Glenn Dorsey Is Not A Bust!
by A true chiefs fan on Apr 29, 2009 9:44 AM CDT
72 comments
I dont know were people keep coming up with this stuff that Glenn Dorsey is a bust because he is far from that. Maybe its because he was so extraordinary in college but you have to remember that most rookies have a hard time ajusting to the NFL their first season.
If you look at the 2008 draft there are only three players that I can think of that had just a super year Matt Ryan, Jerod Mayo and Glenn Dorsey. The reason I say Glenn Dorsey is if you look at his rookie stats he was by far more productive then some of the top D tackles in the game today as rookies:
Albert Haynesworth= 16 GMS 30 tackles 1 sack
Haloti Ngata= 16 GMS 31 tackles 1 sack
Darnell Dockett 15 GMS 39 tackles 3.5 sacks
Glenn Dorsey= 16 GMS 46 tackles 1 sack
To me Dorsey had a super year for a rookie NFL tackle and especially for there being no talent around him.
Now the reason I only compared Dorsey to Haynesworth, Dockett and Ngata is because Haynesworth is the best in the game today at the position and Dockett and Ngata is becaues the are the best in the 4-3 under D.
In the 4-3 under Dorsey will be able to show case much more of his talent and be abel to rush the passer instead of taking on double teams all game and we will see much more production from him. Just like you see Dockett and Ngata wrecking havoc on opposing teams.
Im going to say it now if Dorsey stays healthy, dosent get traded and in the 4-3 under Doresy will have 57 tackles and 8 sacks, because of Tyson Jackson and Dorsey will be more comfortable playin the game!
So Pioli DONT TRADE DORSEY he is on his way to being the next BIG THING!
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.
0 recs |
72 comments
Email
Print
Comments
No WAY we get rid of Doresey.
Doresey is going to be that guy that every franchise in the NFL will want on their team. Toss in Tyson Jackson and you have a one-two punch on the line that will stuff runners for loss after loss, and free up our linebackers to get sack after sack.
Money!
by KCChiefs on Apr 29, 2009 9:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
4-3 with dorsey and tyson in the middle or tank in themiddle with tyson
could be really sick stopping the run with tamba and mcbride on the out side it could be lights out for the run.
FOUR F'S FIND UM FEEL UM FUGUM FORGET UM.
by sexassassin on Apr 29, 2009 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Ghost of Jared Allen
I bet Dorsey would have had a monster year if we kept big JA. With JA, Hali doesn’t have to switch spots and probably picks up 5 sacks or so thus leaving Dorsey more room over the middle to stuff the run and maybe he getsin there for 4 or 5 sacks himself.
Trading JA was one of the stupidest moves the Chiefs have ever made. Clark should have fired Carl that offseason instead. Had he done so Jared may have resigned.
Paddy
by Patrick Allen on Apr 29, 2009 9:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
JA was/is one DUI away from a year suspension. By trading him we shipped off a potential problem and in return we got our LT (the 2nd most valuable position in football) for the next 10 years, Our new starting TE, and hopefully our future starting safety. JA was great but we did alright in that trade.
by BeijingKCfan on Apr 29, 2009 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you BeijingKCfan
I like Jared Allen and there is no question that he is a BEAST of a player but the “what if” an L. E Font that was to big to ingnore. I wish Allen the best in Min (as long as they are not playing the Chiefs) but I like the value we received in exchange.
by KCChiefs on Apr 29, 2009 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we don't trade Allen
we could have used our 1st round pick THIS year on an offensive lineman.
We traded JA and our defense got worse. We added Albert and he is good but our offense still sucked.
Then what do we do? We turn around and have to use our first pick in THIS years draft on a frikin defensive end!
We drafted Morgan to play the Tampon 2 and now we need linebackers instead.
It is banannas to draft a guy, turn him into the best end in football and then frikin trade him so you can draft guys who MIGHT develop. As of right now Morgan and Cottam have done jack so as far as I am concerned we plugged one hole (Albert) and opened up another (DE)
Paddy
by Patrick Allen on Apr 29, 2009 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the most pointless arguement ever.
If we don’t trade Allen you don’t even know if Dorsey would have been the pick.
by JComp11 on Apr 29, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Allen trade
was the right thing to do. I’d do it again in a heartbeat.
by stram#1 on Apr 29, 2009 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The argument is not pointless
My point is I don’t think we should have traded Allen. I think we should have fired Peterson and resigned Allen. I think when you have a star player you should try to keep him.
I was responding to the argument that we got Albert, Morgan and Cottam for Allen. Right now Cottam and Morgan have done nothing. If Cottam and Morgan turn out to be studs for us then I will be wrong.
The fact is we traded Allen, the defense got worse, we got no sacks and we had to use our 1st round pick this year on a DE that we should have already had.
Paddy
by Patrick Allen on Apr 29, 2009 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
4-12 or 2-14....suck is suck.
If Allen would/does get another DUI it would/could have been a MAJOR BLOW to our team. Hope he keeps his nose clean and has a H.O.F. career, but I am so glad I will not lose any sleep over “will Allen have a relapse in judgement”.
Like the post title says, suck is suck. Last place is last place with or without Allen.
by KCChiefs on Apr 29, 2009 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other facts are...
Allen and the Vikings aren’t hoisting their superbowl rings.
The Vikings are (from a defensive line perspective) closing in on the “win now” years.
The Vikings have no real starting QB.
Jared Allen is still very much in danger of suspension for a future problem.
The Chiefs added a lot of good young talent to a team with a badly aging roster, and that kind of move would not have been possible without the flexability that Allen’s draft trade gave us.
If Allen had been on the Chiefs last year we probably would have won 2-3 of those tight games that we lost, but that’s about all impact he sould have made.
And yes, the argument is pointless. There is no way of knowing what would have or would not have happened if Allen had stayed. The only thing we know for sure is that we had more draft picks, more draft flexability, less pass rush, and we aren’t paying the highest DE contract in the NFL.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on Apr 29, 2009 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if
We would have kept Allen drafted Dorsey and went after Haynesworth. I dont think our problem for 09 would be getting sacks!
by A true chiefs fan on Apr 29, 2009 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We wouldn't have
If we don’t trade Allen then our edge rusher is still secure and or O-Line is still absolute shit.
Trading Allen gave us the flexability to take Dorsey when he fell to us at #5, otherwise we would have reached for a Ryan Clady or tried to trade back. The O line was an absolute must address in the first round last year; so much so that we traded back up a couple spots to get Albert.
Without Allen all the flexibility we had in our draft to move up or down and take a guy like Dorsey instead of letting him slip is gone. Without those picks that the Allen trade provided we have a completely different team.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on Apr 29, 2009 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yessir...
…I thought such things but was too lazy to write it all…
by woodman212 on Apr 29, 2009 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although...
in hindsight Clady would have not of been a reach. That guy is the real deal.
by I_Bleed_Red. on Apr 29, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
clady is the real deal
FOUR F'S FIND UM FEEL UM FUGUM FORGET UM.
by sexassassin on Apr 29, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we'd have 'reached' for Clady at #5
It just makes the Allen deal even worse.
by kcsno56 on Apr 29, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
We’d still have a pass rush and we’d have as good or probably better O line.
Paddy
by Patrick Allen on Apr 29, 2009 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed on that i wouldent have wanted to get clady that high
we lucked out got dorsey and albert and flowers hell of draft fuck. to good i wish we would have had another home run like that.this year we had like a base hit this year in my opinion but we will see
FOUR F'S FIND UM FEEL UM FUGUM FORGET UM.
by sexassassin on Apr 29, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
say we don’t trade JA. We still go 2-14 because we have no oline help and our QBs are getting killed worse than they did last year because we dont have ALbert. Then Herm and Carl are still fired and we now have Pioli/Haley and are transitioning to a 4-3 under/3-4. Now we are trying to figure out where in the hell JA fits and we have no real 5 tech D. Jackson has a totally different skill set than does JA. So comparing them as the “same” position isnt fair. IMO we would of went 2-14 with or with out JA, and we got a pretty damn good LT and some nice prospects out of it. We need to stop worrying about coulda should woulda, and start worring about what will happen now.
Don't blame me, I voted for content of character.
by paratrooper on Apr 29, 2009 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you P.A.
I wouldn’t have traded Allen either.
You simply don’t trade one of the top 4 DE’s in the NFL who are only 26 years old. You don’t. Not when you have no other pass rush, and not when you are ridiculously under the cap. I said at the time, we were so far under the cap, you could have signed JA to a deal that paid him all of his guaranteed money on 2008’s cap. Meaning half of his contract, $32+ mil could have been on 2008’s cap, and then he becomes a 6 million a year guy for 6 years. Which is an absolute steal for one of the best DE’s in the game.
I understand the argument that he was a risk, but that IMO was a conveinent excuse to ship him out of town after Peterson had burned another bridge.
My guess is, if we don’t make the trade, we would have drafted Albert or another LT at #5. A lot of people (Adam Teicher among them) thought we were going to do that anyway, even after the trade. If Dorsey goes in the top 4 we may well have done that even with after JA trade.
So, you could easily make the argument that we traded Allen for Dorsey, Morgan and Charles (the two 3rds). I’d take the Allen side of that deal. I understand why some wouldn’t, but my opinion hasn’t changed since the move was made.
To take it a step further, I’m pretty confident moving forward Pioli would take Allen over Dorsey, Morgan and Charles.
by kcsno56 on Apr 29, 2009 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Get Over It
A year has gone by and we have a new administration, a QB, going with a different scheme ( Not sure JA would fit). We cannot big JA back so lets talk about Dorsey and Jaclson and how our LB’s will work out with all the miles they have.
Jerome
by easyjb on Apr 29, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To take it a step further, I’m pretty confident moving forward Pioli would take Allen over Dorsey, Morgan and Charles.
I don’t know about that…Pioli doesn’t strike me as the kind of GM who would pay a guy who was one DUI away from a 16 game suspension the biggest defensive contract in NFL history.
Allen was paid as if he were the best defensive player in the league…and in 2008 at least, he was NOT the best defensive player in the league.
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
by PVChiefsfan on Apr 29, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Allen was certainly one of the best defensive players in the league in 2008
The Vikings couldn’t have been disappointed in his production or his value based on last season.
The Vikings, as the Chiefs could have, also structured the contract so they were in many ways protected in the event that he got another DUI or otherwise screwed up.
One big carrot they got in the contract is a lot of his money is only guaranteed for injury, so if he gets a DUI, they could cut him, and not be out all the guaranteed money.
The Minnesota papers, as I recall, made a big deal out of this, but it got little play in KC for some reason.
You may be right about Pioli, but they certainly didn’t hesitate to bring in guys with baggage to NE (Moss, Dillon). I’ll give you that it’s possible he wouldn’t have wanted to make the deal, thats probably the biggest unknown in all of this.
by kcsno56 on Apr 29, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For his age, yes he was the best
only 26 years old. 20freaking6. That’s young for a guy that lead the NFL in sacks. He was also consistently a hard worker and the only person on our D that never gave up on a play. We’d be losing by 20 points and Allen was still busting his ass to get to the QB on every play. I remember being at a Chiefs game and we were losing by 14 in the 4th quarter and Allen ran halfway across the field and still sacked the QB, and the guy next to me said “at least we have ONE player that is still trying to win.” Allen hasn’t gotten in trouble for alcohol since he was suspended.
He was absolutely worth the contract the Vikings gave him because he is incredibly young, incredibly talented, and incredibly hard-working.
by Vince D on Apr 29, 2009 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And in 2008 he had fewer sacks next to two Pro Bowl Defensive Tackles
than he did next to Ron Edwards and James Reed in 2007…
So I’m wondering if the Vikings are actually as thrilled as we all are.
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
by PVChiefsfan on Apr 29, 2009 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Dude, he was 5th in the NFL in sacks, had a couple safeties, forced 3 fumbles, drew a ton of holding calls, he was a game changer. His ‘pro bowl’ tackles weren’t on the field, especially together very much, but even with that, you can’t expect more from a DE than what he gave them last season.
You’re fishing pretty hard. There’s no real argument, to be made here, JA is one of the best defensive players in the NFL. Period. There’s not a GM in the league that wouldn’t agree.
You can make an argument that the trade was still good for the Chiefs, but c’mon, the guy is a beast.
by kcsno56 on Apr 29, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But
he had 2 safeties (correct me if I’m wrong), that dramatically changed the momentum of the game. Plus he was getting more double teams, and blocking help from the offense because they knew he was a threat.
by Red and Gold on Apr 29, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
PV
Didn’t you go to the Harvard of the Midwest? You ought to know better! :)
by kcsno56 on Apr 29, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not arguing that Allen isn't a beast or a gamechanger
I’m arguing that he’s not worth 71 million dollars….especially to a team with money issues like the Vikings.
I totally understand why they did it, because a pass rusher was the missing component on their dominant defense. But we saw what happens when you have a ridiculously good defense and a retart at QB.
If they hadn’t ponied up all that money for Allen, I can almost guarantee you that Cutler would be a Viking, and I think that would give them a better chance at the Super Bowl.
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
by PVChiefsfan on Apr 29, 2009 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Vikings (sorry, my family lives up there, I'm very familiar with them)
Are not a team with money problems, as is often portrayed in the media. They want and really, deserve a new stadium. Their owner does everything he can to give the city a winner. He gets a bad wrap b/c he doesn’t publically rule out moving…but why should he? That would get rid of any leverage he has.
Also, they could have easily acquired Cassel, and they probably should have. They could have given NE their 1st rounder, and would probably be the 2nd favorite behind NYG in the NFC to make the SB. KC is lucky they didn’t.
Cutler, I imagine, they didn’t go after because they didn’t want to give up the draft compensation he’d have required. Part of that is because of the Jared Allen deal, sure. But it has nothing to do with ca$h or Cap Space, of which they have plenty.
Lastly, you’d have to assume that Jared Allen would have reeled in even more money if he was a FA. His agent had to work out a deal with only one bidder, if he were a FA he could have created a bidding war and he was probably looking at an even bigger contract, so I’d say he was well worth the contract he signed.
by kcsno56 on Apr 29, 2009 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Careful There
They want and really, deserve a new stadium.
You’ve got libertarians (like myself) in the audience who think that taxpayer-funded stadiums are the devil’s work. :)
Predictions for 2009
1. Todd Haley's going to struggle with managing his staff in his rookie year as head coach.
2. The Lions will draft Matt Stafford, the Rams will draft Jason Smith, and the Chiefs will draft either Aaron Curry or Eugene Monroe.
3. Maurice Carthon will be the most hated man on the Chiefs' coaching staff within two years.
by UCrawford on Apr 29, 2009 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Arrowhead?
I didn’t think you live in Jackson County MO?
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 29, 2009 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've got no problem with taxpayer funded stadiums....
as long as:
1) the tax payers vote for the new tax
2) the tax ends when the stadium is paid for (no moving the money to some other program)
3) the ownership pays at least 33% of the total cost
4) the county/city etc of people that were taxed owns an equal % to what they paid for the stadium, including profits from sales of anything on the premesis, rental fees for concerts/rodeos or anything else that may happen in the stadium, and the parking fees. IE if the tax payer foots 50% of the bill then the taking agency gets to keep 50% of the money until the origional upfronted tax cost is paid off.
5) the county repays the local taxpayer that origionally foots the bill by way of income tax credits as they money is repaid to the county.
and finally 6) The budget is set in stone. If their are cost overruns the team owner pays for them.
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on Apr 29, 2009 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
With much of this, its also why even though I’m a season ticket holder, that lives 8 minutes from the stadiums, I voted against the renovations.
Mainly b/c the teams put in far to small of a % of the cost. The Royals % especially, was one of the smallest for any similar major league product in the country.
I also thought it was silly to spend $250 million on the K, to extend the lease by 17 years, when you could build a new stadium, downtown (where it belongs) for ~$400 million and get a 30 year lease.
by kcsno56 on Apr 30, 2009 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
James Reed?
Uh… who? Alphonso Boone was our other DT. James Reed was never a starter on this team.
Also, the Chiefs had a very good defense in 2007
by Vince D on Apr 29, 2009 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if i'm building a team
i would make sure i had a badass left tackle before a badass defensive end. i would have done that trade as well, simply because we got a franchise left tackle out of it. there are lots of ways to get to the quarterback but with a crappy LT, your offense goes nowhere.
Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day.
Harry S. Truman
by kcguy on Apr 29, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We could have chosen
Any LT in the draft other than Jake Long at #5 overall. We could still have Albert, or we could have chosen Clady.
Again, what the trade turned out to be, IMO was: Allen for Dorsey, Morgan and Charles.
by kcsno56 on Apr 29, 2009 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm operating under the assumption
we would pick dorsey at #5 regardless since the chiefs had him rated as the #1 player in the draft last year. i guess it doesn’t matter anyway since we did trade allen and got a bunch of picks for him which i think we used well with the exception of morgan.
Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day.
Harry S. Truman
by kcguy on Apr 29, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm still hopeful for Morgan
I think he may very well end up our starting SS next to Page.
We’ll see what a year of new coaching does.
They did claim to have Dorsey #1 on thier board, but LT was the teams biggest weakness going into the draft. We’ll never know, but I think getting a LT was their #1 priority.
by kcsno56 on Apr 29, 2009 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely
you don’t pass when a guy like Glenn Dorsey falls to you at 5. He was the best defensive player in the draft.
by Vince D on Apr 29, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh you mean we didnt pull an al davis
the man who passed up crabtree and macklin to get bay hahahah what a loser.
FOUR F'S FIND UM FEEL UM FUGUM FORGET UM.
by sexassassin on Apr 29, 2009 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We seem to have passed on the best player in the draft this year.....
The Powers Of Astute Observation Are Often Mistaken As Cynacism By Those That Do Not Posses Them -- G.B. Shaw
by Texas Chief on Apr 29, 2009 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Time will tell
A stouter line will have positives for LB’s
As Stouter LB will not make the line better by himself
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 29, 2009 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
You cant argue when we broke records last season for inability. I’d trade Dorsey for Ja right now!
by GHOST OF DT on Apr 29, 2009 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention Jared wanted to gobble up our salary cap!
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
by BigRedChief on Apr 29, 2009 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
-1
This is a common misconception, the Chiefs haven’t been near the cap in 3 seasons, in fact, they were much closer to the cap floor last season than the max.
Allen’s contract could have been very cap friendly, and we could have unloaded $30+ mil on the ‘08 cap. That’s money that we’ll never spend on players.
You could easily make the argument based on this, that one of the reasons we traded him was we were being cheap. I hope that’s not the case, and I’m not sure it is, but the argument could be made.
by kcsno56 on Apr 29, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I should have said....
,,,,he would have gobbled up too much of our sarary cap for their (and my) liking. Jared is a talented dude but at the time of his trading we had so many holes to fill. His departure was no doubt a blow to our D but I’m not sure about giving a huge contract to a guy when he was 1 DUI away from, what, a year suspension? High risk high reward, just not one I think we were prepared or willing to take.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
by BigRedChief on Apr 29, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Patrick Allen
I bet Dorsey would have had a monster year if we kept big JA. With JA, Hali doesn’t have to switch spots and probably picks up 5 sacks or so thus leaving Dorsey more room over the middle to stuff the run and maybe he getsin there for 4 or 5 sacks himself.
Dorsey had a down season because he was playing as a 2-tech, 2 gap DT most of the time to keep the guard or center off of our ridiculously shitty MLB.
Having Allen next to Dorsey would have only helped had we actually been playing Dorsey in a 3-tech pass rushing/penetrating role.
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
by PVChiefsfan on Apr 29, 2009 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this...
But I don’t think we would have Dorsey right now if we didn’t trade Allen. Maybe, but I doubt it.
by kcsno56 on Apr 29, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. He was also a rookie.
The expectation that a rookie D-lineman will come in and light it up right away is misguided. Dorsey will be just fine. Especially if this new scheme puts him in an attacking, 1 gap position like we all hope it will.
by RedNose on Apr 29, 2009 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
i dont think we can say that dorsey had a super year, yeh were comparing him to these 3 but did anyone consider any of these guys superstars in thier first years.I believe that dorsey will be very succesfuland will only get better with better talent.
Warren sapp rookie year-26 Tkls 3 sacks
by cassel4prez on Apr 29, 2009 10:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's all relative.
Relative to what other guys did at the same point in their careers is all you can compare him. You can’t compare a rookie with someone that’s been in the league 5 or 10 years, ESPECIALLY on the D Line.
by JComp11 on Apr 29, 2009 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what is being stated....
….that in comparison to other rookie DTs that ended up stud-DTs…Dorsey was even better….
by woodman212 on Apr 29, 2009 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dorsey's A Bust
Not so much because he lacks ability (he didn’t display that much last year, but I’m willing to write that off to being a rookie and Gunther’s incompetence) but more that after one season he no longer fits the scheme that the team’s trying to run and there’s little to indicate he’ll be a better pass rusher from the end than the DT position.
Basically, one year later it turns out that the Chiefs spent the #5 pick on a player that they can’t really use in the role they drafted him for. Is that Dorsey’s fault? No, not really…but it’s not a lot of busts’ faults that they were bad fits for their team. Doesn’t make them any less of a bust, because really that judgment’s about what they produce, not about how valid their excuses were for not producing.
Predictions for 2009
1. Todd Haley's going to struggle with managing his staff in his rookie year as head coach.
2. The Lions will draft Matt Stafford, the Rams will draft Jason Smith, and the Chiefs will draft either Aaron Curry or Eugene Monroe.
3. Maurice Carthon will be the most hated man on the Chiefs' coaching staff within two years.
by UCrawford on Apr 29, 2009 2:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If we run a 4-3 Under I think he fits...
We will see…
Also…sorry to disappoint that you were not able to be the first response to your own comment… :)
by woodman212 on Apr 29, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Need To Apologize
I said what I had to in one comment this time. :)
Predictions for 2009
1. Todd Haley's going to struggle with managing his staff in his rookie year as head coach.
2. The Lions will draft Matt Stafford, the Rams will draft Jason Smith, and the Chiefs will draft either Aaron Curry or Eugene Monroe.
3. Maurice Carthon will be the most hated man on the Chiefs' coaching staff within two years.
by UCrawford on Apr 29, 2009 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one knowes if Dorsey fits in a 3-4
Because he has never played in a 3-4 just because you dont have the size for the postion dosnt mean you wount succeed. I think Zac Thomas and Tom Jackson had good careers for being to small!
by A true chiefs fan on Apr 29, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We are not running a 3-4
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 29, 2009 6:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do people say we are!
I think this team has all the pieces to make up a good 4-3 under team!
by A true chiefs fan on Apr 29, 2009 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably because Pioli and Haley
Often refer to us as running a 3-4.
I think they’re being intentionally confusing on the issue.
by kcsno56 on Apr 30, 2009 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont remember when they have said that....citations?
I do recall Haley’s press conference after the mini-camp when he stated that the Under formation would be our Base defense…
by woodman212 on Apr 30, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To A T
you don't have to win and you don't need to fight. Supertramp
by Steve_Chiefs on Apr 29, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know .......
you guys think Dorsey won’t fit in a 3-4 scheme,and i’m not sure about it either! Why should we go 3-4 when a 4-3 under fits the line-up we have now? IMO the 4-3 under is the best defense for this team to run with the guys they have now! I wouldn’t be surprised to see our d-fensive rank go from the bottom of the league to the middle this year!
by CPT.Caveman on Apr 30, 2009 2:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
The 4-3 under is what Pendergast ran with Arizona last year, so he knows that defense very well, and the player the Chiefs have on Defense look like they would be very well suited for the “under” defense, particularly Dorsey at the under D-tackle. I think this position suits him perfectly, with the chance to go one on one with a guard. I think Herm tried to force a lot of good personnel (including Gunther) into a cover 2 (Tampa 2 as he called it) scheme that they just couldn’t really get the hang of. Gunther was the D-coordinator but had never coached the cover 2 defense before. He always used an attacking-style defense, which is the sort of defense Dorsey fits into. The 4-3 under, in my opinion, will utilized the combined talents of 4-3 personnel and 3-4 personnel just acquired and should do pretty well. I actually believe that given the chance, this style defense may prove to be better than switching over to a true 3-4 defense down the road, specifically because of the role of the "under’ defensive tackle (Dorsey), especially if Glenn has a very productive year at this position.
by big_Scott on May 1, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Draft the best player on the board
Herm drafted the player that was considered the best player on the board. Herm practiced that theory with his picks, or so he told us as he explained why he got certain players. This year, we were told over and over again that Curry was the best Defensive player on the board. Pioli and Co. went against the list that showed him to be the best player on the board and Herm was quoted as saying that KC should draft Curry. We got Jackson and I wonder which player he would have drafted in 2008 if he were at KC then?
I do not dislike Dorsey. He had a lot of tackles mainly because he was on the field so much from having little O except for Thigpin running and TG catching one here and there as Bowe dropped them. If KC was staying 4-3, great, keep him. He is a little light and short for a NT. It seems stupid that a few inches and maybe 30 to 40 pounds would make that much difference, but it seems to be the case at the NFL level. Though, I’d love him to prove them all wrong and kick butt.
If they can get some other parts of the puzzle, to include some picks for next year, fine. Otherwise, I hope he rips the other teams a new one. Jackson seems to be a good pick, even if he is not what most hoped for. I have to hope he works out.
by SedMo on Apr 29, 2009 3:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Lines Play
When the offensive line wins out, running backs run, looking for cornerbacks and safeties because they’re in the secondary. The linebackers are in the sights of the guards and tackles. It’s hard to get any work done when the big guys are hunting you. Curry may have done well not having anybody to keep him from being the one pursued, but the job would have been harder. There are a lot of good serviceable LB’s that can be acquired between now and camp. What’s required now are sure tacklers and there should be some relatively clear lanes to the runner or the ball.
by frostyg on Apr 29, 2009 7:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
but 8 sacks is a bit ridiculous, he didnt even have that many his best year in college, and nows gonna be playing in a 3-4 or some kind of hybrid 3-4
by thigpenis on Apr 30, 2009 12:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Aaaaahahahahaha!
Look at that name! You caught me off guard with that one! LOL!
Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
by Buck'O on Apr 30, 2009 11:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
