Why Can't Adam Carriker Play DE?

[TekeRam]

Why can't Carricker play DE? Because from the first day he arrived in Ram Park, the coaches knew he couldn't. They moved him to NT and later UT. Some might say that he was moved to DT because we signed Hall but signing Hall had nothing to do with moving him to DT. A premier DE in the NFL is far more highly prized than a premier DT which are much more plentiful, easier to find and develop. Had Carricker been able to play DE in the NFL he would have been competing there regardless of Hall's presence.

I feel that speculating about moving Carricker to DE is a waste of time. One, the coaches aren't going to switch him to DE. Two, those who suggest jumping Carricker back and forth from DE to DT during a game ignore the physical requirements of the two positions. If AC has to weigh in at 290 to play UT, then his effectiveness on the edge will be minimal at best. If he is asked to trim down to 275 to play DE, then he gets man-handled when used at UT.

Does this make me think the Rams wont take Dorsey? Probably. But they may anyway. I'm looking forward to the draft and hoping for success next year. :l

Exactly what I've tried to get across whenever this topic is brought up. Nice post.

[chiguy]

The only way the Dorsey pick really makes sense in my opinion is not permanently moving Carricker to end, but to really make him more of a NT. We shouldn't waste a year of a young player's life by moving him around too much, plus we already know he is effective on the interior line. If you do this, though, the coaches would have to be creative in using both Dorsey and Carricker because neither really has the size of a traditional NT.

But here is my bigger problem...if we do that, we still have a gaping hole at defensive end (we'll still need two players by next season) and a pretty sizable hole at offensive tackle. You draft for today, but you should also pay attention for what the roster will look like tomorrow. That's the primary reason the Rams have declined in the first place if you ask me.

[falconsfan]

i think if the dolphins select C. Long you should take V. Gohlston or J. Long. Besides the fact that I desperately want glenn dorsey to be a falcon. he dosent necessarily fill a need with you. you have a huge problem at DE opposite of Little, also a huge problem on oline opposite of a HEALTHY pace. not to mention you spent a top 15 pick on a player that plays the same postition dorsey plays last year.

honestly if I were a rams fan and c long was gone i would want to take v gohlston. that would be a nasty front 4. little/glover/carriker/gohlston alsmost as nasty as abraham/lewis/dorsey/anderson LOL

[HUbison]

Besides the fact that I desperately want glenn dorsey to be a falcon.

I don't know....that Dorsey is a pretty big talent. I hear Canton is already carving out his bust. But hey, we're all friends here.....I'm sure we can work out a trade of our #2 for your #3. I tell you what we'll do......hand over the two Raiders picks you got for Hall, and we'll give you Dorsey. We'll even throw in a TE to boot.....how 'bout Dom Byrd? Surely you guys got a Probation Officer on staff, right?

[HUbison]

Why can't Carricker play DE? Because from the first day he arrived in Ram Park, the coaches knew he couldn't.

Couldn't?.......or wouldn't?

I still think we're limiting this question. It's not whether or not Carriker can play a 4-3 DE. The answer is YES, he can. How do we know? Because he did play a 4-3 DE quite effectively in college.

No, the question, as I stated earlier, is which combination will be the most effective for the Rams?

UT Carriker, DE Long/Gholston

...or...

UT Dorsey, DE Carriker?

[Mooselini]

I honestly think the reason why he cant play DE is what most people mentioned. He's been really productive at DT. I don't want to move production elsewhere you know?

Not only that, he was told to put on so much weight, playing DE, he'll have to drop it.

[evil disco man]

Couldn't?.......or wouldn't?

I still think we're limiting this question. It's not whether or not Carriker can play a 4-3 DE. The answer is YES, he can. How do we know? Because he did play a 4-3 DE quite effectively in college.

No, the question, as I stated earlier, is which combination will be the most effective for the Rams?

UT Carriker, DE Long/Gholston

...or...

UT Dorsey, DE Carriker?

Precisely. Carriker can play defensive end - the problem is, he's not the pass rushing threat we need on the outside. He could probably rack up 6-8 sacks on a regular basis from that position and that would be better than what we have now. But I'm a fan of Gholston and C. Long, so personally I'd rather have them come in at their natural position of DE while Carriker continues to develop at UT.

:l

-jake-

[Chris58]

Couldn't?.......or wouldn't?

I still think we're limiting this question. It's not whether or not Carriker can play a 4-3 DE. The answer is YES, he can. How do we know? Because he did play a 4-3 DE quite effectively in college.

No, the question, as I stated earlier, is which combination will be the most effective for the Rams?

UT Carriker, DE Long/Gholston

...or...

UT Dorsey, DE Carriker?

You re-made my point. There's a difference between plyaing DE in college effectively and playing DE in the NFL effectively. Carricker was good in college but his skill set didn't translate to the pros at that position. Could he play DE in the NFL? Yes, but not good enough, and that's why he can't. That's why he is a DT today. So I'm not sure where we disagree.

[HUbison]

You re-made my point. There's a difference between plyaing DE in college effectively and playing DE in the NFL effectively. Carricker was good in college but his skill set didn't translate to the pros at that position. Could he play DE in the NFL? Yes, but not good enough, and that's why he can't. That's why he is a DT today. So I'm not sure where we disagree.

chris, our disagreement is nothing more than semantics. You say he "can't". I disagree; he can. That's obvious. However, he won't. Nor should he to be as effective as he can be no question there, we agree.

However, with the assumption in place that he is a better UT than DE, the question still remains: which synergistic set is more effective......UT Carriker, DE Long/Gholston, or UT Dorsey, DE Carriker? That is to say, does Dorsey bring not only more to the table than Long/Gholston, but enough to overcompensate for the inefficient placement of Carriker as a 4-3 End?

I say no........ie, pass on Dorsey and take either Long or Gholston.

[Chris58]

chris, our disagreement is nothing more than semantics. You say he "can't". I disagree; he can. That's obvious. However, he won't. Nor should he to be as effective as he can be no question there, we agree.

However, with the assumption in place that he is a better UT than DE, the question still remains: which synergistic set is more effective......UT Carriker, DE Long/Gholston, or UT Dorsey, DE Carriker? That is to say, does Dorsey bring not only more to the table than Long/Gholston, but enough to overcompensate for the inefficient placement of Carriker as a 4-3 End?

I say no........ie, pass on Dorsey and take either Long or Gholston.

Completely agree. And I guess I was not direct enough about it. With Carricker as our main UT we need a quality DE in the draft.

[Rams still a team?]

Not a Rams fan, but I've been studying the possibilities for certain players in the draft, and I just wanted to say I enjoyed the whole "Draft Dorsey and Move Carriker" discussion here.

My opinion... they'd be better off leaving Carriker where he is and drafting a DE.

Thanks,

Scott