Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
  1. #1
    RAMarkable is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,093
    Rep Power
    41

    Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    Recently there has been much discussion about whether Glen Dorsey would be a good fit for the Rams should they select him with the 2nd pick. The argument against picking Dorsey goes something like this: If the Rams take him then Adam Carriker will have to move over to DE, a position that he is not well suited for. But I think there are other possibilities. Permit me to explain, please.

    The average NFL game consists of approximately 60 -65 offense v. defense plays. This means that there are about 120 plays per game for the two DT positions in the 4-3 defense. So why couldn't the Rams play Dorsey 40 -45 plays at the UT (under tackle) and Cliff Ryan 40 -45 snaps at the NT (nose tackle)? A. Carriker would then play the remaining 20-25 snaps at the UT and the other 20-25 snaps at the NT. This would give each player sufficient playing time without wearing down at the end of the game. Recall that A. Carriker played both DT positions last year, and, imo, played both very well. Also, if the Rams wanted to play some 3-4 or 3-3-5, (like last year), then Adam could slide out and play some DE if asked. The keypoint is that Adam Carriker has the requisite diversity and talent to play 2 if not even 3 positions along the D-Line. And at a high level. Therefore the acquisition of Glen Dorsey will not adversely affect Mr. Carriker (or Mr. Ryan, for that matter). I do not know if the Rams will pick Glen Dorsey in the upcoming draft or not; all I'm saying is let's put to rest the notion that we can't take him because we don't know what to do with last years number 1 pick. This is, imho, a false premise and should be discarded asap.

    WHAT SAY YE?


  2. #2
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,132
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    Carriker played both DT positions last year, and, imo, played both very well
    With the need for a DE,LB,SS,OL,WR why take a player that we filled last year with AC?

  3. #3
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    We can't afford to have our first round picks splitting time on the field. It's a matter both of money (if we're paying our part-time players that much, how can we come up with enough salary to pay the other full-time players we need) and available talent (having fresh legs at the defensive tackle doesn't help the team as much as getting a starter at one of our top need positions).

    Let's say we did keep both Carriker and Dorsey at defensive tackle. In round two, we'd almost have to take a defensive end because both of our current starters are over 30 and didn't do much of anything last season. By round three, we have to decide whether there's anyone left we think could be an eventual starter at receiver or offensive tackle, but at best we'll only fill one of those holes before round four. Wouldn't it be better to take care of our most pressing needs before we decide to build depth at positions where we've already got starters?

  4. #4
    Bar-bq's Avatar
    Bar-bq is online now Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,925
    Rep Power
    94

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    Hm... Interesting.

    But I think there are too many other needs to fill aside from DT to consentrate on strengthening a young and improving "faculty" on our DL. One of them is going to end up out in the cold, or we're going to lose production from Carriker, playing two positions, which I don't think he did consistently in even one game after the discovery of Ryan on the nose. But that's not even the real issue.

    It's as simple as this. Drafting Dorsey does not do anything to adress our pass rush. That's what we're aiming to do by drafting defensive linemen this year. Last year, the need was high for run stoppers. We got two good ones. This year, we need to ensure that our small corners and safeties don't get burned in coverage because a quarterback has all day to throw. Drafting Dorsey and subsequently having to remove one of our existing DT rotation from the field still does not do anything to address our most glaring need.

    That's why drafting Dorsey in this scenario; and the 'Carriker to DE' scenario does not work. You're not utilising personnel to the best of your ability. Moreover, what about his injury concerns? A stress fracture is something that can linger and affect production down the road. Long and Gholston hardly have brusises on them.

  5. #5
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,477
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenfleece View Post
    We can't afford to have our first round picks splitting time on the field.
    Exactly my thoughts. Spending two Top 15 picks - one of which being the second overall pick - on tackles that you're only going to play 65-75% of the time seems like a waste of resources and money to me. You spend those picks on guys who will be on the field nearly every play for their unit. If the Rams spend the second overall pick in this draft on Dorsey, I'm going to expect him to be on the field for more than 40-45 of our 60-65 defensive plays per game. Just as I expect Carriker to be on the field more than that amount as well.

