PDA

View Full Version : Vermeil: No changes in defense


old_geezer
11-17-2004, 07:13 AM
From today's KC Star newspaper under the heading "Status Quo for Defense" Vermeil is quoted as saying there will be no changes in the starters for the defense because "the Chiefs don't have anyone better to replace the starters with."

That's it...I'm officially off the Vermeil bandwagon. If our reserves on D aren't even worth inserting into the lineup in place of this pile of festering dog crap then we suck even worse on defense than I thought. You can dump the whole damn bunch in the Missouri River and start over as far as I'm concerned. It can't get worse.

By the way DICK, what's wrong with at least giving your reserves some playing time to see if maybe, just maybe, they might perform better that the lifeless corpses you're starting now ?

:cuss: :banghead: :cuss:

BigRedChief
11-17-2004, 07:16 AM
WTF? No way. One of the worst defenses in the NFL. The years over. Let's see what somone else can do..

Battle
Sapp
Fox
Bartee
Harts
Wilkerson
Black

Now's a great time to see if they can do the job or not.

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 07:20 AM
Ok, so if I follow this...DV says the best players are on the field, and they're bad, so you all want him to put in worse players and make it worse?

Yeah, that totally makes sense.

BigRedChief
11-17-2004, 07:26 AM
Ok, so if I follow this...DV says the best players are on the field, and they're bad, so you all want him to put in worse players and make it worse?

Yeah, that totally makes sense.
I'm totally shocked at the level of play from Wesley and Woods. Who could have seen that coming. but how do we know they are worse? Can they even be worse? And why are they even on the roster if they can't see the field in a lost season?

the Talking Can
11-17-2004, 07:28 AM
I thought we had the deepest squad that DV and CP had ever assembled....now DV is saying there is no one who deserves to play more than Woods?

this franchise is f'd up....I won't even bother to ask how we know Harts isn't better when he sits on the bench.....

Chiefnj
11-17-2004, 07:29 AM
Ok, so if I follow this...DV says the best players are on the field, and they're bad, so you all want him to put in worse players and make it worse?

Yeah, that totally makes sense.


I think the point is DV and team haven't been able to develop anyone to replace starters who are doing very poorly. So, the team is left with bad starters and backups who won't even be given a chance because the staff has no hope or faith they can come in and give the team a boost or improve with playing time. Since there is no present talent and an absence of future talent, gut the team and start over.

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 07:29 AM
I'm totally shocked at the level of play from Wesley and Woods. Who could have seen that coming. but how do we know they are worse? Can they even be worse? And why are they even on the roster if they can't see the field in a lost season?

I have to believe they're worse because that's what DV says. Since Im not able to watch practice and break down the film, I have to take his word for it.

milkman
11-17-2004, 07:29 AM
I want him to put in some of the younger players to see if we have anyone that has a future, or that might have the desire to make hits, or that have might have more speed to make plays.

I just can't see how the D could get any worse if we give players like Harts, Pile, or Fox on the field opportunities..

Even Scanlon should get an opportunity.

The bottom line is that we are among the bottom 5 in D.
If he plays some of the kids, even if our D declines even further, what the hell would be the difference.

Whether you're near the bottom, or at the very bottom, suckage is suckage, and we just suck.

Frankie
11-17-2004, 07:30 AM
I wonder if DV's statement is not an indirect stab at Peterson for not bringing in players. Something tells me it's no longer real heaven between DV and CP since LJ got drafted by Carl.

HC_Chief
11-17-2004, 07:31 AM
I heard DV prattle off a bunch of excuses for the _efense this morning on 610.

The man has lost it.

the Talking Can
11-17-2004, 07:31 AM
I wonder if DV's statement is not an indirect stab at Peterson for not bringing in players. Something tells me it's no longer real heaven between DV and CP since LJ got drafted by Carl.

You mean they don't make out in DV's Porshe anymore?

old_geezer
11-17-2004, 07:32 AM
Ok, so if I follow this...DV says the best players are on the field, and they're bad, so you all want him to put in worse players and make it worse?

Yeah, that totally makes sense.


