Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    harrydog's Avatar
    harrydog is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    428
    Rep Power
    13

    Dorsey or Gholston?

    I'm feeling fairly certain that we'll be taking Chris Long if Miami doesn't. But let's assume that Miami does grab Long. Then what? I know that Jake Long is a possibility but I really hope not.
    So, ignoring J. Long for the sake of this discussion, who would you take, Dorsey or Gholston? Both have some negatives.
    Dorsey has the injury concern plus DT is not a pressing need at the moment. But he's got the work ethic, toughness and non-stop motor, and can motivate those around him to play better.
    Gholston fills a definite need and has tons of potential, but his productivity is less proven and his desire and effort are more questionable. He's more of a project too, since he's a bit raw and will need to work on technique and polish his skills.
    So, Dorsey is more of a sure thing, except for the injury and Gholston fills a greater need. What do we do? Of course if we do take Dorsey, we need to take a DE in the 2nd or 3rd round, although I'm not sure if there are any good ones that would be there in the 3rd round. Whether we take a DE in the 2nd or 3rd, we need to take a WR in the other round, in my opinion.
    If we take Gholston, we can definitely take a WR in the 2nd round rather than wait till the 3rd.
    For that reason, I'm leaning toward Gholston over Dorsey, even though I really like Dorsey and think he'd be a hell of a good addition to the Rams.


  2. #2
    Ramer's Avatar
    Ramer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,026
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    I would have to go with Dorsey. The guy is a beast and plays every down at 110%.

  3. #3
    harrydog's Avatar
    harrydog is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    428
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramer View Post
    I would have to go with Dorsey. The guy is a beast and plays every down at 110%.
    I agree with that. The only reason I'm leaning toward Gholston is because if we take him we can address WR or any other need in the 2nd and 3rd round. With Dorsey, we're almost forced to take a DE in the 2nd round and that means every other need we have gets addressed one round later than it otherwise would have.

  4. #4
    TekeRam's Avatar
    TekeRam is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, United States
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,876
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    If we had a more solid back seven, I would say that we could take Dorsey and get away with a lesser pass rush, a la Jacksonville who has a good, hard hitting back seven and had two massive tackles who clog the middle and get a pass rush that way. That's what I figure we could do with Dorsey and AC. I don't feel that we should put AC out at end because he was already huge for a DE(290's) and bulked up to fill his frame. I really doubt that he can handle being more than a 3-4 DE.

    This is not to say that I am all for taking Gholston. I am very concerned about his inconsistent production and as I keep saying, have never seen something explaining it. There's been people who have supposed that he was double teamed but Long was double teamed the entirety of his Junior and Senior years and his production is better even though half of that time he played a 3-4. He also was never shut out like Gholston has been. Hell, even Dorsey has significantly more tackles than Gholston the last two years(133 to 86) despite being a DT whereas Gholston was, again, playing a position specifically designed to prevent him from getting double teamed as well as putting him into coverage where he could supposedly pick up tackles in the passing game as well as rushes. He just didn't. I want to know why.

    So, who do I pick? I go with Gholston because he fills a need much better than Dorsey, and moreso fits our team better as he can play 3-4 or 4-3. Dorsey can't. I'm still going to worry about him until he goes up against and shows up a pro bowl tackle though.

  5. #5
    39thebeast's Avatar
    39thebeast is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    conecticut
    Posts
    2,740
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    Dorsey IMO better player bigtime game changer not saying Gholston isn't, but I think Dorsey will make a bigger impact even though he is at a lesser position of need

  6. #6
    harrydog's Avatar
    harrydog is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    428
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    If we took Dorsey and then the best available DE at #33, we should have a much improved DL that should be very effective against the run and would almost certainly be getting much more pressure on opposing QB's, which would help our back seven.
    the problem is, we also need a WR and maybe some OL help that would have to wait until the second day. But Rome wasn't built in a day.

  7. #7
    eauclare is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    96
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    I would go with Dorsey. It is very hard to find a 3 technique tacle like Dorsey. Move Carriker back out to his natural position of DE. Get a speed rusher OLB in round 2 ala

  8. #8
    eauclare is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    96
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    The rest of my post was meant to say Quentin Groves from Auburn. You have a front of LL, Ryan, Dorsey and Carriker. Your LB's are Groves, WW and Pisa. Not a bad front seven. Go WR in round 3.

  9. #9
    ram1906's Avatar
    ram1906 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    132
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    I think Harry hit the nail on the head. We need to adress needs in the draft and balance that with taking the best player available in that round. We need defensive pressure. Follow the winning mold (SEE NYG line). Get 2 speed rushers...a quick strong interior linemen (Carriker) and create blocking scheme havoc for opposing o-lines. Gholston and Little on the outside, with Carriker and Ryan in the middle is nice!!!....Carriker/Hall with Dorsey and Ryan and Little doesnt seem that opposing to me. NOT enough speed!!!...Please Ram fans....get the party started.....We need Gholston!!! he could be our Freeny..( and the same things were said about his production coming out of SU)

  10. #10
    TekeRam's Avatar
    TekeRam is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, United States
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,876
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    For everyone who feels that Carriker's "natural position" is a 4-3 DE, I'd just like you to find stats on any 4-3 DE who weigh 300 lbs. See if you still want him there. Better yet, look at the leading 4-3 DE sackers of the last few years. See how much they weigh.

    The point is, he's not a 4-3 DE and never was a 4-3 DE. He was an athletic 3-4 DE who had the frame and weight to be used as a 4-3 DT. That's where he's natural in a 4-3. Hell, he weighs 10-20 lbs more than a lot of the DT's in this draft, and you want to make him a 4-3 DE?

  11. #11
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    Gosh, are some of us employed by NFLN? Teke, maybe he's not a 4-3 DE but all I've heard OUTSIDE of this website by people like Jim Thomas and such is that either both Dorsey and Carriker are the DT's or Carriker moves outside.

  12. #12
    harrydog's Avatar
    harrydog is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    428
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    Carriker played DE at 290 - 295. He bulked up to play DT. Plus, he's 6'6" which is taller than most DT's, so at 295 he doesn't have the body type of the typical DT. I think he could still be an effective DE in the NFL if we needed him to play that position.

  13. #13
    TekeRam's Avatar
    TekeRam is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, United States
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,876
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    Quote Originally Posted by txramsfan View Post
    Gosh, are some of us employed by NFLN? Teke, maybe he's not a 4-3 DE but all I've heard OUTSIDE of this website by people like Jim Thomas and such is that either both Dorsey and Carriker are the DT's or Carriker moves outside.
    Tx, I'm not debating that statement. What I'm saying is, I don't feel that he would be an effective 4-3 DE for more than run support and bull rushing the tackle into the QB due to his frame size.

    Now, Julius Peppers is 6'7", so an inch taller than Carriker and is listed as weighing 283, which is about 25 lbs less than Carriker played this year at. Carriker's also not the athlete that Peppers is. To be effective, I think Carriker would have to lose about 30lbs or so.

  14. #14
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    50
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Dorsey or Gholston?

    harry is right though, Carriker put on weight to play DT. Carriker is a tweener.

    You know, I have a sneaky feeling that in three or so years....we aren't going to be happy about drafting Carriker.

Similar Threads

  1. Jim Thomas Chat --March 25
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: -03-25-2008, 06:58 PM
  2. Gordo Live
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -03-17-2008, 07:59 PM
  3. Wagoner's Mailbag: Feb 23
    By Nick in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-24-2008, 02:25 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: -09-28-2004, 10:40 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: -09-14-2004, 02:40 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •