Dorsey... Lasting Love or Mere Infatuation?

The momentum has shifted. After the LSU Pro Day, commentators are talking up Glenn Dorsey and, not surprisingly, some have even suggested that he now sits at the top of the Rams' draft board (or, at a minimum, at number 2 behind Chris Long).

Still, the draft is several weeks away. A lot can still happen. There may be more workouts and medical exams for the "Big 4" (Long, Long, Dorsey and Gholston). Hours and hours of game film will be reviewed. Debates, the content of which we can only guess at, will rage within Rams Park.

So, my question is... will the Dorsey love last? Or, after some time has passed, will the notion of taking a player who essentially plays the same position as last year's first round pick sink in and cause the Rams to look elsewhere.

At this moment, I have to admit that I'm torn.

From a need standpoint, I just can't fathom how one could find logic in taking Dorsey.

However, from a BPA standpoint, I have to wonder... is Dorsey the player in this draft who will be on the field in Hawaii most often in the future?

I get the infatuation.

I'm not sure it will last.

Players are often talked up following their Pro Days. The fact that Dorsey couldn't work out at the Combine makes it an even bigger deal in the media and among scouts. Those who believe that he could have recurring injuries are probably still very skeptical, but the scouts who don't think the injury factor is a big deal could have seen this as Dorsey redeeming himself.

Don't mean to change the subject or derail the thread, but this got me thinking, so I'll take it a step further... could the Rams be using this infatuation to set up this year's smokescreen with Dorsey? There might be teams who are in love with Dorsey enough to trade up to #2. The Rams don't necessarily need another UT but still pose a reasonable threat of taking him since he is such an elite playmaker.

:l

-jake-

I don't see the Rams using a "smokescreen" to trade down. I suppose the Rams could use a "smokescreen" to try to get a team that really wants Dorsey to trade with Miami, thereby allowing Chris Long to slide to the Rams.

I am a big Cogs fan, but I don't love him at center. I do like Setterstrom at center, but he is not proven yet. That leaves RT for Jake Long in my opinion unless you put cogs on the bench. I think he can beat out Barron and be a great RT, but what do you do with Barron. Upon further evaluation of game film on Gholston I am not as much in love with him as I have previously been.

Dorsey is an elite prospect and I believe it will be some mix of Dorsey, Long, Long going in the first 3 picks. The problem of course is Carriker. He could conceivably play end. I think he could make an impact at end as a effort guy and guy who uses power and leverage. He did get a sack at his first start at DE against ATL (not the best tackles, but a sack is a sack). Upon further evaluation of game film on Gholston I am not as much in love with him as I have previously been. In all it makes allot sense to put him as 2 on our board

It's infatuation. Basically, you're paying a player to do exactly what you paid a first rounder last year to do, thereby limiting both of their field time, whilst still doing nothing to address your pass rush.

It doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bar-bq

It's infatuation. Basically, you're paying a player to do exactly what you paid a first rounder last year to do, thereby limiting both of their field time, whilst still doing nothing to address your pass rush.

It doesn't make sense.

---

I didn't realize we only had one pick in the draft this year. What part did I miss when we traded our picks from round two to seven? Honestly, you talk about it like its the end of the world. We can just so easily grab a DE at the top of Round 2, and why would the Rams take Gholston if they aren't sold on him at #2, especially when they have Dorsey as their best ranked defender? If Long is gone, Dorsey is the pick. I believe it is firmly entrenched in the Rams minds right now.

You do not draft based on need, rather you draft for talent that will make your team better, something Linehan was quoted as saying earlier this week. If we drafted at the #7 spot, with Long and Gholston gone would we reach and draft someone like Harvey or Merling because its a need? No, of course not. No matter how bad the pass rush is we do not draft on need because we lack in that area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald_81

especially when they have Dorsey as their best ranked defender?

---

You've seen their draft board, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald_81

You do not draft based on need

---

Of course you don't draft solely based on need, but I think it's pretty inaccurate to suggest need isn't a factor in the equation. I think if you looked back at draft selections in the top fifteen picks of the last couple of years, you'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple examples of teams making selections with little to no need component behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

I think if you looked back at draft selections in the top fifteen picks of the last couple of years, you'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple examples of teams making selections with little to no need component behind it.

---

Not to nit pick, but Amobi Okoye just screamed in my head as I read that. Travis Johnson, another DT in '05 and then Mario in '06, and yet they went back to the defensive line. Not their most pressing need, but in the end it worked out well for them.

As for their draft board, I should've said interchangable with Chris Long. Its 1a and 1b type scenario with those two. Although I think they have a higher liking for Dorsey than Long, as you said, need still is a factor but should not overpower the wisdom of drafting to make your team better.

NFL Video Galleries

That video link has nothing to do with the discussion, just one I thought I'd share with everybody.

Mere Infatuation........mere Infatuation........mere Infatuation........mere Infatuation........mere Infatuation........mere Infatuation........mere Infatuation........send Him To Atlanta

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald_81

Not to nit pick, but Amobi Okoye just screamed in my head as I read that. Travis Johnson, another DT in '05 and then Mario in '06, and yet they went back to the defensive line. Not their most pressing need, but in the end it worked out well for them.

---

Was it their biggest need? Probably not. But was need involved? Absolutely. They went back to the defensive line, though not to the same position on the line as they did the year before, because finding someone to create an interior pass rush was a significant need for Houston last year, especially as they continued the shift to a 4-3 defensive front instead of the the 3-4 scheme they played two seasons prior. In the two years that Travis Johnson has played with them, he only made 11 starts and hadn't exactly done much for the Texans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald_81

as you said, need still is a factor but should not overpower the wisdom of drafting to make your team better.

---

There's no reason they can't do both - drafting for immediate and future need, which in turn makes your team better because you've addressed a significant area of weakness.

I still have it...

Long
Long
Dorsey

J.Long is still a safer pick, with all the issues with having the two picks back to back years that play the same spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rambos

I still have it...

Long
Long
Dorsey

J.Long is still a safer pick, with all the issues with having the two drat picks back to back years that play the same spot.

---

Not a bad position to be in knowing we'll at the least be choosing between two of those three, and possibly all three given the Tuna's penchant for being unpredictable .. Instead of "pick your poison" it will be more like "pick your elixir" ..

I'm going to put it this way.

I'm going to be very happy if the Rams draft:

J Long
C Long
Dorsey
Gholston

I'm not going to complain about any of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald_81

I didn't realize we only had one pick in the draft this year. What part did I miss when we traded our picks from round two to seven?

---

Oh, you missed that? :)

Of course we have other draft picks, but on a 3-13 team, surely you think gaping holes elsewhere outweigh our ability to have a luxury pick? Sure, he might be the best player about there; even that's debatable, but any which way you look at it, drafting Dorsey at the top of round one does not maximise our potential to best utilise the players that we already have in the inside rotation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bald

We can just so easily grab a DE at the top of Round 2

---

A DE who isn't as good as the DE we'd be able to select in round one without limiting the playing time of the first round pick under tackle and the developing 6th round Nose Tackle that we drafted last year.

By taking Dorsey in the first round, you basically have created yourself a situation where the Rams "have to" use their second round pick on adressing their most prominent area of concern. Therefore, you also restrict your own ability to address other areas of need. What about WR? There should be an abundance of players avialable at the top of round two with value that perhaps exceeds some of the DE candidates projected to be available there. What about OT? I can justify a round 2 DE if Jake Long is the selection, which I wouldn't have a problem with, but to spend your first two picks on the DL with great needs elsewhere is to compromise the rest of your team solely for the purpose of including Dorsey in your rotation, which limits the playing time of the young starters you already have. You can't pay 2 top 15 picks to be on the field half the time each.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bald

why would the Rams take Gholston if they aren't sold on him at #2, especially when they have Dorsey as their best ranked defender?

---

I'm sorry? You know this because...

Personally, I think if the Rams aren't sold on Gholston, then they shouldn't take him, and congratulate themselves for a job well done. It's as simple as that. I still think Gholston makes a heck of a lot more sense than Dorsey does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bald

You do not draft based on need, rather you draft for talent that will make your team better, something Linehan was quoted as saying earlier this week.

---

Well if the great Linehan, master of the draft smokescreen said it...:|

As to drafting to make your team better; I don't see how having Dorsey and using him interchangably with another first round pick is as beneficial as having a player who will come in and start, like Chris Long, a player who projects to have a definite position in the future, like Jake Long, or a player who adresses our most prominent area of concern, the need for a pass rush, in Gholston? You can't tell me that there's such a massive dropoff in talent between Gholston and Dorsey that the former should be discounted altogether because he is not "the" BPA. He's still a projected top 5 pick. Who's to say Dorsey is the BPA anyway? There isn't a clear cut. Chris Long and Gholston both purport to adress our primary need, and both are in the mix for the muddled picture that is the BPA at this stage.

