I am going on record

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dominating D

This was way too easy.

Reggie White...... DE 300 lbs
Do you need more or is this enough???

---

Nope, between you and Av someone finally covered it. Thank you. That's all I was asking. This shows that it is possible for a heavier guy to be a dominant force on the outside of a 4-3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dominating D

I believe Carricker has played DE in college just like Long....

Carricker maybe slow for a typical DE but are you sure C. Long is quicker? In fact, most of the reports indicate that one of Longs weakness is getting off the block quick.....

---

Well, since Long has proven himself to have a quicker first step than Gholston and many other linebacker candidates this year, I would have to assume that if Long ISN'T quick enough off the first step, not many are. Also, I hate to use such a bad stat, but Long's 4.75 40 vs Carriker's 4.9. Not a huge difference, especially considering the weight difference, but a difference. At least Carriker's better than Dorsey's 5.12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dominating D

I still like Long and I do believe he will be a good player but I just think Dorsey has all the tools to be a dominate DT in this league. I much rather the Rams use the 2nd pick of the draft on a dominate player versus what the team needs.....

---

I have two points to make on this. One, what's to say that Long won't be dominant in the NFL? Admittedly, the SEC has been a top conference as of late and the ACC has not. However, with them both facing double teams for the majority of their careers in a similar kind of position(3-4 DE vs 4-3 DT), Long has more tackles, tackles for loss, and sacks. Long did play some 4-3 this year, and so he was playing a different position, however, he was still consistently double teamed. Furthermore, Long does have hall of fame genetics helping his case.

Second, teams that aren't filled with holes can pick best player available. Teams that are picking number two and are filled with needs can't afford to pick that way. This is not a great example but look at the Lions. They had tons of holes throughout their team, yet continued to pick WR after WR after WR in the first because they were the dominant, best player available. For the last FIVE drafts they picked in the top 10. If they'd gone with some other needs, namely on defense, maybe they'd have been a little better. Also, it's not like I'm advocating picking Philip Merling or even Derrick Harvey as opposed to Dorsey. I'm advocating Chris Long, who is rated just as high as Dorsey, but is in that strangely taboo position of greater need.

I was always biased towards picking Long or Gholston, but now that I think it about it...

We're not going to be a quick fix. Defensive tackle isn't as deep as end, so getting the best possible DT with 2nd overall pick isn't as bad as I thought or people though. Consider the fact that we'll have a young dominating interior rotation.

I'd settle with Dorsey in the 1st and Lawrence Jackson in the 2nd. To me if that were the scenario, we have a scary line next year and to build off from.

However...I think we all just need to realize. Jake Long, Dorsey, Gholston, and Chris Long will make an impact on any team they go with...

...and for us to be able to get one (whoever it may be..) I think we should be looking forward to the draft. =]

Go Rams

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldenfleece

One reason I think the Rams might not take Dorsey is because there wasn't one real defensive end on their list of visitors Tuesday. You would think we might bring in at least one or two defensive ends graded in the second to third rounds just for appearance's sake.

---

Not to put a damper on the thought, but the Rams have only selected two prospects in the draft who previously visited Rams Park I believe. Just because you come to St. Louis doesn't mean they are targeting those select few the most. If one player falls in the draft whom the Rams give a higher grade, they'll snatch him up without even blinking.

Teke is right though. Look at the Lions. And Wolf, you do make a point. But we already have 3 young DT's. Sure Wroten isn't as good as Dorsey. Who knows, Ryan and Carriker may not be as good. But we do know that we have 3 young DT's and one veteran who has been one of the more popular ones that can teach these young kids.

We don't have a good DE on the other end of Little. As Wolf pointed out, we'd have a young interior. That would be nice. But what about a young DE who happens to be one of the best players in the draft, and has the hall of fames genes in his blood. I think Long is going to be the best player for us (RAMS).

It'd be a a luxury to have Dorsey on the squad. But as Teke pointed out, getting the best player available compared to getting the biggest need are two different things. And I'm a firm believer that we need a new DE. DE's dont come around as much as tackles. Most good DE's get signed to a team immediately. DT's can be traded for a third round pick. And we got a pretty good one in the 5th round (i think it was).

