opinions on Ratliff needed

[theogt]

as others have said, he likely would be facing a guard as the T would be playing spencer or ware. and the exact point is that he doesn't get doubled teamed. he is too small to force a double team, which allows the extra guard to take on a LB or spears/canty. a hog at NT will force a double team by say the RG/C with spears on the RT ratliff on the LG and ware on the LT. having ware and ratliff one on one every play is real nice, throw in another LB coming up the middle or on the other side and NOW we're talking.

Where do you people get this stuff? If he's playing 3-4 DE, he's going up against the offensive tackle the vast majority of the time.

And it may be just coincidence, but the few games I've watched focusing solely on Ratliff, he receives most of his double teams on running plays.

 

[HanD]

Where do you people get this stuff? If he's playing 3-4 DE, he's going up against the offensive tackle the vast majority of the time.

And it may be just coincidence, but the few games I've watched focusing solely on Ratliff, he receives most of his double teams on running plays.

when ware was rushing this year off of the edge, who was blocking him and who was blocking canty?

as for the rushing plays, that is another point i made previously, he isn't large enough to hold the middle on rushing plays when a double team comes at him. he might be able to penetrate but he can't hold or make a push in the middle and force OL into the backfield.

 

[theogt]

when ware was rushing this year off of the edge, who was blocking him and who was blocking canty?

Typically it's either a TE or a back blocking the 3-4 OLB. And the tackle blocks the end. Sometimes they'll shift outside with the tackle blocking the OLB and the guard blocking the end, but that's certainly not what happens most often.

as for the rushing plays, that is another point i made previously, he isn't large enough to hold the middle on rushing plays when a double team comes at him. he might be able to penetrate but he can't hold or make a push in the middle and force OL into the backfield.

Well that's just not true. He holds up to double teams on running plays extremely well. You should go back and watch some games focusing solely on him.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

I would say that Ratliff is most valuable as a NT in possible passing situations because his pressure limits the QB's ability to step up in the pocket. That pressure up the middle allows Ware to get more sacks. If you can find some beast of a DT to replace him on obvious running downs, well I am all for that. Ratliff should not be moved from full time DT to full time DE though, that would hurt our defense.

 

[HanD]

Typically it's either a TE or a back blocking the 3-4 OLB. And the tackle blocks the end. Sometimes they'll shift outside with the tackle blocking the OLB and the guard blocking the end, but that's certainly not what happens most often.

Well that's just not true. He holds up to double teams on running plays extremely well. You should go back and watch some games focusing solely on him.

i'm not talking about a typical 3-4. i'm talking about this defense. The LT almost exclusively took ware and with help from a TE or RB also. Not too many teams tried to block ware with a TE or a back for obvious reasons. if ratliff were to take canty's place (if he isn't resigned and we get a hog NT), ratliff would see more of the LG than the LT. 50-50 at best.

as for double teams on the run, i'll have to watch some more footage...maybe you're right...

 

[theogt]

i'm not talking about a typical 3-4. i'm talking about this defense. The LT almost exclusively took ware and with help from a TE or RB also. Not too many teams tried to block ware with a TE or a back for obvious reasons. if ratliff were to take canty's place (if he isn't resigned and we get a hog NT), ratliff would see more of the LG than the LT. 50-50 at best.

as for double teams on the run, i'll have to watch some more footage...maybe you're right...

Watch and see who blocks Ware most often too.

 

[HanD]

Watch and see who blocks Ware most often too.

it's not the LT on pass protection? i didn't see walter jones on him all game? samuels and diel? off the top of my head that's what i remember, won't really have time to go back anytime soon to rewatch....just end the suspense already and give me the answer :laugh2:

 

[irvin4evs]

Ratliff is my second favorite player on the team (Ware), but he is out of place. He's a 4-3 DT, a 3-4 DE.

What we need isn't necessarily a BIGGER nose tackle, just a more stout guy who is built for a leverage game rather than a penetration game. As awesome as Rat is, he isn't much of a point-holding guy.

 

[HanD]

Ratliff is my second favorite player on the team (Ware), but he is out of place. He's a 4-3 DT, a 3-4 DE.

