Warren Sapp on Dorsey and LJ (NFL.com chat)

[Jilly]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

It depends. Defensive Linemen don't get alot of love in a 3-4 two gap system. Generally speaking their stats will suffer compared to a 1 gapper, who has far more opportunity to get into the backfield for sacks or run stops before the play even has much of a chance to develop.

Alot of people thought Vince Wilfork was wasted in a two gap style, as he is massive AND pretty quick in a short burst. But he's also a superb two gapper, which speaks to his strength.

I can't speak for Dorsey, specifically, but if he has the size/strength to perform well as a 3-4 DE, then his stats may suffer, but the defense may be fine with him there.

Fans have alot more visibility and love for a guy who compiles 10 sacks in a noisy way than for a guy who does his job, holds the point of attack, but doesn't get many sacks. The Ty Warrens of the world...

Sully and I talked about this last night.....we realized my confusion was that I thought Dorsey was supposed to be explosive in attacking the QB, when his specialty was collapsing the pocket. It all makes a lot more sense to me now that I have this differential clarified.

But, like I told Sully, you can't build a defense around 1 player, right? I think great players end up great because they are versatile in their talents. Let's hope Dorsey is that way.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Jilly

But, like I told Sully, you can't build a defense around 1 player, right? I think great players end up great because they are versatile in their talents.

That is not true.

DT was as far from versatile as one could be.

[Jilly]

Originally Posted by milkman

That is not true.

DT was as far from versatile as one could be.

I think it's true. You're statement is just about as backed up as mine.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Jilly

I think it's true. You're statement is just about as backed up as mine.

How do you figure?
You said great players are great because they are versatile.
DT is an example of the fallacy of that statement.

Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, Dwight Freeny, Randy Moss are other examples.

Versatility is a great attribute, and can lead to greatness, but it is not necessary to achieve greatness.

[Jilly]

Originally Posted by milkman

How do you figure?
You said great players are great because they are versatile.
DT is an example of the fallacy of that statement.

Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, Dwight Freeny, Randy Moss are other examples.

Versatility is a great attribute, and can lead to greatness, but it is not necessary to achieve greatness.

really? this is turning into an argument on what constitutes greatness?

Example: A person can play the flute. They see the notes on the page, they play them all, in rhythm, and have great tone. But what makes them a GREAT player is their ability to put as much passion in Mozart as they would say, Faure. Granted, they like playing Mozart better, it makes more sense to them, but wouldn't it suck if that's all they played?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Jilly

really? this is turning into an argument on what constitutes greatness?

Example: A person can play the flute. They see the notes on the page, they play them all, in rhythm, and have great tone. But what makes them a GREAT player is their ability to put as much passion in Mozart as they would say, Faure. Granted, they like playing Mozart better, it makes more sense to them, but wouldn't it suck if that's all they played?

JFC, you are going to try to use music to support your patently false statement about football.

First I don't give a rat's ass about ****ing music.

Second, I provided an example to support my claim that you are wrong.

Third, I provided other examples that prove you're wrong.

But clearly, you can't admit you're wrong.

[Jilly]

Originally Posted by milkman

JFC, you are going to try to use music to support your patently false statement about football.

First I don't give a rat's ass about ****ing music.

Second, I provided an example to support my claim that you are wrong.

Third, I provided other examples that prove you're wrong.

But clearly, you can't admit you're wrong.

yes, point proven. You're such a football god.

[Jilly]

Originally Posted by milkman

JFC, you are going to try to use music to support your patently false statement about football.

First I don't give a rat's ass about ****ing music.

Second, I provided an example to support my claim that you are wrong.

Third, I provided other examples that prove you're wrong.

But clearly, you can't admit you're wrong.

So, my argument was that, in case it wasn't clear, which I will go ahead and say it wasn't.....I believe for a player to be GREAT means they should be flexible, able to adapt. Yes, they still are a _______ (whatever position) and still are good at being a __________ (whatever position) , but shouldn't they be able to play that position, in a different defense, with the same greatness?

I don't feel like what I'm saying is totally out of line. And to be honest, I'm just trying to be a part of the discussion. I'm wrong 50% of the time and I know that, but I don't feel like I'm a total idiot for believing this.