PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Glenn Dorsey's role in the 3-4


Bowser
02-27-2009, 02:01 PM
With Vrabel coming in, I think we can officially say we are going to be a 3-4 team in '09. This leaves Dorsey kind of in positional limbo, according to those who know D-Line play better than I.

What will his role be? No way is he going to be a Haloti Ngata type at tackle, so end it is. What is the problem with Dorsey at end in a 3-4? He couldn't possibly be anymore out of position there than the way they used him last year, right? And isn't one of his strengths rushing the passer?

Please enlighten those of us not as adept at d-line, 4-3/3-4 play.

MagicHef
02-27-2009, 02:02 PM
I believe he's supposed to be too short.

Blindside58
02-27-2009, 02:03 PM
Please enlighten those of us not as adept at d-line, 4-3/3-4 play.

Remember, what happens next, you created!

Jilly
02-27-2009, 02:03 PM
they say linebacker...but I don't think he can do it

Reaper16
02-27-2009, 02:04 PM
Eat up salary, I'd imagine.

RustShack
02-27-2009, 02:04 PM
Dorsey for Shaun Rogers and Braylon Edwards? :)

blueballs
02-27-2009, 02:05 PM
trade him to the Jets for Gholston

crazycoffey
02-27-2009, 02:05 PM
I seem to remember reports before he was drafted that said DT in a 4-3 and DE in a 3-4, not that it's a lock, but it would seem to be more possible than naysayers are allowing us to believe...

RustShack
02-27-2009, 02:06 PM
I seem to remember reports before he was drafted that said DT in a 4-3 and DE in a 3-4, not that it's a lock, but it would seem to be more possible than naysayers are allowing us to believe...

I remember him saying he would put on weight to play NT in a 3-4.

Ultra Peanut
02-27-2009, 02:07 PM
http://i43.tinypic.com/15ro5sx.jpg

Bowser
02-27-2009, 02:07 PM
they say linebacker...but I don't think he can do it

The only way that to happen would be if we played ILB, ala Levon Kirkland form the Steeler defenses of the 90's. Interesting thought, but I'm not sold.

HC_Chief
02-27-2009, 02:11 PM
I remember him saying he would put on weight to play NT in a 3-4.

He is heavier than Arizona's Darnell Dockett, who played both 1 & 3 gap.

I'm not writing off Dorsey until I see how he plays in the defense. IMO how has the upper-body strength to play NT (he could chuck pretty much any NFL C on their ass), the question is with his lower-body strength & whether/not he can learn the proper technique(s) to play the position.

thumper118
02-27-2009, 02:26 PM
I hope he has the same attitude he had when the Chiefs drafted him and he is hell bent on being productive next year in the 3-4.

tboss27
02-27-2009, 02:27 PM
He is heavier than Arizona's Darnell Dockett, who played both 1 & 3 gap.

I'm not writing off Dorsey until I see how he plays in the defense. IMO how has the upper-body strength to play NT (he could chuck pretty much any NFL C on their ass), the question is with his lower-body strength & whether/not he can learn the proper technique(s) to play the position.

I won't write him off either, all the experts had this guy at the top of their draft boards last year in terms of talent. He's going to have to play end though, no way he's big enough to play NT. I just don't understand insisting on switching to 3-4 when three of your former first rounders don't fit well in that scheme. DJ, Hali, and Dorsey will all have to learn new positions now, not something I'm thrilled about my best three players in the front 7 having to do.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-27-2009, 02:28 PM
Wasted.

Chief3188
02-27-2009, 02:31 PM
I won't write him off either, all the experts had this guy at the top of their draft boards last year in terms of talent. He's going to have to play end though, no way he's big enough to play NT. I just don't understand insisting on switching to 3-4 when three of your former first rounders don't fit well in that scheme. DJ, Hali, and Dorsey will all have to learn new positions now, not something I'm thrilled about my best three players in the front 7 having to do.

Well to be fair our so called best 3 players on the front 7 had a combined 4.5 sacks which ironically is only half a sack more than the guy we just traded for had last season.