What I'm really trying to say is that if the current starters are the best we have and there is no help available on the bench, then this defense SUCKS even worse than I thought and whoever is responsible for talent evaluation (I use the term loosely) for the defense needs to be let go. At this stage of the season it couldn't hurt to see if maybe we have a "gamer" on the bench - someone who plays better on the field than in practice. We have nothing to lose.

Bob Dole
11-17-2004, 07:33 AM
We ought to just insert the fastest player on the team in Wood's place and put them in center field.

It's pretty sad when week after week we get to watch an opposing player simply outrun everybody on the defense.

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 07:34 AM
Since there is no present talent and an absence of future talent, gut the team and start over.

In today's NFL, that doesnt happen. If KC hit the jackpot and found a CB and Pass rusher the defense would instantly be different. That's 2 players out of 11--hardly a 'gut'

morphius
11-17-2004, 07:38 AM
Ok, so if I follow this...DV says the best players are on the field, and they're bad, so you all want him to put in worse players and make it worse?

Yeah, that totally makes sense.
I think the coach needs to make a point to either woods or wesley by at least not starting one of them. These guys are not QB's or CB's that need their self esteem stroked all the time and while they may be better then there backups, I'm sure their backups can miss plays just as easily.

BigRedChief
11-17-2004, 07:40 AM
What I'm really trying to say is that if the current starters are the best we have and there is no help available on the bench, then this defense SUCKS even worse than I thought and whoever is responsible for talent evaluation (I use the term loosely) for the defense needs to be let go. At this stage of the season it couldn't hurt to see if maybe we have a "gamer" on the bench - someone who plays better on the field than in practice. We have nothing to lose.

King Carl is the talent evaluator. King Carl is the GM and the man ultimately reponsible for the talent on the field.

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 07:41 AM
King Carl is the talent evaluator. King Carl is the GM and the man ultimately reponsible for the talent on the field.

You really dont have a clue do you...

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 07:43 AM
I think the coach needs to make a point to either woods or wesley by at least not starting one of them. These guys are not QB's or CB's that need their self esteem stroked all the time and while they may be better then there backups, I'm sure their backups can miss plays just as easily.

I think this team has nearly given up on the season...it appeared that way to me, at least. Like I said earlier this week, that was clearly the worst game I had seen since DV became HC.

morphius
11-17-2004, 07:54 AM
I think this team has nearly given up on the season...it appeared that way to me, at least. Like I said earlier this week, that was clearly the worst game I had seen since DV became HC.
I actually think they are looking at Monday night as their season, if they win there they can say how they beat the best teams in the league, so they are really close and well be just enough to keep people coming back.

Which is good, because they won't be blacked out here that way... ugh.

BigRedChief
11-17-2004, 07:58 AM
You really dont have a clue do you...

Mr. Mustard with a candle stick in the dining room.

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 08:02 AM
Mr. Mustard with a candle stick in the dining room.

LOL...:thumb:

Brock
11-17-2004, 08:28 AM
It's really too bad Vermeil's tenure has turned out this way. The defense looks fairly uninterested most of the time, and the offense seems to be phoning it in as well. That's on the coaches. I hate to say it, but after this abortion of a season is finished, it's time to start over with new coaches and a lot of new players.

Frankie
11-17-2004, 08:40 AM
You mean they don't make out in DV's Porshe anymore?
You just made me throw up my breakfast visualizing this. THANKSALOT!!

cash1000
11-17-2004, 08:52 AM
Everybody talks like they are surprised the Chiefs defense is having A bad season when they have been almost last in defense the last 3 years. What's the big surprise!!!

kc rush
11-17-2004, 09:22 AM
Since the season is lost and we can't afford to cut and replace every player on defense, the young guys should get their opportunities. This should be a time to evaluate talent to assess where you really are going into the off-season (for both depth and starting positions). This will also give the young players some experience, so if there are injuries down the line they will have half a clue when they are put on the field.

Chiefnj
11-17-2004, 09:33 AM
Everybody talks like they are surprised the Chiefs defense is having A bad season when they have been almost last in defense the last 3 years. What's the big surprise!!!


There was a widespread belief it was the scheme dooming the Chiefs, not the players.

ck_IN
11-17-2004, 09:34 AM
<i>assess where you really are going into the off-season</i>

Unless where you're going involves changing the GM and the HC and most of his staff I don't see a real strong case for optimism.

