“When you talk about up front, I think I’d have to go to defensive tackle as opposed to an end, because tackles are harder to take out of a game plan by an offensive coordinator,” Schwartz opined. “You can chip a defensive end with a running back, (or) you can put a tight end to that side (and) make him redirect. But the defensive tackle is closer to the quarterback, and he’s harder to scheme. About the only way you can really scheme is slide the center his way, and most of them are good at dealing with that.”
“They’re the closest guy to the quarterback,” Schwartz later continued. “That quarterback wants to set up in the pocket. They can be a factor in every single play. If the quarterback throws quick – he throws on three steps, or even some of the one-step stuff that guys do now – defensive ends can be rendered ineffective on a lot of that. It’s hard to speed rush, it’s hard to be able to affect the quarterback if he’s throwing the ball so quick. But defensive tackles are always in the fight.”
Jim Schwartz: defensive tackles, not ends, have more value in modern NFL – Buffalo Rumblings
This is why I’d never complain about the Pats going DT in the first round the last two seasons.