StcChief
02-27-2009, 02:33 PM
Trust coaches / Dorsey to transition. until he proves he can't.

HC_Chief
02-27-2009, 02:33 PM
Well to be fair our so called best 3 players on the front 7 had a combined 4.5 sacks which ironically is only half a sack more than the guy we just traded for had last season.

You mean the broken-down OLD GEEZER from NE? What's his name again? Surely there must be a thread....

The Bad Guy
02-27-2009, 02:34 PM
I'll give the guy a shot to perform before I completely say that he's going to be wasted in a 3-4.

Chief3188
02-27-2009, 02:35 PM
You mean the broken-down OLD GEEZER from NE? What's his name again? Surely there must be a thread....

lol - Oh well man I think guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill with the Vrabel trade.

We need leadership and Vrabel can provide it. As long as we did not give anything more than a 5th round pick and don't make a habit out of trading our picks for over the hill players I am fine with helping our team transition to the 3-4 with this minor maneuver.

keg in kc
02-27-2009, 02:38 PM
I'll give the guy a shot to perform before I completely say that he's going to be wasted in a 3-4.Yep.

Although I might go on to say I think he's too talented not to succeed, whatever system they put him in.

If they flex 4-3 to 3-4 (which I'm guessing they will), then I'd assume he'll be used like Richard Seymour.

Mr. Flopnuts
02-27-2009, 02:40 PM
FFS, Dorsey's career was just ruined ala Ryan Sims. This is fuckin retarded.

Fruit Ninja
02-27-2009, 02:43 PM
I'll give the guy a shot to perform before I completely say that he's going to be wasted in a 3-4.

You mean, we have another choice? we dont have to give him a shot in the 3-4? lol

Mr. Kotter
02-27-2009, 02:44 PM
I think some people doubt Dorsey's ability to cosistently play two-gap defense. Frankly, I don't really get why either. I think he has more than enough tools that he can be disruptive, and if nothing else...he should be able to often occupy two blockers. Either way, he's done his job.

Here's a decent article that has bearing on the whole discussion:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913846/Defensive-Line-Basics:-Mind-the-Gap

ChiefsCountry
02-27-2009, 02:44 PM
Yep.

Although I might go on to say I think he's too talented not to succeed, whatever system they put him in.

If they flex 4-3 to 3-4 (which I'm guessing they will), then I'd assume he'll be used like Richard Seymour.

I hope so, Seymour is a little taller than Dorsey though.

beach tribe
02-27-2009, 02:46 PM
Wasted.

We should have taken your boy Gholston instead.

Chief3188
02-27-2009, 02:49 PM
You mean, we have another choice? we dont have to give him a shot in the 3-4? lol

I am not sure you read his post right - He was not claiming that he is going to give Dorsey a chance like a coach would - He is saying he will give him a chance in the 3-4 before he says that he will fail.

beach tribe
02-27-2009, 02:49 PM
FFS, Dorsey's career was just ruined ala Ryan Sims. This is ****in retarded.

How does this compare to Ryan Krisy Kream Sims? In what way exactly?

keg in kc
02-27-2009, 02:50 PM
I hope so, Seymour is a little taller than Dorsey though.Seymour is more than a little taller than Dorsey. I wasn't trying to compare the two, anyway, just saying that's how I'd imagine they'll use him - as a sort of flex tackle/end hybrid.

That makes more sense to me than trying to turn him into a fireplug NT. His game is supposed to be about explosiveness, not occupying space.

beach tribe
02-27-2009, 02:50 PM
I am not sure you read his post right - He was not claiming that he is going to give Dorsey a chance like a coach would - He is saying he will give him a chance in the 3-4 before he says that he will fail.

Someone is not comprehending, but I don't think it's him.

ChiefsCountry
02-27-2009, 02:51 PM
Gibbs wanted Dorsey for the Saints last year so there is some hope for him. I dont think they will go to 3-4 fulltime, probally a flex between the two.