The inmates are running the asylum and the warden is too busy hugging them and carrying on petty grudges.

BigRedChief
11-17-2004, 09:55 AM
Why has he publically called out the kicker, punter and LJ but doesn't say a negative word about the defense?

NY CHIEF
11-17-2004, 10:09 AM
What a load of CRAP :mad: With our season on the line we just lost to 2 of the worst teams in the nfl :banghead: Players should be cut not coddled! Cutting or benching players (woods would be a good start) would send the message that being 3-6 is a disgrace and that new players will take their place ie harts scanlon pile jones ect... :mad:

KCJohnny
11-17-2004, 10:11 AM
I have to believe they're worse because that's what DV says. Since Im not able to watch practice and break down the film, I have to take his word for it.

Yeah, after four years of giving up over 400 yards a game, we need to give the staff the benefit of the doubt. You never know what the film analysts may spot if given enough time. Its not like bad defense in KC is a trend or anything. :banghead:

svuba
11-17-2004, 10:12 AM
Since the season is lost and we can't afford to cut and replace every player on defense, the young guys should get their opportunities. This should be a time to evaluate talent to assess where you really are going into the off-season (for both depth and starting positions). This will also give the young players some experience, so if there are injuries down the line they will have half a clue when they are put on the field.

"Since the season is lost" -------- statistically that is not yet true so if you play like it is now then you are truly playing like quitters.

Hopefully they will play the backups more when the season is over for sure. I know it would be NEARLY impossible but 10-6 can possibly still get the Chiefs into the playoffs, and so the coach is still obliged to play what he feels are the players that give us the best chance to win---------When the Chiefs are 3-8 Then I would expect to be in more of a scouting mode.

HC_Chief
11-17-2004, 10:14 AM
Yeah, after four years of giving up over 400 yards a game, we need to give the staff the benefit of the doubt. You never know what the film analysts may spot if given enough time. Its not like bad defense in KC is a trend or anything. :banghead:

Hmm, most of the 'stars' on D are Gun's guys. Wesley, Woods, Hicks, Warfield, Bartee.... all picked & coached by Cunningham. He has to share in the blame you like to toss at 'anyone buy Marty/Gunther'.

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 10:15 AM
Yeah, after four years of giving up over 400 yards a game, we need to give the staff the benefit of the doubt. You never know what the film analysts may spot if given enough time. Its not like bad defense in KC is a trend or anything. :banghead:

It's been a trend since 1998....

TRR
11-17-2004, 10:19 AM
I would insert Pile and Harts at safety for starters. I would also see what Key Fox brings to the table replacing Shawn Barber.

You could also substitute Jimmy Wilkerson in for Eric Hicks and Jared Allen in for John Browning. When Siavii gets back, I'd start him next to Lionel Dalton too.

kc rush
11-17-2004, 10:34 AM
"Since the season is lost" -------- statistically that is not yet true so if you play like it is now then you are truly playing like quitters.

Hopefully they will play the backups more when the season is over for sure. I know it would be NEARLY impossible but 10-6 can possibly still get the Chiefs into the playoffs, and so the coach is still obliged to play what he feels are the players that give us the best chance to win---------When the Chiefs are 3-8 Then I would expect to be in more of a scouting mode.

When the head coach makes a statement that they will essentially need to win out, then adds that they haven't been able to win more than two in a row so far, it is a pretty good indicator that he believes the team is out of it.

RJWENT
11-17-2004, 10:35 AM
I too had a bad feeling in the offseason when DV was indicating that KC would be inactive in the free agency market. After the defense's performance, how can anyone possibly believe that a change of Co-ordinator only would be the difference. Players like DB Antoine Winfield, DB Troy Vincent, DT Robaire Smith from Tennessee, LB Jeremiah Trotter, Safety De'Ron Cherry from the Patriots...should I go on, were available and would have been upgrades from our current team?

The point is if DV sez that he has no one on the bench that can step in and do a better job than this defensive group, why was KC so inactive in the free agency market when they are so far under the cap?

I'm not sure what should be more embarrasing.... the performance of the current KC defense or the fact that the team stood pat this last offseason when they had to know they needed to upgrade the talent at many defensive positions.

Time for management to get their heads out of their collective butts and make some significant defensive changes this offseason.. the window for this collection of offensive stars will be closing soon!

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 10:37 AM
...why was KC so inactive in the free agency market when they are so far under the cap?

Lamar said there was no cash for large signing bonuses...

BigRedChief
11-17-2004, 10:39 AM
Lamar said there was no cash for large signing bonuses...

$33 million profit last year wasn't enough huh?

TEX
11-17-2004, 10:40 AM
And why didn't we sign any players this past off season? No Cash for bonuses? Translation - Lamar didn't want to do all he could to win at a critical time...:cuss:

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 10:40 AM
$33 million profit last year wasn't enough huh?

Im not going to take the time to explain the difference between P/L profit and cash flow.

Straight, No Chaser
11-17-2004, 10:54 AM
From today's KC Star newspaper under the heading "Status Quo for Defense" Vermeil is quoted as saying there will be no changes in the starters for the defense because "the Chiefs don't have anyone better to replace the starters with."

That's it...I'm officially off the Vermeil bandwagon. If our reserves on D aren't even worth inserting into the lineup in place of this pile of festering dog crap then we suck even worse on defense than I thought. You can dump the whole damn bunch in the Missouri River and start over as far as I'm concerned. It can't get worse.

By the way DICK, what's wrong with at least giving your reserves some playing time to see if maybe, just maybe, they might perform better that the lifeless corpses you're starting now ?

Vermiel's MO has not changed since, well, he started coaching. He supports and respects the starters to the nth. You knew that when he was hired. What in the world makes you think he's going to change his philosophy now in the twilight of his coaching career?

You'll have to wait for the offseason to see any changes, by that time the sting of another unrealized season will have worn off (a little).

Swanman
11-17-2004, 10:55 AM
Im not going to take the time to explain the difference between P/L profit and cash flow.

With $33 million in profit, it's safe to say that the team generated quite a bit of positive cash flow unless they've invested tons of money into the stadium, which it sounds like they've not. Lamar did pay quite a bit of money to guys like Priest, Gonzo, Trent, etc. in the past couple seasons in bonuses but that should not stop him from making just one decent free agent acquisition. I have a hard time believing that he's that cash poor.

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 11:10 AM
With $33 million in profit, it's safe to say that the team generated quite a bit of positive cash flow unless they've invested tons of money into the stadium, which it sounds like they've not. Lamar did pay quite a bit of money to guys like Priest, Gonzo, Trent, etc. in the past couple seasons in bonuses but that should not stop him from making just one decent free agent acquisition. I have a hard time believing that he's that cash poor.

No, it's not safe to say...ever head of Enron? That's an extreme example, but you can play with P&L's.

With all the discussions Ive read, one FA wouldnt make a difference anyway.

I too have a hard time believing that Lamar is cash poor, so we're left with two alternatives. Either he's telling the truth or he's lying and chose profit over improving the team. I find the second alternative even less believable than him being cash poor.

Count Zarth
11-17-2004, 11:12 AM
This is ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that Harts or Pile can't do any worse than Woods.

Calcountry
11-17-2004, 11:24 AM
From today's KC Star newspaper under the heading "Status Quo for Defense" Vermeil is quoted as saying there will be no changes in the starters for the defense because "the Chiefs don't have anyone better to replace the starters with."

That's it...I'm officially off the Vermeil bandwagon. If our reserves on D aren't even worth inserting into the lineup in place of this pile of festering dog crap then we suck even worse on defense than I thought. You can dump the whole damn bunch in the Missouri River and start over as far as I'm concerned. It can't get worse.

By the way DICK, what's wrong with at least giving your reserves some playing time to see if maybe, just maybe, they might perform better that the lifeless corpses you're starting now ?

:cuss: :banghead: :cuss:
I'm with you. What do we have to lose? A shot at the playoffs, a winning record, respectability. Yeah, we already lost that.

Calcountry
11-17-2004, 11:25 AM
Ok, so if I follow this...DV says the best players are on the field, and they're bad, so you all want him to put in worse players and make it worse?

Yeah, that totally makes sense.
Do you think this is DV's revenge for the Fire Rob stuff? He is like saying, see, it isn't just the DC.

