Most important defensive position in collegiate football

[Brutus1]

Hands down, DL.

Pressure on the qb, makes coverage easier for the db's.

Clogging up the middle, keeps bodies off the lb's, making their job much easier.

The closer to the ball, the more important.

DL, LB's, then DB's.

 

[sandgk]

I'm taking LB. All of the positions are even to me for all the reasons listed above. Since the LB usually makes the defensive calls I give that position the edge.

Yeah - I'd have to agree on this, it is typically the LB that sets the defense. Yet, as others have pointed out you need all those pieces working in concert to have a full and effective defense - particularly from the DLinemen.

Difficult choice - but the D- "signal caller" gets the vote.

 

[EdDantes22]

An excellent player anywhere in the defensive lineup makes every other player, and every other position, more effective. Having disruptive lineman who can get to the quarterback certainly makes the back 7 better because they don't have to cover receivers as long; this means we give up fewer big plays and can also cover more tightly and take more chances, which leads to turnovers. Similarly, an excellent back 4 makes our D-line more effective by locking down receivers and giving the hogs longer to get to the QB.

That said, my vote goes to the LBs, by a hair. They have to be the most versatile players on the field; they have to be able to blitz and cover tight ends, backs, or even slot receivers. The MLB is also the defensive quarterback and his leadership skills have to go beyond the X's and O's.

All in all, a few weak players, no matter where they are, brings the level of play down for everyone.

 

[BB73]

I went with DE.

Those of you saying 'DL' need to be more specific, 'DL's not a choice.

 

[wdg01]

Defensive coordinator :tongue2:

 

[buckeye247]

Punter?

That was my second choice.

 

[scooter1369]

Isn't this like asking which testicle is most important?

 

[Savante]

Well, the DL is the most important, by far. I'll decide later on in this post if I feel it's DE or DT, but it's the DL. A great linebacker can be neutralized if the DL doesn't do anything. A good corner becomes a terrible one when left on an island, and most linebackers can't shed too many blocks from OL. It's the DL's job on running plays to eat blockers and maybe shed them to make plays. If they fail their job, the OL is in the second level and eating the linebackers for lunch. On passing plays, if the DL gets no push, you're forced to blitz players, leaving less players to cover, and giving the QB more time to hit the open receiver (which there is on every play).

As it was said before, 2004 is what happens when you have a good back 7 with a mediocre front 7. This year, if the DL performs like it should, we will have a great defense, simply because the QBs will be pressured and the LBs will be free to make plays.

I'm going to say DT, actually. They are the crux of the running game, and if they can get any push in the passing game, or at least take 2 blockers (2 apiece is ideal) to stop them, it opens everything else up.

 

[martinss01]

... all of them? while it all begins and ends in the trenches. without guys like chris gamble, dustin fox, mike doss, donnie nickey, matt wilhelm, cie grant, tim anderson etc... will smith isn't rememebered as a great rush de. he is remember as that guy who got double and triple teamed alot.

Isn't this like asking which testicle is most important?

alot like that actually. a great player at any position takes pressure off the rest of the team and allows them to do more. a great cover corner allows a team to blitz safeties, lbs, and gives d linemen an extra half second to get to the qb. so on and so forth down the positions. theres a reason why football is a "team" sport.

 

[cincibuck]

It would be interesting to know where the recruiters start. I'm thinking it has to be speed, balance, agility and a sense for where the ball is and where it's going.

If that's the case, then they begin to build a defense around speed and that would mean you start with fast corners. I would make the case that strong corners force the run game wide giving the LBs a shot at a tackle for loss, slow down the QBs so that the DLs can get sacks, and keep the safety free to play centerfield.

 

[Savante]

will smith isn't rememebered as a great rush de. he is remember as that guy who got double and triple teamed alot.

And why did he get double and triple teamed a lot? Because he was a great rush DE.

Honestly, stats are not important for a DE, and they should have a stat called "double teams" and one called "triple teams", and most importantly, 'sacks donated'. If Smith was triple teamed, they probably needed, at the very least, a TE and a FB on him, along with the tackle (or maybe a FB, G and T). That's 3 to one, that means that the other DL are, at the very most, going to get single blocking, and sometimes they won't even get anyone. That means the linebackers are probably free to do whatever, and there can't be a spread offense if they're triple teaming a rush end, it'd get clobbered. It means someone is going to get through. Will Smith probably lead the NCAA in "sacks donated".

I'd rather take Will Smith, even if he only got 5 sacks a year, over a guy who gets 10 because he constantly faces double and triple teams.

 

[AKAK]

And why did he get double and triple teamed a lot? Because he was a great rush DE.

Honestly, stats are not important for a DE, and they should have a stat called "double teams" and one called "triple teams", and most importantly, 'sacks donated'. .

Sort of exactly the same reason I said DT... also... along with the person who mentioned closeset to the ball... If you've got a guy right over the ball that they have to double or triple (say with a FB)... then there is a trickle down effect... no one to double the DE... or Linemen to get on a Linebacker, and on down the line...

Now... you're right... you can have average DT's and get a matchup problem with the DE's instead... or a linebacker who you have to use a OL to block... and on and on... but there's not many schemes they can change if they can't block the dude right accross from the ball.. you can't roll away from a guy who's about to pick your center and guard up and chuck him on top of the QB before the can execute the snap.. My 2 cents.

 

[3yardsandacloud]

Recruiting Coordinator. :)

 

[jc_ultimate]

I said DE for the same reasons as just about everyone has already said.

However, if you were to ask what the most important defensive position is in the NFL I would change my vote to safety. I think this year guys like Troy Polamalu, Sean Taylor, and Bob Sanders really proved how a dynamic safety can really alter a defense. Also I think it's no coicidence that the one player (besides Tom Brady) that the Patriots couldn't replace was Rodney Harrison.

 

[Savante]

Sort of exactly the same reason I said DT... also... along with the person who mentioned closeset to the ball... If you've got a guy right over the ball that they have to double or triple (say with a FB)... then there is a trickle down effect... no one to double the DE... or Linemen to get on a Linebacker, and on down the line...

Now... you're right... you can have average DT's and get a matchup problem with the DE's instead... or a linebacker who you have to use a OL to block... and on and on... but there's not many schemes they can change if they can't block the dude right accross from the ball.. you can't roll away from a guy who's about to pick your center and guard up and chuck him on top of the QB before the can execute the snap.. My 2 cents.

Yep, I said DT, too. I agree completely. Really, DL is the big thing. DTs can totally eat up a running game, and help kill passing games. Smith was a boon on passing downs, though, is all I was saying, but yeah, I said DT because it is the most important. Or maybe because I'm a former DT.