ADVERTISEMENT

Do we not want the 340 Lb type DTackles?

uihawk82

HB Heisman
Gold Member
Nov 17, 2021
5,298
7,184
113
Black and Graves are big but Nebby, UCLA, and a few other big teams had some really large, athletic, heavy DTackles this year and in recent years. Do we like our DTackles in the 29-310 lb range for mobility and pass rush rather than run stuffing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cm8124
In the Norm years I recall having a bigger DL or two and we used to be almost impervious to inside runs. We also gave up a boatload of passing yards with a usually non-existent pass-rush and we seemed to not be aggressive with CBs. After Phil took over we seem to have slimmed on the Dline and play a bit more aggressive pass defense but can be overpowered at the los particularly on 3rd and short type situations.
 
Not sure if O or D Tackle but it sounds like Iowa was hosting a 340 pound tackle from Rice earlier this week so they are looking to add bigger players if they look like the right type of player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobhaywood
In the Norm years I recall having a bigger DL or two and we used to be almost impervious to inside runs. We also gave up a boatload of passing yards with a usually non-existent pass-rush and we seemed to not be aggressive with CBs. After Phil took over we seem to have slimmed on the Dline and play a bit more aggressive pass defense but can be overpowered at the los particularly on 3rd and short type situations.
Maybe I’m misremembering, but we often had DTs bigger than the current ones that are 300, and 317?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaQuintaHawkeye
Maybe I’m misremembering, but we often had DTs bigger than the current ones that are 300, and 317?
at that time a 325lber DT like Colin cole would be tough for opposing ols to move. now the ol are far more massive
 
I'm going to state the obvious...ideally you want 340lbers that are agile and fast that can stuff the run AND get after the passer...I mean duh...but of course it's not like they are a dime a dozen...

On the flip side, it's not like you spotted an alien as kids are simply growing bigger these days and S&C (if a kid is bought in) is way better than it was even ten years ago...you can get guys heavier fast without them losing athleticism and slim the fat kids down without starving them to death.

You know where I'm going with this so let me give the rebuttle...the Michigan duo were not 5*s and both were kind of sleepers. Mason Graham's other finalists were ASU, Army, Boise State and Oregon State...our DL coach (at the time) saw something that all the West Coast powers missed. He was a skinny 3* (late bump to 4*), when he verballed, who got built into a 325lb beast.

But Iowa doesn't really recruit Cali you say? Kenneth Grant (who was about 370lbs when Michigan found him) is from Indiana. The competition for him was Akron (yes that Akron), ASU and Wisky...he did have an offer from tOSU but they dropped him when they landed a five star. He was there for the taking and after dropping 25lbs started chasing RBs from behind. Btw...he got a late bump too...all the way up to the 444th ranked player (composite), 59th DT, 10th in Indiana and a 3*.

But, yes... finding these guys is not easy...assuming Grant declares for the draft Michigan's interior will be lighter next year. However, my point is they are out there and being ignored by a lot a programs who are all fighting over the same shiny, ready to go 5*s and high 4*s. If Iowa takes the time to find these guys...there are some out there and perfect for a developmental program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greenway4Prez
Not sure if O or D Tackle but it sounds like Iowa was hosting a 340 pound tackle from Rice earlier this week so they are looking to add bigger players if they look like the right type of player.
Deeper than this, I have heard Lester has been vocal about practicing against what we face, and that hasn't always been how Iowa operated.

I think the whole idea is to have a defense that can simulate what we'll face on gamedays, and we certainly face 340 Lb. DTs so we need to have some of them on our roster even if it's a practice dummy.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HawkOn15
Burghawk please don't. I was there.. I still think the projector would catch fire showing film of the 1973 Iowa defense coordinated by Ducky Lewis. Let's hope we never ever go back there.


Here you go.
And this was a loss to NW in an 0-11 season.
 


