Dockett

[john h]

You are focusing too much on the plays he didn't make today and not enough on the plays he did make. He created good penetration all game and didn't give Wilson time to stand in the pocket on several plays, and held his assignment and made a play after it broke down on a few others (Whiz alluded to it in his post-game radio interview --- if Dockett would have come running in after a play broke down chances are Wilson could have broken it for a huge game -- instead, he held his position/gap and held him to a modest gain). I'd bet if you go back and watch the tape with a coaches eye, you'll see he did exactly the right thing and was right where he was supposed to be on almost every play. You do that enough time in this league, the plays will be made.

Overall, l I am sure glad Dockett is on our team and not on some other. Our defense is probably the best part of our team and is is certainly a big part of the defense.

 

[PJ1]

Dockett had a real good game. Very active and seemed real fired up. Hope it continues.

 

[Mulli]

Carroll said DD is the best 3 technique DL that Seattle will face this year.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Dockett was severely disappointing today. he certainly cant be qualified as a beast...

I just rewatched the entire game. He blew a sure sack when he had a full wrap up of Wilson. He blew another important tackle of Lynch. I get that those guys are elusive and tough to bring down. but when you are DD with multiple PB's, that salary and reputation?? you gotta make the play! He gets a thumbs down from me today!

Were you drunk when you watched the game? Dockett was destroying the Seahawks OL all day.

 

[Chopper0080]

I am also missing what Shane saw from Dockett. He did miss some oppotunities, but he caused choas all day for Seattle and did make some other plays that were needed.

Honestly, he showed me more in the Seattle game than he has in a while. I thought he looked like a Pro Bowl DL personally.

 

[Shane]

I am also missing what Shane saw from Dockett. He did miss some oppotunities, but he caused choas all day for Seattle and did make some other plays that were needed.

Honestly, he showed me more in the Seattle game than he has in a while. I thought he looked like a Pro Bowl DL personally.

Of course he wreaked some havoc. I never said he didn't. But what do you expect from DD especially going against a rookie 7th round draft pick who was drafted as a DL and was just switched to OL during training camp??? He damn sure better look like a PBer against a guy like that. So color me not so impressed as the rest of you. I have seen too many games where DD completely disappears. It has even been noted by many other posters on here.

Good on DD that he was able to wreak some havoc against such a skilled and talented OL....

My problem with DD and what downgraded his performance was his complete whiff on a sack of a 5'10" QB whom the had in his complete grasp. No way that QB should be able to power out of that. He also did the same with Lynch whom has a reputation as guy who can break tackles sure. But size on size and rep on rep IMO thats a tackle DD should make every time.

You guys can go goo goo over that performance all you want. But I expect more from the guy in those particular situations. Lets see how much havoc he wreaks this week.

 

[gmabel830]

Not that they are the end all and be all, but PFF tends to agree with everyone in this thread not named Shane: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/09/11/seahawks-cardinals-week-1/

 

[Shane]

Of course he wreaked some havoc. I never said he didn't. But what do you expect from DD especially going against a rookie 7th round draft pick who was drafted as a DL and was just switched to OL during training camp??? He damn sure better look like a PBer against a guy like that. So color me not so impressed as the rest of you. I have seen too many games where DD completely disappears. It has even been noted by many other posters on here.

Good on DD that he was able to wreak some havoc against such a skilled and talented OL....

My problem with DD and what downgraded his performance was his complete whiff on a sack of a 5'10" QB whom the had in his complete grasp. No way that QB should be able to power out of that. He also did the same with Lynch whom has a reputation as guy who can break tackles sure. But size on size and rep on rep IMO thats a tackle DD should make every time.

You guys can go goo goo over that performance all you want. But I expect more from the guy in those particular situations. Lets see how much havoc he wreaks this week.

Not that they are the end all and be all, but PFF tends to agree with everyone in this thread not named Shane: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/09/11/seahawks-cardinals-week-1/

That article fits perfectly with what i stated above thanks! :hastheball:

 

[gmabel830]

Dockett was severely disappointing today.

