Arguing with Glenn Dorsey trademongers

Here we are, back with another "Arguing With..." feature.  And why?  Well, I could tell you, but it's easier to just show you this NFP column.  You've probably seen it by now.  It's yet another incredibly insightful piece of journalism from the national media, which always really does its homework when it comes to our Chiefs.  Or something.

(Quick disclaimer: I know some national media outlets do a great job.  But let's face it, by and large you see the same type of stuff repeated over and over again, no matter how stupid.  It's lazy and should be called out when it happens.  Like now).

My personal favorite part of the article is in the comments, where the author implies (albeit indirectly) that we'd do well to get a 3rd with perhaps a 5th for Glenn Dorsey.  That's when I said, "Enough is enough!  It's time for a special edition of Arguing with Idiots."

You know the drill by now (well, you might not, but I like to pretend I'm a big deal and that you remember everything I've ever written).  I'm going to present the usual arguments you'll run into from any standard know-it-all who thinks he knows something about our Chiefs.  Then I'll show you the quick and easy answers that should render them speechless and full of the knowledge they are both wrong and stupid.  Or at least one of the two.

Argument Number 1- "Glenn Dorsey isn't a fit in the 3-4!  You need a guy who is taller to replace him!"

This argument is, how do you say it?  Oh yeah, stupid.  People can talk all they want about height and weight and the "ideal" guy, but the bottom line in the NFL is production.  And Glenn Dorsey produces.  Let's put it this way, who do you want backing you up in a fight: a guy who's built like a tank but has never thrown down a day in his life, or Manny Pacquiao (who, let's face it, LOOKS like a pansy but fights like a demon on steroids)?  Think about it.

Argument Number 2- "You guys have players who can replace Dorsey in Allen Bailey and Wallace Gilberry!  I mean, look at all of GIlberry's sacks!  He MUST be better than Dorsey!"

I've heard this one, and it's just flat out wrong.  First of all, we don't know WHAT we have in Bailey.  You never, never, never count on rookies to replace proven, producing vets before you've seen what they can do on the field.  And GIlberry?  While I love him as a situational pass rusher, the man is weaker against the run than... I'm at a loss for an analogy.  How about this: he's worse against the run than Mike Brown was against the pass in 2009.  How's that?  Need another one?  If Gilberry's run defense was a country, it'd be France.  Too mean towards France?  OK... Gilberry is to rushing attacks what Clyde Drexler was to MJ in game 1 of the 1992 NBA Finals.  

I think I've painted a pretty clear picture.  Now I'll understate it; he's not the guy we want in on rushing downs (I probably could've just said that...)

Argument Number 3- "You say Dorsey produces, but I'm not seeing it!  Only 51 solo tackles and 2 sacks?  C'mon, you could be getting more from that position!"

This is commonly heard from those who misunderstand the 3-4.  Thankfully, most here see through it.  Do I wish Dorsey would rush the passer better, especially from the nickel?  Sure.  I wish everyone would!  But here's how you know Dorsey is doing a good job at his PRIMARY JOB.

A)  We didn't get KILLED by teams running at Tamba Hali last year.  I love Tamba, and he's gotten better at this, but he's still subpar against the run.  Yet somehow, some way, we didn't get run all over on that side (think the games Dorsey missed in 2009).  The reason?  Ol' Swamp Stomp himself.

B)  Look at Hali's sack numbers.  Then understand that the major job of a 3-4 DE is to draw blockers and give others one-on-one matchups.  Then look at Hali's sack numbers again.  I don't think we need to explain that any further.

C)  Go take a look at the tackle stats for DE's.  Go down a couple spots.  Yeah, 51 solo tackles and 69 total tackles aren't suddenly looking subpar, are they?  In fact, the only 3-4 DE who outstripped Dorsey in this area is universally-declared-stud Justin Smith.  Whoops.

Argument Number 4- "OK fine, Dorsey's been decent for you.  But he could flourish on another team!"

This argument is by far the most ridiculous one in my eyes.  Why on earth should I care if Dorsey would be better for another team when he is already producing here?  Why give him away for cheap (as the latest article suggests)?Because he might be a better player elsewhere?

By that argument, we should trade every single good player we've got.  After all, wouldn't Jamaal Charles probably be better on a team with a more dominant O-line and a franchise QB to take the pressure off?  Sure.  Wouldn't Flowers be even better on a team like the Packers with their excellent pass rush?  And hey, how GREAT would Berry be next to Ed Reed in that Ravens defense?  While we're at it, Dwayne Bowe sure would produce more if he had Tom Brady throwing him the ball.  Let's trade 'em all I say!

Or not.  Because that's insane.

This would bug me less if it wasn't happening every year.  But Good God, I'm getting sick of hearing it.  Let me speak on behalf of all Chiefs fans: unless we get a great (and I do mean great) offer for Glenn Dorsey, he is going nowhere.  He's too important to our defense to be giving away for stupid reasons.  And if you want to know why, see above.

************Late addition ninja pic!!!!!!!!!