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 11:28 AM
Do you think this is DV's revenge for the Fire Rob stuff? He is like saying, see, it isn't just the DC.

No...I dont try to find hidden plots in the actions of DV. I believe DV and crew put the best 11 players they can on the field each game.

Calcountry
11-17-2004, 11:39 AM
No...I dont try to find hidden plots in the actions of DV. I believe DV and crew put the best 11 players they can on the field each game.
Seriously, I believe that too, I was just foolin.

Post whores like me do that sort of thing.

shaneo69
11-17-2004, 01:02 PM
I don't remember ever seeing a quote by Lamar saying we were too "cashed out" to sign any free agents. IIRC, that was DV who said that. I thought it was a ploy to help get Bi-State II passed.

Titus, you want to believe Vermiel when he says no one on the bench could do better. Personally, I think he's lying. He lied about that situation at the end of the Carolina game when Priest stood on the sideline, either hurt or not hurt, depending on who you talked to. But then, all coaches lie in some situations. These guys never want to tell the fans the truth if it would damage a player's psyche or make themselves look bad. So I don't really hold it against him for lying, but I read his comments knowing that he's going to lie if he has to protect someone. Which is what he's doing in this case, IMO.

tk13
11-17-2004, 01:06 PM
$33 million profit last year wasn't enough huh?
It was $24 million according to Forbes, we're fudging the numbers already to support arguments....

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 01:08 PM
I don't remember ever seeing a quote by Lamar saying we were too "cashed out" to sign any free agents. IIRC, that was DV who said that. I thought it was a ploy to help get Bi-State II passed.

Titus, you want to believe Vermiel when he says no one on the bench could do better. Personally, I think he's lying. He lied about that situation at the end of the Carolina game when Priest stood on the sideline, either hurt or not hurt, depending on who you talked to. But then, all coaches lie in some situations. These guys never want to tell the fans the truth if it would damage a player's psyche or make themselves look bad. So I don't really hold it against him for lying, but I read his comments knowing that he's going to lie if he has to protect someone. Which is what he's doing in this case, IMO.

CP and DV both said that the club didnt have the cash for SB's. I had to make the assumption that the guy that 'writes' the checks is telling them that since I dont often see Lamar giving press conferences.

kc rush
11-17-2004, 01:16 PM
We don't have any cash for signing bonuses, so we sign all of our old crappy players and give them signing bonuses? I'm sure that the signing bonuses for Wesley, Woods, Hicks, Bartee, and Browning were a lot less than any impact free agent, but did we need all or any of them back? I'm sure there would have been funds for an impact player if every one of those guys weren't signed.

KCTitus
11-17-2004, 01:18 PM
We don't have any cash for signing bonuses, so we sign all of our old crappy players and give them signing bonuses? I'm sure that the signing bonuses for Wesley, Woods, Hicks, Bartee, and Browning were a lot less than any impact free agent, but did we need all or any of them back? I'm sure there would have been funds for an impact player if every one of those guys weren't signed.

Honestly, I dont have the numbers...can you provide them?

I think, more to the point, that they were saying KC didnt have 15M to sign a player like Wistrom.

philfree
11-17-2004, 01:33 PM
DV said something in his press conference that made me think he might make a move at the saftey positions. He doesn't always tell the truth on subjects like this so IMO if he's saying he won't there is a decent chance he will. Am I the only one who caught this.


PhilFree :arrow:

shaneo69
11-17-2004, 01:42 PM
DV said something in his press conference that made me think he might make a move at the saftey positions. He doesn't always tell the truth on subjects like this so IMO if he's saying he won't there is a decent chance he will. Am I the only one who caught this.


PhilFree :arrow:

You mean, like how he said LJ would be getting some carries in relief of Blaylock and then LJ didn't even step on the field? Or how he said that Pile and Harts were ready to step in if the starters didn't play well, and then Wesley and Woods promptly went out and had their worst games of the year but didn't get benched?

philfree
11-17-2004, 01:44 PM
You mean, like how he said LJ would be getting some carries in relief of Blaylock and then LJ didn't even step on the field? Or how he said that Pile and Harts were ready to step in if the starters didn't play well, and then Wesley and Woods promptly went out and had their worst games of the year but didn't get benched?