That article fits perfectly with what i stated above thanks! :hastheball:

From that article: You couldn’t watch this game and fail to notice that the absolute star was Darnell Dockett.

I get that he had a big mismatch and missed a sack/tackle for loss, but he totally exploited that mismatch.

 

[Shane]

From that article: You couldn’t watch this game and fail to notice that the absolute star was Darnell Dockett.

Like I said if you want to pat him on the back for his performance against THAT GUY(who no doubt wouldnt even start on our horrible OL) more power to you.

 

[kerouac9]

Like I said if you want to pat him on the back for his performance against THAT GUY(who no doubt wouldnt even start on our horrible OL) more power to you.

Whom was Dockett supposed to dominate other than the guy that was playing across from him?

This was not a typically inconsistent game from Darnell Dockett. This was a game in which he found himself with a favorable matchup and simply took apart anyone who dared line up across from him.

Pro Football Focus gave him their game ball.

You've dug yourself into a deep hole here because you found two plays that you didn't like. Now you're trying to spin this deal like you've been saying that Darnell Dockett was a beast the whole time, except for those two plays where he was (apparently) terrible. Whatevs, bro.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Shane you are out of your mind on this one.

 

[Chopper0080]

Whom was Dockett supposed to dominate other than the guy that was playing across from him?

QUOTE]

I agree. You don't always go against all pros in the NFL and it's your job as a player to dominate any lesser talent you face. To this point, Dockett did exactly as he should. I'm not sure what else you want? Do we discount Tom Brady or another top QB who puts up huge numbers against a crappy defense because he misses a few throws?

 

[Shane]

Whom was Dockett supposed to dominate other than the guy that was playing across from him?



Pro Football Focus gave him their game ball.

You've dug yourself into a deep hole here because you found two plays that you didn't like. Now you're trying to spin this deal like you've been saying that Darnell Dockett was a beast the whole time, except for those two plays where he was (apparently) terrible. Whatevs, bro.

You're one to talk. You constantly downgrade players performances and teams performances as a whole when they are going up against lesser talent. Have done it numerous times over the years. You are all condescending at times saying something to the effect of "am I supposed to get excited over a team dominating the 32nd run D in the league"

If you would like I can search you history and guarantee I can find quotes exactly like that that you use to bolster your arguments all the time??

Or do you deny that?

 

[kerouac9]

You're one to talk. You constantly downgrade players performances and teams performances as a whole when they are going up against lesser talent. Have done it numerous times over the years. You are all condescending at times saying something to the effect of "am I supposed to get excited over a team dominating the 32nd run D in the league"

If you would like I can search you history and guarantee I can find quotes exactly like that that you use to bolster your arguments all the time??

Or do you deny that?

Shane, I don't have time for this nonsense. Is it right when I do it? You don't seem to think so. But I'll keep fighting the battle for what I believe is right.

What you're doing here is saying that you agreed that Darnell Dockett was "a beast" the entire time, but what else do you expect when he's playing against DJ Sweezy. That's not the story of this thread, until the absolutely bizarre moment when someone posts a link to PFF saying that Dockett was the player of the game, dominating the entire time, and you come in and say,

"Thank you. This is what I've been saying the entire time!"

Give me a break. Is Darnell Dockett the best DT in the NFL based on this game? I don't know; probably not. Did he have an incredible game from start to finish? I think so, and I seem to be in the majority on that.

 

[Shane]

Shane, I don't have time for this nonsense. Is it right when I do it? You don't seem to think so. But I'll keep fighting the battle for what I believe is right.

What you're doing here is saying that you agreed that Darnell Dockett was "a beast" the entire time, but what else do you expect when he's playing against DJ Sweezy. That's not the story of this thread, until the absolutely bizarre moment when someone posts a link to PFF saying that Dockett was the player of the game, dominating the entire time, and you come in and say,

"Thank you. This is what I've been saying the entire time!"