    If Dorsey's the pick, the plan of action that I think makes the most sense (though I'm still not a huge fan of) is keeping Carriker at nose tackle with Dorsey at under tackle and Ryan as a situational substitute. We'd still be moving Carriker off possibly his best position in the three-technique, but he'd at least be inside which IMO is a better use of his skill set than putting him at DE. The problem is that we're basically shooting down any idea of Ryan becoming an eventual starter here as a nose tackle, even though he showed promise and ability at the position last season. He'd be very good depth, but based on past articles, it's clear the Rams view him as a guy who could potentially be a very capable starter at the nose. This plan would pretty much shoot that down.

  6. #6
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,132
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    Drafting Dorsey does not do anything to adress our pass rush.
    I disagree Dorsey will help with the pass rush.


    If Dorsey's the pick, the plan of action that I think makes the most sense (though I'm still not a huge fan of) is keeping Carriker at nose tackle with Dorsey at under tackle and Ryan as a situational substitute. We'd still be moving Carriker off possibly his best position in the three-technique, but he'd at least be inside which IMO is a better use of his skill set than putting him at DE. The problem is that we're basically shooting down any idea of Ryan becoming an eventual starter here as a nose tackle, even though he showed promise and ability at the position last season. He'd be very good depth, but based on past articles, it's clear the Rams view him as a guy who could potentially be a very capable starter at the nose. This plan would pretty much shoot that down.
    I agree Nick, have AC play NT, but we would still need to draft a DE that can start. Down side is we would pass on a WR in the second. If we did not take AC last year I think Dorsey would be the pick. I also think we have a star in Ryan would hate to never see him play to his potential.

    DE Little
    NT Ryan
    UT AC
    DE Long

    DE Little
    NT Ryan
    UT AC
    DE Gholston


    Both these lines would get it done IMO.
    Last edited by Rambos; -03-29-2008 at 09:19 AM.

  7. #7
    RAMarkable is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,093
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    With the need for a DE,LB,SS,OL,WR why take a player that we filled last year with AC?
    Because Dorsey is the best player on the board at the number 2 pick, and there are no DE,LB,SS,OL,WRs that are even close at that position in the draft.

  8. #8
    RAMarkable is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,093
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenfleece View Post
    We can't afford to have our first round picks splitting time on the field. It's a matter both of money (if we're paying our part-time players that much, how can we come up with enough salary to pay the other full-time players we need) and available talent (having fresh legs at the defensive tackle doesn't help the team as much as getting a starter at one of our top need positions).
    Don't agree with your statement "splitting time on the field." It's more like giving them breathers to keep them playing at full strength and speed. The DT position is one that needs fresh players in order to have any chance of success. Quite simply big guys wear down much faster than little guys. Do you remember Bill Walsh's teams? He used to rotate 7 to 8 D-Linemen per game and they NEVER wore out in the fourth quarter where the majority of games are won.

    WHAT SAY YE?

  9. #9
    RAMarkable is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,093
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    If the Rams spend the second overall pick in this draft on Dorsey, I'm going to expect him to be on the field for more than 40-45 of our 60-65 defensive plays per game. Just as I expect Carriker to be on the field more than that amount as well.
    Well alright then have Dorsey and Carriker play 50-55 snaps per game and let Ryan mop up the rest. The point is if Dorsey and Carriker are on the field for all of the DTs plays then this is not a good thing for the Rams as they will wear down and be much less effective later in the game. Quality defenses are able to rotate their front four with little to no drop off in performance.

    WHAT SAY YE?

  10. #10
    Bald_81's Avatar
    Bald_81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    25
    Posts
    894
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bar-bq View Post
    It's as simple as this. Drafting Dorsey does not do anything to adress our pass rush.
    This could not be more wrong. Maybe in the sense of getting after the QB on every play does it not exactly address the pass rush, but he is a player so quick off the ball and explosive that he commands double-teams which would leave Little and whoever is opposite him facing 1-on-1's most of the time. The past three seasons, Little has been constantly doubled because no one else on the line has a presence like Dorsey that would call for the offense to switch their gameplan.