Very good points. I'm a big fan of Ryan myself. If I could make the choice, I'd pick Chris Long in a heartbeat. I'd love to see Wroten step up, and if he can be a force in the rotation, I'd be pleased to have gotten Long than Dorsey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eauclare

IMO, AC had to play UT out of neccisity.

---

Hang on... why?

Why is it that if Adam Carriker really is best suited to the defensive end poition that he isn't playing there? It's not exactly like James Hall set the world on fire, and Leonard Little missed the entire back end of the season. If the coaching staff thought that they could get the best production out of Carriker playing defensive end, and have a combination of Glover and Wroten playing the UT position with Ryan at nose, then why wouldn't they play him there to counter all of the injuries and mediocrity?

What is it they were "despearte" for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald_81

Not to put a damper on the thought, but the Rams have only selected two prospects in the draft who previously visited Rams Park I believe. Just because you come to St. Louis doesn't mean they are targeting those select few the most. If one player falls in the draft whom the Rams give a higher grade, they'll snatch him up without even blinking.

---

Well, sure, they're always looking for value, and that's why the odds are relatively low that they'll pick one these guys specifically. I wouldn't assume that we'll get these players specifically, but we probably are targetting the positions that are overrepresented among the players we brought in. For example, we brought in 5 receivers and 4 cornerbacks, as opposed to only 2 safeties and 1 tight end. Why? Because we're not looking at the latter positions as high priorities. I would argue that likewise we are not considering defensive end a high priority in the later rounds...because we fully expect to address it in the first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TekeRam

Furthermore, Long does have hall of fame genetics helping his case.

---

That has been on my mind about this draft. If we take C. Long, we know for sure he Wont be a bust. Being the son of a HOF'er, he will strive to be just like his dad, if not better. He has given him words of wisdom and he wont let Chris slack off. Thats the kind of player we need on our defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eauclare

Dorsey is a perfect three technique tackle that can play all over the line. AC can't do that.

---

He played at NT, UT, and DE last season. If that's not being able to play all over the line, I'm not sure what is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eauclare

IMO, AC had to play UT out of neccisity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eauclare

I gurantee, if we had a Dorsey type on the roster last year, AC would have stayed at end. They moved him to UT out of desperation.

---

This is a rather interesting recollection of history, considering (1) the Rams said from the moment they drafted him that Carriker would be a defensive tackle and (2) Haslett is on record saying UT will likely be Carriker's best position in the long run. The facts don't seem to support your statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald_81

I've used this example before: If Calvin Johnson was in this draft, would we pass on him because our need at DE is much greater than WR? I mean, we have Holt as #1, why take Calvin we need a DE so much more.

---

This is a pretty poor example, as we have a substantial need at WR, one that does not come close to our need (or lack of) at DT. If Calvin Johnson was in this draft, I'd definitely consider him as a possibility with our pick. I think most people would, because our situation at wide receiver is pretty unstable and questionable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

I think that the "Dorsey Plan" is to have this lineup:

Base Formation:

DE: Carriker
UT: Dorsey
NT: Ryan
DE: Little

Passing Down Formation:

DE: J.Hall
UT: Dorsey
NT: Carriker
DE: Little

---

It sounds as if Carriker is staying at DT (albeit NT) in the base package even if we draft Dorsey. Therefore, I think your "Passing Down" formation is actually the likely Base formation as well. Then on running downs, they'd move Carriker out to replace Hall at DE and insert Ryan at nose tackle. It's not a horrible plan, but I think Carriker will be most successful (1) at UT and (2) when the team stops moving him around and instead just gives him a spot to develop in. Regarding the latter, I seem to recall Haslett or Linehan or someone saying something similar, but I can't find the exact quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dominating D

Carricker maybe slow for a typical DE but are you sure C. Long is quicker?

---

The measurables seem to confirm he is. At the combine, Chris Long's 10-yard split (1.53 seconds) and 20-yard split (2.7 seconds) were both better than Carriker's 10-yard split (1.6 seconds) and 20-yard split (2.81 seconds) from a year ago. Furthermore, Chris Long's broad jump (10'04") is over a foot greater than Adam Carriker's (9'02"). IMO, this helps demonstrate not only Chris Long's better initial quickness off the line but also that he displays the kind of explosive power you want in a guy coming off the edge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf

However...I think we all just need to realize. Jake Long, Dorsey, Gholston, and Chris Long will make an impact on any team they go with...