The Bad Guy
02-27-2009, 02:52 PM
You mean, we have another choice? we dont have to give him a shot in the 3-4? lol

We could stomp our feet and carry on this message board like we are 5 year olds who just found out they weren't getting a pony for christmas.

ChiefsCountry
02-27-2009, 02:52 PM
Seymour is more than a little taller than Dorsey. I wasn't trying to compare the two, anyway, just saying that's how I'd imagine they'll use him - as a sort of flex tackle/end hybrid.

That makes more sense to me than trying to turn him into a fireplug NT. His game is supposed to be about explosiveness, not occupying space.

Exactly how I see it. Sort of like Dockett in Zona as well.

Basileus777
02-27-2009, 02:54 PM
It's not an ideal fit, but he could potentially still be a good productive player at DE.

Mr. Kotter
02-27-2009, 02:54 PM
Wasted.

You honestly don't think Dorsey can play in a 3-4? :shrug:

Why are you so adamant, Hamas?

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-27-2009, 02:54 PM
We should have taken your boy Gholston instead.

If you would have told me that the Chiefs were going to be in a 3-4 in 2009, I definitely would have taken him over Dorsey.

It's funny that Dorsey gets the benefit of the doubt for piss poor coaching and being misused (which is true), but Gholston being buried on the bench because his coach is in a "win right now at all costs, fuck the rookies" mode is somehow indicative that he's a bust.

I know this may be hard for you to comprehend, because it actually requires some nuanced thinking, but everyone knew that Gholston was going to require some work. What he has are otherworldly physical tools to work with.

HC_Chief
02-27-2009, 02:54 PM
Exactly how I see it. Sort of like Dockett in Zona as well.

Yep... that's what I said a couple of pages ago.

Dorsey is heavier than Dockett, but a few inches shorter.

HC_Chief
02-27-2009, 02:55 PM
You honestly don't think Dorsey can play in a 3-4? :shrug:

Why are you so adamant, Hamas?

Smarter than us unwashed dullards.

Mr. Kotter
02-27-2009, 02:55 PM
FFS, Dorsey's career was just ruined ala Ryan Sims. This is ****in retarded.

WHY do you think that? I still haven't seen a good explanation.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-27-2009, 02:56 PM
You honestly don't think Dorsey can play in a 3-4? :shrug:

Why are you so adamant, Hamas?

It's not that he can't play, it's that he's not going to be able to make plays relative to the value of his draft pick given his role in that system. He's not Bruce Smith. He's not going to get an assload of sacks as a 3-4 end.

You don't spend top 5 picks on 3-4 ends, just like you don't spend top five picks on guards.

Now, if he is somehow able to be a disruptive 3-4 NT, I'll rescind any and all of this criticism. But not one scouting report touted his ability to play the nose in a 3-4.

soundmind
02-27-2009, 03:02 PM
Warning: Ridiculous Blockbuster Proposal (would be an ESPN/NFLN Ratings booster)

Larry Johnson/Glenn Dorsey - in trade for - Shaun Rogers/3rd Round Pick

*while huge, does that sound unreasonable???

Mr. Kotter
02-27-2009, 03:04 PM
It's not that he can't play, it's that he's not going to be able to make plays relative to the value of his draft pick given his role in that system. He's not Bruce Smith. He's not going to get an assload of sacks as a 3-4 end.

You don't spend top 5 picks on 3-4 ends, just like you don't spend top five picks on guards.

Now, if he is somehow able to be a disruptive 3-4 NT, I'll rescind any and all of this criticism. But not one scouting report touted his ability to play the nose in a 3-4.

Personally, I can see him being more disruptive at DE in the 3-4. In college, penetration and being disruptive in the backfield was one of his strengths. As a DE in a 3-4, he's big and strong....and doesn't need the usual speed you'd expect from a 4-3 DE. He could have some trouble with the huge OTs, but most of the time he'd occupy two blockers....which could be just fine, depending on the role the coaches have in mind. I think he could be pretty decent as a 3-4 DE with some good coaching though.

ChiefsCountry
02-27-2009, 03:04 PM
Warning: Ridiculous Blockbuster Proposal (would be an ESPN/NFLN Ratings booster)

Larry Johnson/Glenn Dorsey - in trade for - Shaun Rogers/3rd Round Pick

*while huge, does that sound unreasonable???

Umm Cleveland is 3-4 just like us.

soundmind
02-27-2009, 03:13 PM
Umm Cleveland is 3-4 just like us.

Okay, but they ARE the Browns. :D Just stirring more piles of brain excrement on an NFL holiday.

kcbubb
02-27-2009, 03:16 PM
If you would have told me that the Chiefs were going to be in a 3-4 in 2009, I definitely would have taken him over Dorsey.

It's funny that Dorsey gets the benefit of the doubt for piss poor coaching and being misused (which is true), but Gholston being buried on the bench because his coach is in a "win right now at all costs, **** the rookies" mode is somehow indicative that he's a bust.

I know this may be hard for you to comprehend, because it actually requires some nuanced thinking, but everyone knew that Gholston was going to require some work. What he has are otherworldly physical tools to work with.

I actually agree with Hamas on this one. Gholston is still a sick athlete. I think positional value for DE in the 3-4 is not very good either. Even if Dorsey is a good 3-4 DE, he wouldn't be worth the pick. To me, that would be like selecting a guard #5. Maybe not that bad. But if he can play NT and turn into a good one, he would be worth it. But I haven't seen anything to make me believe that he can be a great NT in the 3-4.

kcbubb
02-27-2009, 03:18 PM
oops... I didn't see that you posted that about guards.

Mr. Kotter
02-27-2009, 03:23 PM
I actually agree with Hamas on this one. Gholston is still a sick athlete. I think positional value for DE in the 3-4 is not very good either. Even if Dorsey is a good 3-4 DE, he wouldn't be worth the pick. To me, that would be like selecting a guard #5. Maybe not that bad. But if he can play NT and turn into a good one, he would be worth it. But I haven't seen anything to make me believe that he can be a great NT in the 3-4.

I think Dorsey would be a superior athlete to most 3-4 DEs. I understand Hamas's concern about him not getting sacks....but with his disruptive presence, he COULD be a very unique 3-4 DE who gets more sacks than a typical 3-4 DE. If it were to pan out that way, it wouldn't be a bad move at all IMO. It's not ideal, but in no way would I consider it a "wasted" pick....if he has a sort of revolutionary effect on at the 3-4 DE position in the league.

I think you have to try it, if you are committed to the 3-4....I think that's more likely than expecting him to move to a 3-4 NT. If he put on much weight, I think he'd be trading bulk for speed and might end up less effective as a result.

:hmmm:

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-27-2009, 03:26 PM
I think Dorsey would be a superior athlete to most 3-4 DEs. I understand Hamas's concern about him not getting sacks....but with his disruptive presence, he COULD be a very unique 3-4 DE who gets more sacks than a typical 3-4 DE. If it were to pan out that way, it wouldn't be a bad move at all IMO. It's not ideal, but in no way would I consider it a "wasted" pick....if he has a sort of revolutionary effect on at the 3-4 DE position in the league.

I think you have to try it, if you are committed to the 3-4....I think that's more likely than expecting him to move to a 3-4 NT. If he put on much weight, I think he'd be trading bulk for speed and might end up less effective as a result.

:hmmm:

Unless we add an all-world NT and rush backer, he's going to be facing constant double teams while having to do more than he did as an under tackle in the C2.

Chief_in_Commander
02-27-2009, 03:29 PM
Dorsey was supposedly supposed to be a stud 4-3 guy with not any 3-4 exp. or promise....and he underperformed badly, how can we expect anything from him now in the 3-4, i just don't see it

htismaqe
02-27-2009, 04:05 PM
Dorsey was supposedly supposed to be a stud 4-3 guy with not any 3-4 exp. or promise....and he underperformed badly, how can we expect anything from him now in the 3-4, i just don't see it

Look at the bright side. He couldn't get much worse. :)

BradyFTW!
02-27-2009, 04:21 PM
You don't spend top 5 picks on 3-4 ends, just like you don't spend top five picks on guards.


