DE last season when Kearse and Howard were both starting they were dominating, we were able to wear teams down by constantly throwing fresh DE's at their tackles. Kearse, Howard, Trent Cole, Juqua Thomas, and Victor Abiamiri is an extremely solid unit that I would take over many of the teams listed above the Eagles. Watching that rotation is going to be fun this year.

Hines
05-20-2007, 11:56 AM
Here are the DT rankings. I think these are a little better personally.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205736

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=205133




i like the steelers rankin #3
but i honestly think that jamaal williams is a little better than casey hampton
but it is very close so it wouldnt matter who is 3 and 4
imo

BlindSite
05-20-2007, 07:15 PM
This might sound homerish but the Panthers are too low.

They've got two excellent starters who're better than most in the league in Kemoeatu and Jenkins who played very well.

Then there's Damoine Lewis who's great on passing downs and we've got depth in Moorehead and Carstens who've both got over 15 games starting experience and did well when they were called upon to start.

Carstens was part of the top 5 defense. Every year we rotate them in and see no drop in production in the middle. I don't know of any team who has 5 defensive tackles with starting experience in top 10 defenses.

hugegmenfan
05-21-2007, 09:04 AM
the giants should be higher than the panthers- peppers and rucker? peppers is great but rucker sucks. osi and strahan AND tuck AND kiwi rule. i would say they are not as good as the saints however

remix 6
05-21-2007, 03:00 PM
the giants should be higher than the panthers- peppers and rucker? peppers is great but rucker sucks. osi and strahan AND tuck AND kiwi rule. i would say they are not as good as the saints however
i think Giants should be higher too but question..wasnt Tuck getting moved to DT or something and Kiwki to OLB?

Geo
05-21-2007, 04:24 PM
Yes, but as of right now it looks likely that he [Corey Simon] will get cut.
I'm not sure how financially feasible Simon being cut outright is, quite honestly. Maybe the recent ruling, rather support for the Lelie ruling within the last year, forces that hand, I don't know.

SubNoize
05-21-2007, 04:53 PM
The list takes more into consideration than just sacks. The Raiders D was padded last year by the passing stat, but honestly, we sucked against the run, which is all teams did to us because they took huge leads. I'm not taking away from what the secondary did, but Burgess was one of the only consistent run stoppers and he was average in that department. I don't think it was a championship d. If those young guys for Oak can trun it up and contribute and Burgess plays the run better, then I'd call it championship. Brayton is most likely moving inside, so that shows what kind of depth we were really working with, and what we have going forward, i hope Huntley and Moses can play...

Paranoidmoonduck
05-21-2007, 05:10 PM
The list takes more into consideration than just sacks. The Raiders D was padded last year by the passing stat, but honestly, we sucked against the run, which is all teams did to us because they took huge leads.

This is a huge derail, but the common held opinion that the Raiders were awful against the run last year is totally false. Teams ran on Oakland because they often got leads and because it was infinitely preferably to trying to pass on that secondary.

Oakland only surrendered 4.0 YPC (tied for 11th in the league) while being run on more than any other team in the NFL. For reference, the second most run on team in the NFL last year, Indianapolis, surrendered 5.3 YPC (32nd in the league).

While Oakland was run on early and often, they were actually quite good against the run, all things considered.

Xonraider
05-21-2007, 05:50 PM
its really just amazing how the offenses failure reflects so poorly on the defense. the raiders had a championship defense but a high school offence, and for their d-line to be ranked behind denvers is misguided. denver was very ok last year.

More like pee wee flag football offense.

Xonraider
05-21-2007, 05:55 PM
This is a huge derail, but the common held opinion that the Raiders were awful against the run last year is totally false. Teams ran on Oakland because they often got leads and because it was infinitely preferably to trying to pass on that secondary.

Oakland only surrendered 4.0 YPC (tied for 11th in the league) while being run on more than any other team in the NFL. For reference, the second most run on team in the NFL last year, Indianapolis, surrendered 5.3 YPC (32nd in the league).

While Oakland was run on early and often, they were actually quite good against the run, all things considered.

Not to mention that our defense was on the field all of the time, and teams got their best plays primarily on the late 4th quarter.

Geo
05-21-2007, 05:59 PM
I remember making a similar argument some time ago. (http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?p=281949&highlight=raiders#post281949) The Raiders defense wasn't just on its own, but it had to overcome the turnovers, poor field position, and lack of rest courtesy of the offense.

SubNoize
05-21-2007, 07:01 PM
Trust me I know the agony of the 2006 Raiders, the offense put the defense in tough positions, but the run D was 25th overall I believe, and yes you can attribute that to bad field position, and always playing from behind, I was just poitning out that OAK needs a lot of work here before I'd call them champions defensively. The secondary was killer, but the d-line play outside of Sapp and Burgess was very average, if not bad sometimes...