How impactful are 'All-World' defensive tackles?

[Stokes36]

I've got the #1 pick in a draft coming in a lg I'm in, and the consensus #1 pick is a DT that is, in a word, great.

After the interview, ALL of the bars, aside from the Punishing Hitter bar is full, with very little orange.

Combine Stats go:
4.84 Dash(red)
30 SOLE(blue)
42 on the bench(red)
7.18 agility(red)
52% Developed

8.0 Grade, 8.7 Adjusted.

The question I have is...just HOW impactful are defensive tackles in this game? There is a DE with 8.1 adjusted, but his bars aren't as good as the DT's. Just how good is a DT, on a defense? I play a 3-4, and the rest of my personnel fits the 3-4 very well, aside from the corners.

Is a DT a difference maker enough to be picked this high?

[stevew]

Take the best WR in the draft. It is basically the only way to win.

[stevew]

I know people may argue. And that is fine. But the most important bar in the 34 to me is PR Technique on the WLB. The LDE being a close second.

With various tests that show that great offense trumps great defense, I would focus on the offensive side of the ball.

[Stokes36]

Yes...most people tell me...great QB, and a great WR, and you just can't go wrong. Offense is greater than D in this game.

[WebEwbank]

A DE who can consistently garner 15-22 sacks a year is more valuable (to me) than a DT. However, a big ole run-stopper in the middle can be very critical in short-yardage situations which often occur late in key games.

QBs matter. WRs matter. But not at all costs and no matter the relative value. Better a 92 overall DT than a 71 WR, in my view.

[Kodos]

Plus, a stud DT can rack up the sacks too. This guy is currently 8th all-time in sacks in IHOF, and he's still got another year or two in him to move higher.

RDT Travis Armstrong Player Details (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=8735)

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/ben/onerecord.php?record=sacks

[MIJB#19]

He's no Charles Gomez, nor Danimal Hampton, but he's pretty good, Kodos.

[w24olfpack]

I'll help you out here Stokes (Bama) with some context

This is a WEIRD draft he's looking at

3 stud DT's
3 stud DE's
One pretty good RB
Couple of Decent although not top flight WR
One OG
MAYBE a tackle.
Terrible secondary
No real franchise QB's.

So Stokes is looking at the prettiest girl in the dance. Problem is, she looks like Ricky Tidwell's momma.

[gstelmack]

3 stud DT's
3 stud DE's

3 stud DE's >>>>>>>> 3 stud DT's

[Kodos]

He's no Charles Gomez, nor Danimal Hampton, but he's pretty good, Kodos.

Gomez has the tackles, but Armstrong is kicking his butt in terms of sacks.

[MalcPow]

I'd say he's an 80+ DT. That's pretty good, and probably pretty valuable if you have other pieces in place. But defense only wins championships in this game when you already have a good offense. Maybe trade back and collect some decent pieces without the huge cap cost. A #1 overall guy with really high ratings is going to want a lot for that second contract, and DT just really isn't worth it in my opinion. These are the sorts of draft classes that suck most.

[Subby]

A great DT is pretty good at hoovering stats but I am not all that sure he makes much of a difference when it comes to winning big. The key to defense in FOF is to quick-strike big leads and then sit in dime and and force passing mistakes. Probably better off getting high INT secondary guys and uberstud LDE and WLB.

[Stokes36]

Thank you all very much. This is helping a lot!

[BreizhManu]

go with the DT, if he weights under 300 pds you can try moving him to DE, else he'll be pretty good at DT anyway

[stevew]

A DE who can consistently garner 15-22 sacks a year is more valuable (to me) than a DT. However, a big ole run-stopper in the middle can be very critical in short-yardage situations which often occur late in key games.

QBs matter. WRs matter. But not at all costs and no matter the relative value. Better a 92 overall DT than a 71 WR, in my view.

Agree with the DE part. Respectfully disagree with the WR part though. A 71 WR is going to have far more impact on the game than a 92DT.

[stevew]

I'll help you out here Stokes (Bama) with some context

This is a WEIRD draft he's looking at

3 stud DT's
3 stud DE's
One pretty good RB
Couple of Decent although not top flight WR
One OG
MAYBE a tackle.
Terrible secondary
No real franchise QB's.

So Stokes is looking at the prettiest girl in the dance. Problem is, she looks like Ricky Tidwell's momma.


So, the WR don't look good right now, or don't look good AND have average combines?

I'd try to trade down and pick up a 2nd rounder, it sounds like a 5-6 deep draft.

[TheMeat]

Agree with the DE part. Respectfully disagree with the WR part though. A 71 WR is going to have far more impact on the game than a 92DT.

Absolutely.