Here you go.
And this was a loss to NW in an 0-11 season.
I was at that game. Parents were NW alums, and sister was a NW pom-pom girl (no pics, which would have featured 70s hair, anyway). John Pont's first year after a semi-successful Indiana gig, while Alex Agassi had bolted NW for Purdue.

NW had some decent players then, and had actually finished second in Big 10 the previous season. Steve Craig (TE) went on to play for the Vikings, and QB Mitch Anderson held a clipboard for a couple years, while RBs Stan Key and Greg Boykin had NFL stints, as well. I believe DB Pete Shaw had a semi-decent NFL and CFL tenure.
 
The teams that have the mammoth DTs are typically 3-4 or 3-3-5 defenses where you need that space eating NT.

Iowa has typically preferred lighter DTs that can flow to the ball carrier better.

Occassionally, Iowa will have a Carl Davis or Colin Cole, but for every one of them, they also have a Matt Kroul or a Karl Klug, undersized DTs that had good speed and could get to the ball carrier quicker.

Not sure there's a right or wrong answer.....it's just what Phil prefers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InsaneHawkJJP
The teams that have the mammoth DTs are typically 3-4 or 3-3-5 defenses where you need that space eating NT.

Iowa has typically preferred lighter DTs that can flow to the ball carrier better.

Occassionally, Iowa will have a Carl Davis or Colin Cole, but for every one of them, they also have a Matt Kroul or a Karl Klug, undersized DTs that had good speed and could get to the ball carrier quicker.

Not sure there's a right or wrong answer.....it's just what Phil prefers.
This simply isn't accurate...yes, you'll find a lot of heavy guys at 1 tech in 3-3/3-4...but it's not even the weight...it's the wide body who can get low enough to neutralize two blockers so others can get to the football...many are heavy

Every 4-3 looks for 340lb disrupters... EVERY single one ...hell...if you could find a 340lb 4.3 6'10" CB with great hips everyone would sign him....but that doesn't exist

As I said above...the 340+/- DL that can move are no longer and anomaly...and no longer just the domain of the top recruiters ...there are more out there now but many are projects
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greenway4Prez
This simply isn't accurate...yes, you'll find a lot of heavy guys at 1 tech in 3-3/3-4...but it's not even the weight...it's the wide body who can get low enough to neutralize two blockers so others can get to the football...many are heavy

Every 4-3 looks for 340lb disrupters... EVERY single one ...hell...if you could find a 340lb 4.3 6'10" CB with great hips everyone would sign him....but that doesn't exist

As I said above...the 340+/- DL that can move are no longer and anomaly...and no longer just the domain of the top recruiters ...there are more out there now but many are projects
DL is, by far, the hardest position in football to find quality guys, much less big boys. It's still easier to find the 6'2" 265 lb guy that in 2 years you can get to 290, than it is finding the 300+ lb guys. It's a numbers game as much as anything.
 
at that time a 325lber DT like Colin cole would be tough for opposing ols to move. now the ol are far more massive
And Colin Cole was given a generous height of 6 feet in the game program. I was by him on the field, he had his helmet off after a big win and he barely beat my 5' 11" height. talk about a low center of mass
 
  • Like
Reactions: pink shizzle
Black and Graves are big but Nebby, UCLA, and a few other big teams had some really large, athletic, heavy DTackles this year and in recent years. Do we like our DTackles in the 29-310 lb range for mobility and pass rush rather than run stuffing?
The D is slow and soft enough most years that is why cannot compete with good teams. 0-35 says it all the past few years. 49-3 will be telling next few years. Going to be a long decade. Next year will be awful.
 