Moreover, if you're drafting solely for BPA, why don't I see anyone screaming to the hills for Darren McFadden? Because fiscally, and logically, it doesn't make sense. Why isn't Dorsey given much consideration #1 overall to Miami? Becuase, as good a player as he is, he does not fit within their system, and I think you can apply that same scenario to the Rams, as he would be getting paid like a number 2 overall pick to only see perhaps half, if that of defensive snaps, or, put Carriker in a postion where he's not best equipped to utilise his skill set, or, bump Ryan out of the starting lineup entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bald

If we drafted at the #7 spot, with Long and Gholston gone would we reach and draft someone like Harvey or Merling because its a need? No, of course not. No matter how bad the pass rush is we do not draft on need because we lack in that area.

---

Merling or, most likely, Harvey could still see themselves going within the top 10 picks. Hypotheticals are irrelevant in this scenario because it makes most sense for the Rams at number two to draft a BPA candidate (and I use that word operatively because there is no established BPA) who alse adresses their most dire area of need, and that's something that they are wholly capable of. It's not like anyone's going to be screaming "reach!" if we took Gholston over Dorsey.

Quote:

---

Re: Dorsey... Lasting Love or Mere Infatuation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald_81
I didn't realize we only had one pick in the draft this year. What part did I miss when we traded our picks from round two to seven?

Oh, you missed that?

Of course we have other draft picks, but on a 3-13 team, surely you think gaping holes elsewhere outweigh our ability to have a luxury pick? Sure, he might be the best player about there; even that's debatable, but any which way you look at it, drafting Dorsey at the top of round one does not maximise our potential to best utilise the players that we already have in the inside rotation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bald
We can just so easily grab a DE at the top of Round 2

A DE who isn't as good as the DE we'd be able to select in round one without limiting the playing time of the first round pick under tackle and the developing 6th round Nose Tackle that we drafted last year.

By taking Dorsey in the first round, you basically have created yourself a situation where the Rams "have to" use their second round pick on adressing their most prominent area of concern. Therefore, you also restrict your own ability to address other areas of need. What about WR? There should be an abundance of players avialable at the top of round two with value that perhaps exceeds some of the DE candidates projected to be available there. What about OT? I can justify a round 2 DE if Jake Long is the selection, which I wouldn't have a problem with, but to spend your first two picks on the DL with great needs elsewhere is to compromise the rest of your team solely for the purpose of including Dorsey in your rotation, which limits the playing time of the young starters you already have. You can't pay 2 top 15 picks to be on the field half the time each.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bald
why would the Rams take Gholston if they aren't sold on him at #2, especially when they have Dorsey as their best ranked defender?

I'm sorry? You know this because...

Personally, I think if the Rams aren't sold on Gholston, then they shouldn't take him, and congratulate themselves for a job well done. It's as simple as that. I still think Gholston makes a heck of a lot more sense than Dorsey does.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bald
You do not draft based on need, rather you draft for talent that will make your team better, something Linehan was quoted as saying earlier this week.

Well if the great Linehan, master of the draft smokescreen said it...

As to drafting to make your team better; I don't see how having Dorsey and using him interchangably with another first round pick is as beneficial as having a player who will come in and start, like Chris Long, a player who projects to have a definite position in the future, like Jake Long, or a player who adresses our most prominent area of concern, the need for a pass rush, in Gholston? You can't tell me that there's such a massive dropoff in talent between Gholston and Dorsey that the former should be discounted altogether because he is not "the" BPA. He's still a projected top 5 pick. Who's to say Dorsey is the BPA anyway? There isn't a clear cut. Chris Long and Gholston both purport to adress our primary need, and both are in the mix for the muddled picture that is the BPA at this stage.

Moreover, if you're drafting solely for BPA, why don't I see anyone screaming to the hills for Darren McFadden? Because fiscally, and logically, it doesn't make sense. Why isn't Dorsey given much consideration #1 overall to Miami? Becuase, as good a player as he is, he does not fit within their system, and I think you can apply that same scenario to the Rams, as he would be getting paid like a number 2 overall pick to only see perhaps half, if that of defensive snaps, or, put Carriker in a postion where he's not best equipped to utilise his skill set, or, bump Ryan out of the starting lineup entirely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bald
If we drafted at the #7 spot, with Long and Gholston gone would we reach and draft someone like Harvey or Merling because its a need? No, of course not. No matter how bad the pass rush is we do not draft on need because we lack in that area.

Merling or, most likely, Harvey could still see themselves going within the top 10 picks. Hypotheticals are irrelevant in this scenario because it makes most sense for the Rams at number two to draft a BPA candidate (and I use that word operatively because there is no established BPA) who alse adresses their most dire area of need, and that's something that they are wholly capable of. It's not like anyone's going to be screaming "reach!" if we took Gholston over Dorsey.

---

Bar-bq, well said rep for you bro!