You don't? That's news to Pioli, who drafted Richard Seymour 6th overall (not quite top-five, but if they had been picking fifth they still would have taken him, without a doubt. Plus, Ty Warren went 13th overall). Seems to me that you don't realize how important DEs are in the 3-4.

Rain Man
02-27-2009, 04:40 PM
It's been said many times that d-linemen often don't catch fire in their rookie season, so I'm willing to wait on Dorsey to develop. And if he was such a stud at DT, it's hard for me to believe that he wouldn't be at least a serviceable 3-4 DE, and likely a good one.

Rain Man
02-27-2009, 04:45 PM
My concern about Dorsey was that he was getting buried by guards. Maybe against tackles that would happen less often, particularly as he learns about the league. Also, he seemed to be doing the patented Tim Krumrie hand-fighting a lot while standing around, as opposed to trying to penetrate. The ball would be snapped and then he would stand up and hand-fight, just like he was taught.

Count Alex's Losses
02-27-2009, 04:46 PM
He's fucked.

Mecca
02-27-2009, 04:48 PM
You really shouldn't compare him to Dockett, Dockett may be light but he's super strong.

Mr. Kotter
02-27-2009, 04:51 PM
Unless we add an all-world NT and rush backer, he's going to be facing constant double teams while having to do more than he did as an under tackle in the C2.

We had better try to add both the NT and rushbacker, or else this move to a 3-4 becomes really pointless. If they are really committed to it, I suspect it's a given that we WILL add those pieces--or at least they will try.

suds79
02-27-2009, 04:56 PM
Even if Dorsey is a good 3-4 DE, he wouldn't be worth the pick. To me, that would be like selecting a guard #5.

You know you're probably right.

But right now I think Pioli & Haley are far more concerned with implementing the system they want rather than letting their philosophy be dictated by a top 5 pick just last year who they had nothing to do with.

Dorsey will just have to be stout at DE and work with the position. There's no other choice.

If knowing we're going to a 3-4 and we could do it all over again would we pick somebody different? Yeah probably.

But hindsight is 20/20. Shoot if we could play that game we would of either made a move for Ryan or drafted Flacco. :p

aturnis
02-27-2009, 05:01 PM
Either a short DE(shortest starting 3-4 DE is 6'3", most are 6'5", Dorsey is 6'1")...or he could put on 30 lbs. and try to play NT. I'd think they'll try to see if he can play DE though.

kstater
02-27-2009, 05:12 PM
Dorsey was supposedly supposed to be a stud 4-3 guy with not any 3-4 exp. or promise....and he underperformed badly, how can we expect anything from him now in the 3-4, i just don't see it

Wait, as a rookie DT, Dorsey underperformed? Not just underperformed, but underperformed badly?

Chris Meck
02-27-2009, 05:17 PM
I really think that Vrabel is being brought in to be a situational pass rusher. I wouldn't expect that we go to a 3-4 as our base defensive set as it doesn't fit our front 7 personnel very well. I could see using a hybrid or occasional look, but not as our basic defensive set.

Vrabel, as I see it, is a 3rd down DE in a 4-3, and would probably be fairly effective at that at this stage of his career. His intangibles also are a big bonus.

kcbubb
02-27-2009, 05:22 PM
You know you're probably right.

But right now I think Pioli & Haley are far more concerned with implementing the system they want rather than letting their philosophy be dictated by a top 5 pick just last year who they had nothing to do with.

Dorsey will just have to be stout at DE and work with the position. There's no other choice.

If knowing we're going to a 3-4 and we could do it all over again would we pick somebody different? Yeah probably.