What we need isn't necessarily a BIGGER nose tackle, just a more stout guy who is built for a leverage game rather than a penetration game. As awesome as Rat is, he isn't much of a point-holding guy.

we had one and got a 6th round pick for him

 

[InmanRoshi]

I really don't understand the "It's not broke, so let's fix it" mentality of those chomping at the bit to move a Pro Bowler from what he feels is his natural position. Ratliff's initial burst is best untilized right under center. Moving him outside just moves him further away from the QB and gives him a tougher angle.

 

[irvin4evs]

we had one and got a 6th round pick for him

I really didn't like that trade, either. Apparently we did it to resign Ware, but the Williams trade undermined that far more than keeping Ferguson would have. Sigh.

 

[irvin4evs]

I really don't understand the "It's not broke, so let's fix it" mentality of those chomping at the bit to move a Pro Bowler from what he feels is his natural position. Ratliff's initial burst is best untilized right under center. Moving him outside just moves him further away from the QB and gives him a tougher angle.

Ratliff is a liability when he's double teamed in the run game. He got pushed around. He's unstoppable when he's single teamed, but teams never single team him in the running game, which, sorry to say, is more important than his eight sacks.

You put him at DE, and you stunt a lot. Simple. It would take a truly poor replacement for us to get any worse in run defense at NT (Tank was awful, too), and we'd be improving our ability to collapse the pocket, which we currently are pitiful at.

 

[jobberone]

Ratliff is a liability when he's double teamed in the run game. He got pushed around. He's unstoppable when he's single teamed, but teams never single team him in the running game, which, sorry to say, is more important than his eight sacks.

You put him at DE, and you stunt a lot. Simple. It would take a truly poor replacement for us to get any worse in run defense at NT (Tank was awful, too), and we'd be improving our ability to collapse the pocket, which we currently are pitiful at.

I don't think he's that bad but you're right. He is a liability at times esp when asked to play a 2 instead of the 3. We need an unmovable object for the 2 and at times the 3. Most of the time they are in the 3. It's too much to ask Ratliff to take on double teams and stack the line. They thought Tank could play that role and they were wrong. Fergy was a big loss.

 

[HanD]

I really didn't like that trade, either. Apparently we did it to resign Ware, but the Williams trade undermined that far more than keeping Ferguson would have. Sigh.

i don't believe it. i posted previously links that showed us trading him only saved us 2.4 in cap space. compare that to keeping tank and the difference is 1.5 mil that we didn't even use this year (we had roughly 6.5 mil left). Additionally, ferg was entering the last 2 years of his deal, of which, the majority of the contract was already paid out in the beginning (11.5 of 21.5 over the first 2 years). it COULD have, but i haven't seen any real numbers worked out to show that it WOULD have...so i'm just chalking that trade up to us being hosed because BP wanted one of his guys and jerry wasn't too upset about losing a BP guy while gaining cap space. i just don't think we got good value for it (walden our 6th round pick wasn't even kept). and the worse case scenario was ferg not being the same (it was a bicep injury so he was expected to have no lingering effects) and us with the same DL we had this year anyway. oh well.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Ratliff is a liability when he's double teamed in the run game. He got pushed around. He's unstoppable when he's single teamed, but teams never single team him in the running game, which, sorry to say, is more important than his eight sacks.

It's hard for me to see how Dallas could have a respectable rushing against YPC (12th in the NFL) when their nosetackle is a "liability" (your words) against the run. This is with the two long Baltimore runs thrown in, neither one had anything to do with Ratliff. It will be interesting to see where Football Outsiders has Dallas ranked on run defense between the tackles.

I'm just a little more guarded as to how much of a "liability" Ratliff was against the run, and would like some more objective proof to back up this claim, because sometimes people have the habit of just looking at Ratliff's height and weight on the roster and immediately make up their minds that he must be a liability against the run. I've seen it too many times where a fat guy is being credited as great against the run, even though his teams are perenially horrible against the run (Grady Jackson). Big & Fat != automatically good against the run.

I do agree with you that the Fergie trade was remarkably stupid.