---

Good point. Some of us prefer Chris Long, some Vernon Gholston, some Glenn Dorsey, and some Jake Long. Many will be disappointed if the Rams pass on the guy they want to take someone else, but the fact remains that by picking any of these four guys, the Rams are in a position to get a potential Pro Bowl player who could be a cornerstone of their team for the next decade.

That's why every now and then I try to say that for as much as I've argued against the Dorsey pick and think there are better options available, I certainly wouldn't hate it because he's still a top five prospect with loads of ability. This is one point that Tx has regularly hammered home as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

Good point. Some of us prefer Chris Long, some Vernon Gholston, some Glenn Dorsey, and some Jake Long. Many will be disappointed if the Rams pass on the guy they want to take someone else, but the fact remains that by picking any of these four guys, the Rams are in a position to get a potential Pro Bowl player who could be a cornerstone of their team for the next decade.

---

This is exactly how I feel. Regardless of which one of the four we end up with, I'll be looking at the positive aspects of it. Any of them will help us get better. That's why I'm having a hard time even deciding who my first choice is. They all have their strong points and that's why there isn't really an overwhelming consensus of opinion on who we should take. Even though DE is our biggest need, selecting J. Long or Dorsey would not be a bad thing and it doesn't mean that DE won't be addressed.

.

Carriker is not the best NT. It's a waste of his talents and he's 6'6".

If this is the plan, it's a HUGE mistake.

Sure as a cat has kittens.

Moving him to that spot in Passing situations is another thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeoriaRam

Likely command double teams every week-which helps out the other defensive linemen.

For what it's worth, a good pass rush doesn't necessarily need to rack up the sacks in my opinion. I'd just be happy with consistent QB hurries and knockdowns.

---

Being 6'6" is a liability at NT. Leverage and staying low is a big part. Carriker is just not a NT. It's a waste of his skills and it will send him to the rustpile before his time.

I can see playing him there in passing situations. The Big NT's come out on 3rd and 9. He's not a big run stopper (think Refrig Perry, Sam Adams, Gilbert Brown (GB), he's much more athletic and the perfect under tackle (that can play the run).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

This is a pretty poor example, as we have a substantial need at WR, one that does not come close to our need (or lack of) at DT. If Calvin Johnson was in this draft, I'd definitely consider him as a possibility with our pick. I think most people would, because our situation at wide receiver is pretty unstable and questionable.

---

I may have gotten a totally different meaning from this, but what I took from it was that the Lions took the best player available when they drafted Calvin Johnson, even though they had much more pressing needs. I can see the Rams taking Dorsey with this idea in mind. It's not a bad idea either, as it's how a lot of teams draft.

I think people got off track with the point of this thread. Wasn't it what is believed is going to happen, not necessarily what people on the boards think is the best pick? In all honesty, I see the Rams taking Dorsey, whether it's the best pick for us or not.

Count me in the Dorsey boat as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shower beers

I may have gotten a totally different meaning from this, but what I took from it was that the Lions took the best player available when they drafted Calvin Johnson, even though they had much more pressing needs.

---

Except WR is was also one of their top needs last year - ironically enough given their past - as they were starting Mike Furrey opposite of Roy Williams with virtually nothing in terms of depth behind them.

I think if you'd actually go back and look at the top 10-20 picks in the last few drafts, you'll be hard pressed to find more than a small handful of teams that drafted based purely on BPA. Most teams, I would contend, make their choice based on a combination of need and value by finding a player that fills an area of weakness that is also of sound value based on your board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

Except WR is was also one of their top needs last year - ironically enough given their past - as they were starting Mike Furrey opposite of Roy Williams with virtually nothing in terms of depth behind them.

---

After Furrey lead the NFC in receptions it was one of their top needs? Please. And they also signed McDonald to be the #3 and he excelled in that offense the past year, so WR was far from a top need for the Lions last year. If he were a top need everyone would have been predicting Calvin to go the Lions, when in fact everyone thought a trade down with Tampa to acquire Gaines Adams/Joe Thomas was imminent.

Or maybe I should've used Adrian Peterson as an example? He was a huge need seeing as how Chester Taylor had gained 1, 300+ yards in that Minnesota backfield. Alright, I'm tired and I'm heading to sleep.