But hindsight is 20/20. Shoot if we could play that game we would of either made a move for Ryan or drafted Flacco. :p

It wasn't just Dorsey. We have been drafting for the 4-3 for 3 years.

I'm disappointed because (don't shoot!) I think we were close to being a top 10 defense in the 4-3. We were the 13th ranked defense in 2007. We lost Jared Allen and then we flopped. The secondary was actually upgraded. But with a few pass rushers, even situational, I think we could have been close. 3rd down is what killed us.

crazycoffey
02-27-2009, 05:26 PM
Vrabel LOLB / D. Williams / DJ / Curry ROLB
behind Dorsey / Shaun Rodgers / Tank or Turk

Mecca
02-27-2009, 05:31 PM
Curry's a middle backer in a 3-4.

Count Alex's Losses
02-27-2009, 05:34 PM
Name one 3-4 DE that is an impact player besides Big Dick Seymour, who has a totally different skillset than Dorsey.

Glenn is fucked.

kstater
02-27-2009, 05:37 PM
I really think that Vrabel is being brought in to be a situational pass rusher. I wouldn't expect that we go to a 3-4 as our base defensive set as it doesn't fit our front 7 personnel very well. I could see using a hybrid or occasional look, but not as our basic defensive set.

Vrabel, as I see it, is a 3rd down DE in a 4-3, and would probably be fairly effective at that at this stage of his career. His intangibles also are a big bonus.

So the Chiefs aren't going 3-4, but decided to trade for a 34 year old linebacker to convert to a new position that doesn't play most snaps and comes from a different scheme?

Mecca
02-27-2009, 05:41 PM
So the Chiefs aren't going 3-4, but decided to trade for a 34 year old linebacker to convert to a new position that doesn't play most snaps and comes from a different scheme?

Ha that's what I was thinking, this is going to be a 3-4 team it's time to accept that.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-27-2009, 05:51 PM
You don't? That's news to Pioli, who drafted Richard Seymour 6th overall (not quite top-five, but if they had been picking fifth they still would have taken him, without a doubt. Plus, Ty Warren went 13th overall). Seems to me that you don't realize how important DEs are in the 3-4.

You stupid sonofabitch, Seymour was drafted as a 4-3 DT. STFD and STFU.

Count Alex's Losses
02-27-2009, 06:03 PM
Ha that's what I was thinking, this is going to be a 3-4 team it's time to accept that.

Why else would they go after Haynesworth, too?

ChiefsCountry
02-27-2009, 06:07 PM
Why else would they go after Haynesworth, too?

Raise the price up on him.

Count Alex's Losses
02-27-2009, 06:08 PM
Raise the price up on him.

I don't believe that for a second.

tmax63
02-27-2009, 06:42 PM
Why is Dorsey not considered a good prospect at NT in a 3-4? I have been reading the arguments but to my way of thinking being short is an advantage to get under those guards and centers. His weight, which how much he could add without losing all his quicknes is unknown, would be a disadvantage but I would think his height might be an asset if he doesn't play straight up. Best natural position? I doubt it, but I could see him doing alright there.

bdeg
02-27-2009, 06:46 PM
It wasn't just Dorsey. We have been drafting for the 4-3 for 3 years.

I'm disappointed because (don't shoot!) I think we were close to being a top 10 defense in the 4-3. We were the 13th ranked defense in 2007. We lost Jared Allen and then we flopped. The secondary was actually upgraded. But with a few pass rushers, even situational, I think we could have been close. 3rd down is what killed us.

You're right. Improved secondary. Bad line and linebackers. Sounds like a good time to switch to me.

Count Alex's Losses
02-27-2009, 06:47 PM
Why is Dorsey not considered a good prospect at NT in a 3-4? I have been reading the arguments but to my way of thinking being short is an advantage to get under those guards and centers. His weight, which how much he could add without losing all his quicknes is unknown, would be a disadvantage but I would think his height might be an asset if he doesn't play straight up. Best natural position? I doubt it, but I could see him doing alright there.

