If all these DT's are on the board at 42, which one?

[cheyennes]

Nixon , big Strong and fast

 

[Cowboyny]

I'm usually a talent guy and I'm a Trojan fan, but I'd take McNeill over Tufele. McNeill is what we need and is sneaky athletic for as big as he is.

I do not get the fascination with Levi Onwuzurike.

I think the many are high on Onwuzurike due to get off and his hand technique. My understanding is, he doesn't know how to use it effectively and takes himself out of many plays with over aggressiveness. Has the tools for the position, but needs work learning how to use them.

 

[kiheikiwi]

I think the many are high on Onwuzurike due to get off and his hand technique. My understanding is, he doesn't know how to use it effectively and takes himself out of many plays with over aggressiveness. Has the tools for the position, but needs work learning how to use them.

So if that's true - you shouldn't take him at 44.
I'm really just hoping for a different strategy from our FO.
How can they stubbornly not address the 1-teck and Safety spot, year after year ?
Unlike olot of posters on here, I'm all.for 1 of the two corners at 10. Fairley first but Surtan if Fairley is gone.
Secondly would be Safety if Grant is there or one of the group of DT. 3rd would be the other of whichever we took in 2nd. 2 thirds, 2 forths. I would sprinkle in an OT, LBer, and double up on safety and CB.
Even using the lower picks to get a little higher in each round for better players.
Think we have options at 3-tech if we also bring back McCoy.
Every year I say, "this draft will be interesting" , this year moreso than most !

 

[AsthmaField]

Easy answer for me: Nixon. I think he’s going to be very, very good.

However, I do really like McNeil and Tufele as well.

 

[JBS]

Do believe McNeil is the best fit what we truly need at the 0-1 T position. Just not sure if the team will value a NT this high without high level rush abilities. McNeil offers some, but probably will be more of a two down player, especially early on. We need more picks within the top 50-60, but not trading away from Farley in rd 1 if available.

Until the front office changes their philosophy, this defense is always going to be soft..we have to hope Quinn can come in and change their views on some things..mainly, the importance of beef and strength up front on the DL.

 

[Sydla]

Nixon
McNeil
Tufele

 

[Cowboyny]

Until the front office changes their philosophy, this defense is always going to be soft..we have to hope Quinn can come in and change their views on some things..mainly, the importance of beef and strength up front on the DL.

What we do know is, Quinn's scheme is more of an hybrid 4-3/3-4 up front and needs a rangy free safety. Hopefully, he lets the front office know what types of players he needs to be successful.

 

[gimmesix]

depends on how Dallas considers Gallimore.
If they see him as a 3T -- then I would take McNeil
If they think he can play the 1T, then Nixon would be my choice in the 2nd and still try to get McNeil later.

I like Tufele, but he is more 3T than 1T, IMO, and Nixon is the better 3T prospect.
Dallas needs a legit 1T, and I think McNeil is that guy who can anchor and shed, as well as push the pocket. Bringing in Bobby Brown later who is more of a one gap, quick penetrating, AWoods type player.

I think Nixon is probably the better talent, but McNeil probably the bigger need for Dallas defense.

Is Gallimore a 3-tech who can consistently get into the backfield and pressure the quarterback? If not, then it doesn't matter if we consider him a 3-tech, he's not the starting 3-tech we need.

I'd take Nixon in a second over any of the rest of these DTs because having a 3-tech who is disruptive is more important in this defense than having a DT who can play NT. I want both, but the 3-tech is one of the most important positions in this alignment.

 

[Beaker42]

Probably Daviyon Nixon. I've heard Tufele is not good vs the run.

You were misinformed. He’s no worse than the other top DT’s. I like his motor almost as much as McNeill’s. I hope double dip at DT.

 

[waving monkey]

For this scenario assume we addressed corner in rd 1, Moehrig/Grant are already off the board, but all the DT's outside of Barmore are still available, which one would you take:

Onwuzurike Washington
Nixon Iowa
Tufele USC
McNeil NC State

I would probably lean towards Tufele as he offers the best positional flex. Can play the 3, the 1 and even the 4T. The top two are strictly 3T, where McNeil might be rated too high as more of a run, two down player.

plugging the middle is McNeil plus he has some rush

 

[cowboyec]

nixon.
washinton husky levi o a close 2nd.

 

[cowboyec]

texas a&m's bobby brown is another DT i like.

 

[J-man]

IMHO, we need upgrades at 0/1T more so than another 3T. We need a starter for early downs to pair with Gallimore, plus a true big boy DT to pair with him for goal line/short yardage.
So I'd try to at least dbl up at DT if possible. Even take a third one later if need be.
But TBH, I think the board plays out better for a FS at 44 instead, as I think the DT's are a little deeper.And I just can't see then taking at 0/1T at 44 anyway.

But if they like the 3T's there, than give me any of the three Levi/Tufele/Nixon @44 and Shelvin with our 3rd rd comp, possibly Brown/Slaton in the 5-6 range
or just give me McNeil and Brown/Slaton later

 

[Sandyf]

Nixon

 

[visionary]

IMHO, we need upgrades at 0/1T more so than another 3T. We need a starter for early downs to pair with Gallimore, plus a true big boy DT to pair with him for goal line/short yardage.
So I'd try to at least dbl up at DT if possible. Even take a third one later if need be.
But TBH, I think the board plays out better for a FS at 44 instead, as I think the DT's are a little deeper.And I just can't see then taking at 0/1T at 44 anyway.

But if they like the 3T's there, than give me any of the three Levi/Tufele/Nixon @44 and Shelvin with our 3rd rd comp, possibly Brown/Slaton in the 5-6 range
or just give me McNeil and Brown/Slaton later

I think you can take Nixon at 44 to rotate with Gallimore at 3T and come back and get a 1T in rds 3-4

 

[J-man]

I think you can take Nixon at 44 to rotate with Gallimore at 3T and come back and get a 1T in rds 3-4

OK with me, but again I think we will be better off to take the FS at 44 and DT's later. But if the FS's they like are gone by all means take the DT.

 

[Beaker42]

OK with me, but again I think we will be better off to take the FS at 44 and DT's later. But if the FS's they like are gone by all means take the DT.

I think you can take Nixon at 44 to rotate with Gallimore at 3T and come back and get a 1T in rds 3-4

Only thing I question is Nixon’s motor - I don’t have that with McNeill or Tufele and his fellow USC DT. We got burned last time we took a Big10 DL.

 

[visionary]

OK with me, but again I think we will be better off to take the FS at 44 and DT's later. But if the FS's they like are gone by all means take the DT.

I’m fine with Grant in rd 2 and take DT in 3 but I think the 3T will be gone by then

 

[Cowboyny]

I think you can take Nixon at 44 to rotate with Gallimore at 3T and come back and get a 1T in rds 3-4

It's unlikely the team takes another pure 3T, maybe one who has the versatility to play DE and kick inside in the nickel. They have to get snaps for both Hill/Gallimore who they see as the future at the position.

 

[visionary]

It's unlikely the team takes another pure 3T, maybe one who has the versatility to play DE and kick inside in the nickel. They have to get snaps for both Hill/Gallimore who they see as the future at the position.

I think Hill will be gone soon enough