    Also, he is compared to Warren Sapp. I don't want to stretch it and say he will be the second coming of Sapp or even as good, but Sapp wasn't too shabby at getting to the QB in his career, hitting double-digit sacks three times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bar-bq View Post
    Moreover, what about his injury concerns? A stress fracture is something that can linger and affect production down the road.
    He cleared the Falcons' physical, and they pick right after us, so unless our doctors see something that they don't, he is cleared for the long term and there is nothing to make people worry he will break down prematurely. These injury rumors were overblown from the beginning, and now they are finally starting to get squashed.

  11. #11
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,132
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    Because Dorsey is the best player on the board at the number 2 pick, and there are no DE,LB,SS,OL,WRs that are even close at that position in the draft.
    So you already know for a fact C. Long is the first pick? Dorsey is far better then J.Long a blue chip LT?

    The point I was trying to make is we already took a DT with the first pick last year, that played well. With so many needs we can't take another DT, when we already have one.

  12. #12
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,477
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    Quote Originally Posted by RAMarkable View Post
    Because Dorsey is the best player on the board at the number 2 pick, and there are no DE,LB,SS,OL,WRs that are even close at that position in the draft.
    Well it's debatable whether or not Dorsey is the best player available at pick #2, simply because (1) we don't know who is going to be taken first and (2) while I think Dorsey is a top five prospect in this class it's still conceivable and IMO valid to have more than one person rated above him.

    That being said, if you believe that neither of the two DEs or the OT that could be available to us are even close to Dorsey, then I can understand though perhaps not entirely agree with wanting to take him because of the value. Personally I disagree in that I don't think the difference between Dorsey, the Longs, and Gholston is all that big in terms of where they fit on my board and what I would grade them as. Right now, all four of those guys are in my top five, with the other spot belonging to McFadden.

  13. #13
    Mooselini's Avatar
    Mooselini is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,724
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    As said before, moving Carriker (who has proven he can play DT) would be kind of weird. He's proven to us that he's a suited DT, a strong, and young player. May I also mention Clifton Ryan as well. Both players are young, and will only get better over time.

    Drafting a DE in the first round will be a smart move. We will have 3 young defensive lineman, and with Little on the line, they will learn from a true veteran. I don't think we can ask for more.

    As mentioned before, we don't need to fill in the DT position. We did that last year, doing it two years straight (when we don't need it) makes no sense at all.

  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 v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    moose, if you can get a game changing DT, who has been tripled team even in college...you may want to take a very long look at that regardless who you already have. Yes, Carriker played "ok" at DT but maybe he could play just as good at DE. If that's the case, and the Rams can get Dorsey, wow what a front line.

    Don't be so quick to say Ryan is good. He could pan out to be very good but right now the jury is still out.

    And Nick, I'm sort of in the camp that think's both DE's and the OT aren't even close to be a game changer as Dorsey. I'm probably wrong but that's what I think.

  15. #15
    RAMarkable is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,093
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Dorsey v. Carriker..A false dichotomy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooselini View Post
    As said before, moving Carriker (who has proven he can play DT) would be kind of weird. He's proven to us that he's a suited DT, a strong, and young player.
    All of that may be well and true, but the issue for me is that, in the long term, Glen Dorsey is going to be a MUCH better 3 technic DT than Adam Carriker ever will be. Look, don't get me wrong, I like A. Carriker as much as the next Rams fan, but I believe his strength lies in his ability to play multiple positions along the defensive line. And, although he will be best utilized as a combo NT and DT, this should not preclude the Rams from selecting Glen Dorsey just because Carriker can also play 3 technic DT. Let us recall folks that he was originally drafted to play the NOSE TACKLE position and not the #3 technic position.

    WHAT SAY YE?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Carriker Feeling Comfortable at Tackle
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -08-13-2007, 09:36 PM
  2. Carriker Hoping to Solidify Starting Spot
    By suhpr3me in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -06-27-2007, 07:21 AM
  3. Carriker comfortable in starting role
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: -06-18-2007, 03:49 PM
  4. Carriker makes an impression
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -05-14-2007, 12:38 AM
  5. Carriker: A real run-stopper
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: -05-04-2007, 03:56 PM

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
  •