 

[Alexander]

Watch a Ravens game and watch how active Jim Leonhard is versus the run.

Or the Steelers and note that Troy Polamalu is the key to their run defense, not Hampton.

Or the Vikings, where Antoine Winfield is constantly making plays against it.
.

Amazing.

I have never heard anyone explain how these three defenses that excel at stopping the run really just owe it all to players from the secondary. Incredible.

I'll take Hampton, Ngata, Kevin Williams or Pat Williams.

You can have all the Jim Leonhards, Troy Polamalus and Antoine Winfields.

Let's see who wins.

 

[irvin4evs]

Inman - On second thought, "liability" against double teams might be too strong of a word, as Ratliff is phenomenal at shedding blocks. I guess I should say he's a liability as far as holding the point of attack goes. IMO, he hasn't shown the ability to stand up double teams, only the ability to break them.

The problem comes when he doesn't break them, though. It seems to me that Rat either breaks through or gets pushed back five yards with no happy medium.



Still, I want to distance myself from the idea that we need a BIG nose tackle (especially someone like Haynesworth). In the 3-4 it seems to me that stouter nose tackles are much more preferable, because holding ground is all about getting lower and bracing against the double team. A guy like the Boston College DT and Michigan's Terrance Taylor have ideal 3-4 NT builds in my mind.

 

[McCordsville Cowboy]

my personal opinion...he is a VERY good NT. especially on passing downs. where we miss something is short yardage. Ratliff is good at penetrating the line, but not moving the line. 3-4 NTs are usually stout and can move 1 or two OL into the backfield. See wilfork, ferg and jamal williams. I don't think ratliff's emergence had as much to do with moving and playing the NT position as it did getting playing time. He was forced into the rotation. I think he would have done just as well at DE if given time over canty or spears. Count me as one who isn't saying ratliff was a problem (obviously) or that we can get someone who will put up better numbers. Just that our DL would be more of a factor with a stout NT and ratliff playing DE. Then we could move ratliff back to NT on passing downs.

I was discussing this in another thread about JFerg. I would rather have Rat/JFerg/Spears than Spears/Rat/Canty. then on 3rd downs or passing downs, you shift Rat to NT like he's been playing this year. the JFerg trade is over, but Rat's versatility could do well if he is at DE on ware's side. Do you put a G on Rat and a T on ware? Do you put the T on Rat and TE or back on Ware? all difficult tasks if you have a stout NT that commands a double team IMO.

Unless you get a bigger LB to replace Thomas, he is a problem.

And Barbie doesn't count.

 

[HanD]

Unless you get a bigger LB to replace Thomas, he is a problem.

And Barbie doesn't count.

thomas was definitely not a good fit for this scheme.

 

[jobberone]

Inman - On second thought, "liability" against double teams might be too strong of a word, as Ratliff is phenomenal at shedding blocks. I guess I should say he's a liability as far as holding the point of attack goes. IMO, he hasn't shown the ability to stand up double teams, only the ability to break them.

The problem comes when he doesn't break them, though. It seems to me that Rat either breaks through or gets pushed back five yards with no happy medium.



Still, I want to distance myself from the idea that we need a BIG nose tackle (especially someone like Haynesworth). In the 3-4 it seems to me that stouter nose tackles are much more preferable, because holding ground is all about getting lower and bracing against the double team. A guy like the Boston College DT and Michigan's Terrance Taylor have ideal 3-4 NT builds in my mind.

I don't know how Haynesworth would work in our base defense. Right now Ratliff is a perfect 3. We need a good 2 NT. We aren't going to get someone known to be like Haynesworth. We need a big NT to play the 2 and goalline stands/short yardage plays who won't get moved by double teams. The reason to use the 3 technique is to split the double team which is going to happen on every play unless someone pulls. That defeats one particular double team or eliminates one guard and helps someone like Ratliff to defeat a double team. The problem is it also moves personnel away from the middle either to the strong or weak side. And without a fiercely run stopping ILB(s) you are going to allow a lot of 2-7 yds runs up the middle. We need to be able to play heads up at times.