Give me a break. Is Darnell Dockett the best DT in the NFL based on this game? I don't know; probably not. Did he have an incredible game from start to finish? I think so, and I seem to be in the majority on that.

It is what I have been saying the entire time. That he SHOULD do well against a player of that caliber across from him. You use that argument all the time to downgrade performances? FACT! Now all of a sudden its a moot point and he cant choose who he lines up against?? How convenient for you that is. You can change it up as you see fit and to use as it suits you. Case in point here. You amaze me.

 

[Mulli]

 

[MadCardDisease]

It is what I have been saying the entire time. That he SHOULD do well against a player of that caliber across from him. You use that argument all the time to downgrade performances? FACT! Now all of a sudden its a moot point and he cant choose who he lines up against?? How convenient for you that is. You can change it up as you see fit and to use as it suits you. Case in point here. You amaze me.

All K9 is saying is that he dominated the guys in front of him which contradicted the tone of your first post. Plain and simple.

 

[Shane]

All K9 is saying is that he dominated the guys in front of him which contradicted the tone of your first post. Plain and simple.

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2686671&postcount=2

You mean this where I specifically state WHY he wasnt a beast to me?? Clearly pointing out that it was because of those two specific plays that IMO he has to make??

I said later that he did wreak some havoc during the game. but color me unimpressed considering the level of talent he was facing almost every play. An argument one K9 uses regularly to downgrade performances. But amazingly is irrelevant here. go figure.

 

[kerouac9]

I know that there are a lot of guys who are completely dominant in games that are also "severely disappointing" for those games. Because of the guy they're playing against.

Right.

 

[MadCardDisease]

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2686671&postcount=2

You mean this where I specifically state WHY he wasnt a beast to me?? Clearly pointing out that it was because of those two specific plays that IMO he has to make??

I said later that he did wreak some havoc during the game. but color me unimpressed considering the level of talent he was facing almost every play. An argument one K9 uses regularly to downgrade performances. But amazingly is irrelevant here. go figure.

One word "severely" is what has everyone hung up on your post.

You point out 2 plays where Dockett beats his man and disrupts the play but didn't make the tackle. Yet he is a monster the rest of the game. I don't see how you could be "severly" disappointed in that effort.

 

[D-Dogg]

Pass it.

 

[D-Dogg]

One word "severely" is what has everyone hung up on your post.

You point out 2 plays where Dockett beats his man and disrupts the play but didn't make the tackle. Yet he is a monster the rest of the game. I don't see how you could be "severly" disappointed in that effort.

Come on, this is a damn decent argument.


*chuckle*

 

[52brandon]

It is what I have been saying the entire time. That he SHOULD do well against a player of that caliber across from him. You use that argument all the time to downgrade performances? FACT! Now all of a sudden its a moot point and he cant choose who he lines up against?? How convenient for you that is. You can change it up as you see fit and to use as it suits you. Case in point here. You amaze me.

we played against a rookie, baseball player of a QB as well. Was our D extremely disappointing there too?

 

[JeffGollin]

Dockett was severely disappointing today. he certainly cant be qualified as a beast...

I just rewatched the entire game. He blew a sure sack when he had a full wrap up of Wilson. He blew another important tackle of Lynch. I get that those guys are elusive and tough to bring down. but when you are DD with multiple PB's, that salary and reputation?? you gotta make the play! He gets a thumbs down from me today!

Read Pete Carrol's post-game comments - he said that Dockett single-handedly was a disruptive force that threw Wilson off kilter all afternoon.

Also - To generalize based solely on 1 or 2 plays that were exceptions to the rule shows faulty logic.

Finally, you astutely point out that DD was matched against Sweezy (who never played OL before); but: how many times in the past have Cardinal players gone up against a raw rookie only to make him look like an All Pro. Darnell,did what he was expected to do - which is all we can ask.