He's not nearly strong enough.

bdeg
02-27-2009, 06:48 PM
Why is Dorsey not considered a good prospect at NT in a 3-4? I have been reading the arguments but to my way of thinking being short is an advantage to get under those guards and centers. His weight, which how much he could add without losing all his quicknes is unknown, would be a disadvantage but I would think his height might be an asset if he doesn't play straight up. Best natural position? I doubt it, but I could see him doing alright there.

He's very light for the position, and it would waste all his natural quickness. His lack of height is an advantage for getting under blockers but it means he can't add more weight.

BradyFTW!
02-27-2009, 07:00 PM
I watched Dorsey some in college, and read a lot of the scouting for him before last year's draft, and it seems to me that, above and beyond everything else, 1 gap is far better suited to his strengths than 2 gap. Most 3-4 defenses are 2 gap, so I think that's what a lot of people are referring to when they say that Dorsey wouldn't be very good in the 3-4 (he's also really short for a 3-4 DE).

If the new guys in charge are trying to replicate the Pats' system, then you can expect to see predominantly 2 gap, which probably wouldn't be good for Dorsey. 2 gap is all about holding the line until the back makes his move, then shedding the block quickly and effectively. Sounds like Dorsey's strength is more in a 1 gap system, where it's less about holding out at the point of attack and more about filling your gap, pushing through the line, and disrupting. There are predominantly 1 gap 3-4s out there, though (Dallas and San Diego were last year, off the top of my head). Dorsey's not ideally suited to it, but with proper scheming his strengths could be pretty effectively utilized in a 3-4.

bdeg
02-27-2009, 07:10 PM
That's a good point. Wouldn't surprise me if our DC made an exception this year, using Turk as a 2 gap player but Dorsey as a 1 sometimes. If we put Vrabel and DJ on Dorsey's side we could maybe afford to be more risky on that side of the line.

The bigger question is now that we are seemingly moving to the 3-4 what the hell are we going to do for a NT?

Silock
02-27-2009, 07:18 PM
So what about Tank Tyler? Where does he play?

OnTheWarpath58
02-27-2009, 07:22 PM
Why else would they go after Haynesworth, too?

I still seriously doubt they did.

Sounds like an agent's ploy to raise the stakes.

bdeg
02-27-2009, 07:23 PM
So what about Tank Tyler? Where does he play?

He's pretty short but very strong. Backup NT that could step up in a couple years maybe? I imagine they'll have to evaluate that. Problem is the past regime had him practicing shooting gaps.

BradyFTW!
02-27-2009, 07:25 PM
So what about Tank Tyler? Where does he play?

What's he best at? If his frame could support about 10-20 more pounds, it seems that he has the strength to be a NT (I sorta remember that he did great in the bench press at the combine).

kcfanXIII
02-27-2009, 08:12 PM
So what about Tank Tyler? Where does he play?

i hear the royals are looking for a second baseman.

ChiefsCountry
02-27-2009, 08:16 PM
So what about Tank Tyler? Where does he play?

He will be gone.

Silock
02-27-2009, 09:32 PM
He will be gone.

Based on what?

I could seriously see us going with a front three of Dorsey, Tyler and Turk. I'm not saying it would be GREAT or anything, but I could see it happening.

bdeg
02-27-2009, 10:40 PM
On a more positive note this is a great move for Brian Johnston. He should make a good OLBer.

huskerdooz
02-27-2009, 11:02 PM
He is heavier than Arizona's Darnell Dockett, who played both 1 & 3 gap.

I'm not writing off Dorsey until I see how he plays in the defense. IMO how has the upper-body strength to play NT (he could chuck pretty much any NFL C on their ass), the question is with his lower-body strength & whether/not he can learn the proper technique(s) to play the position.

I've actually heard it the other way around, that he has the lower body to play nose tackle but not the upper body strength. Tank Tyler has just the opposite, the upper body strength needed to play the position but the lower body needs work.

beach tribe
02-28-2009, 04:00 AM
Tank+15 lbs=NT. He has plenty of strength to do it.