NO.

PhilFree :arrow:

shaneo69
11-17-2004, 01:47 PM
NO.

PhilFree :arrow:

I agree with you. When he says one thing, he usually does the opposite. So yeah, it is possible that Harts and Pile will play this week since DV said he wouldn't make any changes.

go bowe
11-17-2004, 01:48 PM
NO.

PhilFree :arrow:jeezzz, can't you keep your responses any shorter?

kc rush
11-17-2004, 01:55 PM
Honestly, I dont have the numbers...can you provide them?

I think, more to the point, that they were saying KC didnt have 15M to sign a player like Wistrom.


I can find salaries, but haven't found signing bonus numbers. I'm sure its out there, and I'm sure that someone more resourceful than me can find them.

I would like to see what the signing bonuses totaled for re-signing all of our own guys.

BigRedChief
11-17-2004, 02:11 PM
I can find salaries, but haven't found signing bonus numbers. I'm sure its out there, and I'm sure that someone more resourceful than me can find them.

I would like to see what the signing bonuses totaled for re-signing all of our own guys.

I posted a thread last week that had all the salary and bonus and cap dollars links to sites in it. Search is disabled so you are on your own.:harumph:

Logical
11-17-2004, 02:27 PM
No...I dont try to find hidden plots in the actions of DV. I believe DV and crew put the best 11 players they can on the field each game.

If so that is just sad, that our best 11 are so damn pathetic.

Coogs
11-17-2004, 02:27 PM
If so that is just sad, that our best 11 are so damn pathetic.

:thumb:

Soupnazi
11-17-2004, 02:29 PM
No changes on defense?

Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. ROFL ROFL

kc rush
11-17-2004, 03:58 PM
I posted a thread last week that had all the salary and bonus and cap dollars links to sites in it. Search is disabled so you are on your own.:harumph:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=103889

Sorry, no 2004 signing bonuses shown. Just salaries and the 2003 bonuses on the USA Today link.

Deberg_1990
11-17-2004, 04:26 PM
If so that is just sad, that our best 11 are so damn pathetic.

How could what we have on the bench possibly be any worse??? They are already at an all-time low. There is nowhere to go but up since they are so far down. We have nothing to lose by starting new blood. I dont get it???

Iowanian
11-17-2004, 05:16 PM
Its a good thing I'm not a reporter.........The play of the past 3 weeks no resulting in a single new starter, and having Vermeil offering the team hugs, may just be enough to force me into giving someone the "BlueDuck" out the window.

philfree
11-17-2004, 05:44 PM
Thinking about it just a little who could come off the bench and start who hasn't already been playing? Who are our CBs who haven't played that could start and be an improvement? I believe I've seen all of our CBs on the field this year. The only position we could change starters is S and from what I've seen the last two to three weeks that might be a possiblity. Besides that though who are these new starters gonna be and where did they come from?

PhilFree :arrow:

Count Zarth
11-17-2004, 05:49 PM
Thinking about it just a little who could come off the bench and start who hasn't already been playing? Who are our CBs who haven't played that could start and be an improvement? I believe I've seen all of our CBs on the field this year. The only position we could change starters is S and from what I've seen the last two to three weeks that might be a possiblity. Besides that though who are these new starters gonna be and where did they come from?

PhilFree :arrow:

I want to see new blood at safety and defensive end. I think the best (available) players are playing at the other positions.

crossbow
11-17-2004, 08:13 PM
Maybe he is thinking about making changes but doesn't want to tip off the Pats. He could be letting them game plan against our current safeties and then start the younger guys. That might give the Chiefs enough of a confusion factor to build a lead before they can adapt. He could be playing head games with Billicheck. Heck, who knows...maybe he is throwing in the towel and hoping to get a good draft pick.

Carl or somebody messed up his plan when they drafted L.J. That spot was supposed to go to an impact defensive player. That plan would have followed what he did in STL (assemble offense and special teams in first two years and in third year work on defense). Third year would have been the money year because of the easy schedule. But like i said, somebody crapped on his plan.

Count Zarth
11-17-2004, 08:33 PM
Maybe he is thinking about making changes but doesn't want to tip off the Pats. He could be letting them game plan against our current safeties and then start the younger guys. That might give the Chiefs enough of a confusion factor to build a lead before they can adapt. He could be playing head games with Billicheck. Heck, who knows...maybe he is throwing in the towel and hoping to get a good draft pick.

Carl or somebody messed up his plan when they drafted L.J. That spot was supposed to go to an impact defensive player. That plan would have followed what he did in STL (assemble offense and special teams in first two years and in third year work on defense). Third year would have been the money year because of the easy schedule. But like i said, somebody crapped on his plan.

One draft pick throws the plan out of whack?

KCJohnny
11-18-2004, 08:58 AM
How much improvement would our D have enjoyed this year if we had drafted a killer MLB or shutdown CB instead of LJ?

Brock
11-18-2004, 09:19 AM
And their names were?

shakesthecat
11-18-2004, 09:25 AM
How much improvement would our D have enjoyed this year if we had drafted a killer MLB or shutdown CB instead of LJ?


You mean like drafting Bartee?

I can't remember who the HC was at the time......

Brock
11-18-2004, 09:26 AM
Actually, we should have drafted something other than Ryan Sims, if you want to pinpoint major mistakes.

KCJohnny
11-18-2004, 09:29 AM
I know nothing about college football. It would stand to reason that a team with 3 pathetic defensive seasons in a row and the best RB in the NFL would not draft a RB #1.
KCJ
Not an expert

Brock
11-18-2004, 09:40 AM
A couple of free agents would have helped as well, but Lamar Hunt said no.

ck_IN
11-18-2004, 12:01 PM
<i>Thinking about it just a little who could come off the bench and start who hasn't already been playing? Who are our CBs who haven't played that could start and be an improvement? I believe I've seen all of our CBs on the field this year. The only position we could change starters is S and from what I've seen the last two to three weeks that might be a possiblity. Besides that though who are these new starters gonna be and where did they come from?</i>

For starters I'd change both safety's. If he's not injured I'd sit Sims and start Siavii. J. Allen would be a starter. I might put Caver in at one LB spot. I think Battle is a bust as well but I might give him some more time to confirm or repudiate my thought. Those are the ones off the top of my head.

Drafting LJ was a huge mistake but drafting Sims who was a DV guy is at least as big and the LJ pick shouldn't be enough to completely derail the plans of the whizkids (there you go Steve or Brock).

What's thrown off the plan is the complete waste that is the rest of DV's drafts.

Brock
11-18-2004, 12:08 PM
Drafting LJ was a huge mistake but drafting Sims who was a DV guy is at least as big and the LJ pick shouldn't be enough to completely derail the plans of the whizkids (there you go Steve or Brock).


Sims was obviously a MUCH larger mistake than Johnson, even if in fact Johnson is a bust and never starts a single game. You can't afford to screw up a top 10 draft pick. And when you look at the list of players taken after Ryan Sims, it is indefensible. Screwing around in the bottom third of the first round is pretty much expected around here, since Peterson has done that as long as he has been here.

crossbow
11-18-2004, 04:33 PM
How much improvement would our D have enjoyed this year if we had drafted a killer MLB or shutdown CB instead of LJ?

Yes, thats my point. Derrick Thomas was only one draft pick. I would say he was an impact player that made a difference. Same with Niel Smith.

This is what I was thinking they were gonna do:

1. Draft John Henderson - glad they didn't, he is too good and would have been too much of an upgrade. Aslo, giving up a third round to pass him up was brilliant. We wouldn't have wanted to use the third on a linebacker at the time.
2. Draft Terry Pierce - another good decision to let this human wrecking ball go to someone else. They didn't like his character - knew he wanted to get paid.
3. Take the best Corner they could last year

LJ has turned out to be a great pick. We get tons of game changing plays from him every weak. He can stand on the sidelines with folded arms better then anyone I have ever seen in the NFL. No brainer there. AND...as Blaylock has proven: any decent tailback with speed can pile up the yardage with this line so you need to draft a third tailback.

KCJohnny
11-19-2004, 08:27 AM
Y'never know how draft pix will pan out, but that's a great point: Derrick Thomas was one such pick who dominated games and created several-game-changing situations with sacks and forced fumbles.