DL is, by far, the hardest position in football to find quality guys, much less big boys. It's still easier to find the 6'2" 265 lb guy that in 2 years you can get to 290, than it is finding the 300+ lb guys. It's a numbers game as much as anything.
If this was 20 years ago I would agree with you...you are dated
 
DL is, by far, the hardest position in football to find quality guys, much less big boys. It's still easier to find the 6'2" 265 lb guy that in 2 years you can get to 290, than it is finding the 300+ lb guys. It's a numbers game as much as anything.
I'm going to share a graphic with you and don't stop at the first name...go at least to #4 (spoiler: Iowa)



I don't come here to troll you guys...I come here because our programs have way more in common than you think. Michigan has been a "developmental" program because it fell behind tOSU, PSU and the SEC (and USC and Oregon, etc) in it's ability to recruit highest end talent. It's not the 90s anymore...it's not even the early 2000s.

Yes...poor us as only a 10-15 recruiter ...but at the same time that is not 10 ten and not a formula to win championships...yet we won 3 straight B10 titles and a NC.

We did it by dominating on the line with guys that where not highly recruited...yes some where but you don't hold the trophy for most 3*s drafted by having a team overloaded with 5*s (in fact we had ONE on our NC team)

We found big bodies that were overlooked...turned them into NFL players... finding overlooked guys and devoping them is Iowa's signature...maybe the difference is we do it nationwide...a kid from MA, NJ, SD, Cali, VA, IN, Germany, or whatever... We find them...

They are out there if you look ...see the numbers as they don't lie
 
Iowa runs a 4-3 so they want their DTs to be able to take up space but also make their own play. If we were running a 3 man front, I would want a bigger DT that would take up more space and demand double teams.
 
In the Norm years I recall having a bigger DL or two and we used to be almost impervious to inside runs. We also gave up a boatload of passing yards with a usually non-existent pass-rush and we seemed to not be aggressive with CBs. After Phil took over we seem to have slimmed on the Dline and play a bit more aggressive pass defense but can be overpowered at the los particularly on 3rd and short type situations.
Your memory is (somewhat) off.

In 2002, one of our best run-stopping Ds ... our "big" DTs were Colin Cole (just moved over from DE from '01 to '02 ... I believe he was in the 280s or 290s ... a SR), Derrick Pickens (in the 280s ... also a SR), and Jared Clauss (also in the 280s I believe ... was a JR that year ... beefed up a little bit more his SR year).

Our bad-ass DL in '04 ... we had very little DT depth. Babineaux and Luebke manned the spots. Babs was in the 280s ... Luebke was 270s/280s-ish. The quality of the play had more to do with technique, quickness, and motor than size.

Probably one of our biggest DTs who played a ton during Norm's tenure at Iowa was Christian Ballard ... he was a bit over 3-bills. Of course, his partner in crime was Karl Klug ... a guy who finished his career at Iowa maybe in the 280s (spent most of his career at Iowa undersized ... had trouble putting on weight ... also had back-issues early in his career).

It was until Phil's era that we more regularly would have a few big DTs ... Carl Davis and Jaleel Johnson being but two examples.

Anyhow, the norm (pun intended) under Norm and Ron (Aiken) was field explosive and quick DTs who played with excellent leverage.
 
Black and Graves are big but Nebby, UCLA, and a few other big teams had some really large, athletic, heavy DTackles this year and in recent years. Do we like our DTackles in the 29-310 lb range for mobility and pass rush rather than run stuffing?
To answer the OP ... athletic DTs who are around 340 are mostly pretty rare ... and when they are around, all the big-dogs are high in their recruitment. Those guys are usually 4- to 5-star recruits ... so everyone is recruiting them.

When Iowa has landed really big, athletic guys like that ... there's usually an "angle" that helped us to land them. For instance, with some guys, we took a chance on them even though they were perceived that they wouldn't be academic qualifiers (Carl Davis and Daviyon Nixon fit this mold). For other guys, we landed them because they thought that they'd be playing a different position ... for instance, Christian Ballard was originally recruited at TE. I might be remembering wrong, but I thought that Richard Kittrell (referred by many as "big human") was originally recruited at DE ... and I think that his move to the interior probably played a role in him not "making it" on Iowa's DL.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT