The Tank Tyler era is officially over. Beast Nation’s #2 guy will now be devouring blocks for the Carolina Panthers. I’d wish Tank well, but I’m fairly certain he’ll be out of the NFL within the next couple years. Although somehow Junior Siavii is playing for the Cowboys*, so I guess you never know. Maybe Stank hangs around a while.
*I still haven’t gotten over the shock of seeing Siavii on that Cowboys sideline.
I was pleasantly surprised by this trade. I had just predicted Tyler wouldn’t be with the team next year, but I didn’t think we’d actually get anything for him. Granted a fifth round pick isn’t much (we drafted Colin Brown in the fifth this year), but we could get lucky. Brandon Carr, Dante Hall and Scott Fujita were all fifth round picks, so you never know.
I’d seen enough of Stank. Realistically, I’d seen enough of him last year. The guy was the worst player on the worst line in the history of the NFL. Why anyone thought he’d make a good nose tackle is beyond me. I don’t blame Pioli and Haley for giving Tank a shot (what other options did they have?), but there were a lot of people who actually thought Tank was our NT of the future. And not just stupid people, either. Joel Thorman at arrowheadpride was a big Tank supporter. Kent Babb liked him, too.
If nothing else, the Tank Tyler experiment is interesting for what it can teach us about NFL fans. Stank never played well in a Chiefs uniform. He was invisible his rookie year, and did nothing with the starting job he was handed in 2008. He had one decent game this season, against Oakland, and was still benched the next week. I know he was a defensive tackle, but Tank was with us for 38 games and he never sacked a quarterback. When I try to think of his biggest play, the only thing that comes to mind is when he stuffed a goal line run in a preseason game his rookie year. I remember thinking, “hey, this kid could be good!” Then he wasn’t, and we (me & you) moved on.
But nobody else did. Tank Tyler became a fan favorite, and here we are two-and-a-half years later and people are still talking about his potential. I can come up with three possible reasons for this:
1) His name is “Tank” – I don’t think this is the primary reason, but it definitely plays a role. If someone is named Tank, stupid people will like him.
2) He had a good combine – This is what Thorman references, and its the closest thing to a reasonable argument. Tank did have a really good combine. He had more bench reps than anyone else, and his 40-time was extremely fast for a defensive tackle. Those two facts even had a bitter cynic like me excited about Tank when we drafted him. Of course, as often happens, combine stats didn’t translate to on-field success. But those gaudy numbers stuck in people’s minds, and when a reasonable man believes in Tank, I think this is why.
3) Hard Knocks – This is the big one. Tank was featured prominently on Hard Knocks. And not only that, the show at one point claimed he was “thriving.” Game, set, match. The name and the combine stats set it up, but Hard Knocks was what really created this monster (beast?).
What does this tell us? Well, for one thing it shows how much we really see when we watch a game. Tank never did anything good on the field. No push, no doubles, no sacks, no big plays, few tackles. Yet he was a fan favorite, and people would swear up and down he was a star in the making. How could this happen? Either people simply weren’t watching him, or they were watching him, but their brains, because of preconceived notions, wouldn’t accurately compute what they saw. I think it’s a healthy mixture of both. The point is, its hard to learn much from an NFL game unless you’re focused. Most people (myself included) would rather not focus when watching sports. Thats fine; its normal. I’m not attacking anyone here, I’m just making the point (which JoPo makes often) that we can’t really trust what we think we see.
“Hey Big Hatt,” you’re saying, “you’re an awesome writer and I’m totally entertained, but where are you going with this?” Glad you asked.
This is about Dorsey. Big surprise, right? The thing is, I think I need to start fresh with the LBB (league’s biggest beast). I was ready for Dorsey to suck this year, and thats basically what I’ve seen. But the truth is I haven’t actually been watching him nearly as closely as I did last year. I guess in my head I’d already seen enough. And the fact that Dorsey is Beast Nation’s #1 guy certainly hasn’t helped things. After reading all those idiots’ inane groupthink and declarations of greatness for the past year, I started to want Dorsey to fail. That’s no place for a good fan to be.
If I’m going to criticize other people for letting preconceived notions cloud their judgement, I’ve got to hold myself to the same standards. My boys Todd Haley, Greens, and Diet Pepsi and my girl Sprinkles have all said Dorsey is playing better. Granted one of those people has been calling for a Joe Montana comeback and thus has diminished credibility, but where there’s that much smoke there has to be some fire.
I’m still confident in my assessment of Dorsey’s rookie year. I legitimately spent almost all our defensive snaps watching him, and I didn’t have nearly as much of an axe to grind. I was seeking truth. Dorsey wasn’t getting double-teamed, and he didn’t have 46 tackles. I’m confident of that.
This season is a different story. I’ve been watching him more than any other defender, but I haven’t been nearly as disciplined as I was last year, and I think my judgement may have been compromised by personal feelings. I’m certainly not infallible. Maybe Dorsey is playing better? I intend to find out. This sunday I’ll be watching him every single play. I’m going to focus, I’m going to take detailed notes, and I’m going to post an honest review on monday. I won’t be drinking or smoking (well…). All of my brain-power will be focused on the LBB. I’m determined to make an honest assessment.
A response to DP’s points about Dorsey and the 3-4:
I don’t think any of us ever expected Dorsey to get ten sacks. However, I believe that particular statistic has been downplayed so much simply because it makes things easier for us (and our front office). If our top-5 draft pick defensive ends aren’t getting sacks, the explanation that they “aren’t supposed to” can be comforting. I wonder how true it is.
Let’s start with this: how may sacks do you think Jared Allen would get if he played in a 3-4? 10? 12? You’re crazy if you think he’d suddenly drop to single digits. Honestly, I kind of doubt the switch would affect his totals at all. That guy would find a way to get to the quarterback, regardless of what system he’s in. Getting to the quarterback is what he does. It’s his best skill, and he applies it to his position.
Tyson Jackson and Glenn Dorsey, our starting defensive ends, have combined for 0 sacks so far this season. This has been explained away by references to youth and the defensive system. The reality is those guys just aren’t great pass rushers. That doesn’t mean they’re not good players, but it does mean they struggle to get to the quarterback. Maybe they have other skills that are just as valuable, or more so. Scott Pioli certainly seems to think so. He said he needed Fergie (Jackson) for his system. Maybe he did. But is the system really to blame for Jackson’s lack of sacks? I don’t think so.
I think a good pass rusher would get to the quarterback regardless of his system. 3-4 defensive ends may have slightly different roles than in the 4-3, but on pass plays they’re still rushing the passer. When Tyson Jackson sees that QB drop back, I can guarantee his isn’t thinking about how to eat up as many blockers as possible. He’s trying to get to that quarterback. If he doesn’t, it has a lot more to do with him as a player than what system he’s in.
Let’s attack this from another angle. How may sacks do you think Tyson Jackson would have if he played end in a 4-3? Would he be a totally different player in that system? If Fergie played in a 4-3, would he become a 10-sack player? Of course not. His strengths and weaknesses would remain the same. He’d still be the same man.
And no, this isn’t an attack on Tyson Jackson. I said I wasn’t going to start evaluating him until midseason, and I stand by that. If Pioli thinks he needs a guy like Fergie, I’m willing to take that on faith (for now). My point is this: The reason our defensive ends don’t get sacks isn’t because they’re not supposed to, it’s because they can’t. If they could, they would.
Talking about how 3-4 ends don’t get sacks and then drafting Tyson Jackson is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s like if I said Michael Crichton movies sucked and then put in Congo. You’d be like, “What about Jurassic Park?” And I’d be like, “Jurassic Park doesn’t fit this system. This system doesn’t need movies with credible actors, a cool plot, and a good soundtrack. This system needs movies with laughable dialogue and stupid special effects (killer gorillas?!?).” At that point, if you were a sane man, you’d think, “OK, but what if a movie had a cool plot, a good soundtrack, and Tim Curry and stupid special effects? Isn’t a movie like that theoretically possible?” And you’d be told that no, such a movie could not possibly exist.
Eating up blockers and rushing the passer are apparently mutually exclusive. The thing is, I have a feeling Jared Allen draws more double-teams than Fergie and Dorsey combined. Do actual double-teams count as eating up blockers? Something about that doesn’t feel right…..
Addendum: After re-reading, I realized my Congo analogy might not have been crystal clear to everyone. Let me try again.
Who’s is the best 3-4 defensive end? Richard Seymour, right? Now who’s the best 4-3 defensive end? Jared Allen, right?
OK, so lets say you’re running a 3-4. Which defense would be better, one with two Richard Seymours at end or one with two Jared Allens at end? This may not be an open-and-shut case for everyone, but I’d pick the line with the Allens no question. And thats in a 3-4. My point is that assuming our defensive ends shouldn’t be getting any sacks just because of the system is a copout. If the system is really designed for our ends to get no pressure, then it seems to me there’s something wrong with the system. And it may be that the players drafted to “fit the system” are whats really causing a lack of pass-rushing production, not the system itself. I guess this is just another version of the chicken/egg question, but I think its at least worth looking into.
This “eat up blockers, get a push” defensive line is a throwback to a time when running was more important than it is now. The NFL is more pass-oriented than ever. Why shouldn’t our ends be expected to get some pressure? And don’t tell me a 3-4 style defensive end is better for the pass-rush in the long run than a sack artist. Sack artists draw more double-teams than anyone. If you want to talk about drawing blockers and allowing others to make plays, thats exactly what good pass rushers do. Case in point: Tamba Hali’s production with Jared Allen compared to his production without Jared Allen. So if the goal for a defensive end is to open things up for the linebackers, it seems like a really great pass rusher should be the obvious choice.
I realize this might not hold true for the running game. For the running game, the “3-4 style” defensive ends might actually be preferable. But the running game is not nearly as important as the passing game in today’s NFL. Teams rack up points and yardage through the air, not on the ground. If I had to ask my defensive ends to do one thing, I know what it would be. Regardless of system.
Look, I’m not saying Tyson Jackson and Glenn Dorsey should be putting up double-digit sack numbers. But neither do I think we should expect them to put up donuts all season. To act like you have to be at one or the other extreme is disingenuous. I think a decent starting line in a 3-4 should be able to put up at least 10 sacks (ours has 0). And yes, I think a defensive line with two top 5 picks at end should be able to qualify as decent. Don’t tell me I’m being unreasonable here.