PDA

View Full Version : Our defensive problems all started when we let Donnie Edwards go?........... discuss.


John_Wayne
11-24-2004, 07:40 PM
Peterson didn't want to pay him. Was that the beginning of the end?

Count Zarth
11-24-2004, 07:42 PM
Donnie ride 'em Cowboy Edwards is a faster version of Shawn Barber.

Phobia
11-24-2004, 07:47 PM
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Donnie Edwards was a faster, smarter version of Kawika Mitchell - always missing tackles and afraid to make a hit. I didn't see Donnie Edwards make a play one time after DT died.

That having been said, DE would be 2 times better than any LB we have on our roster at the moment.

The Bad Guy
11-24-2004, 07:48 PM
The beginning of the end started wtih DT's death.

Hydrae
11-24-2004, 07:58 PM
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Donnie Edwards was a faster, smarter version of Kawika Mitchell - always missing tackles and afraid to make a hit. I didn't see Donnie Edwards make a play one time after DT died.

That having been said, DE would be 2 times better than any LB we have on our roster at the moment.


Is it just me or are our defensive guys just not terribly bright? I really felt that way watching the Monday Night game when they introduce themselves. It seemed like some of our defenders were doing good to remember their own names (Dalton and Sims in particular).

And I agree with Bad Guy, the death of DT is something that as a defensive team we have never recovered from.

Count Zarth
11-24-2004, 07:59 PM
Is it just me or are our defensive guys just not terribly bright? I really felt that way watching the Monday Night game when they introduce themselves. It seemed like some of our defenders were doing good to remember their own names (Dalton and Sims in particular).

And I agree with Bad Guy, the death of DT is something that as a defensive team we have never recovered from.

I definitely agree. The only bright guys on this defense are Jared Allen, Scott Fujita and maybe Warfield. I think Greg Wesley could be a great strong safety if he could get his head right.

alanm
11-24-2004, 08:01 PM
Jeez... I kinda miss the good ole days when Donnie used to get dragged down field a good 5-10 yrds hanging on to a ball carrier. ROFL

unlurking
11-24-2004, 08:02 PM
Peterson didn't want to pay him. Was that the beginning of the end?
That is one of the dumbest things I have heard on this board.

You gonna start claiming that Grbac was the second coming?

Count Zarth
11-24-2004, 08:03 PM
Jeez... I kinda miss the good ole days when Donnie used to get dragged down field a good 5-10 yrds hanging on to a ball carrier. ROFL

I'll never forget when he road shotgun on a Tyrone Wheatley TD run.

Chan93lx50
11-24-2004, 08:22 PM
Here is something to chew on, I think DT was the begining and Maslowski was the final step into the death of our D-fence.

Maz was the closet thing we had to a leader, he played with the intensity that is now missing from this pitiful D

2bikemike
11-24-2004, 08:43 PM
I always liked Donnie Edwards. He was a extremely intelligent on the field (which is what I think Kawika is missing) He was very athletic and always made tons of tackles even though a lot were counted as assists. He had a nose for the ball and was always around the ball.

Yes he was not big but he was pretty good. The middle linebacker is responsible for "quarterbacking" the defense and Donnie did a damn good job of that. Maz did a good job of that. Kawika can't do this. Beisel is better at it than Kawika. This is why I think the defense is suffering.

Phobia
11-24-2004, 08:50 PM
Yes he was not big but he was pretty good. The middle linebacker is responsible for "quarterbacking" the defense and Donnie did a damn good job of that.

Except for DE only played MLB his first couple years in KC. The he got moved outside.

FWIW, I don't think Kawika has the personality to be a team leader. Neither does Wilkerson. I met them both in March and they seemed timid as cats. Hell, I intimidated them. I'm not kidding or patting myself on the back with that statement, either. It's the truth.

Count Zarth
11-24-2004, 08:51 PM
I met them both in March and they seemed timid as cats. Hell, I intimidated them.

I'm sure they just didn't want to get banned.

2bikemike
11-24-2004, 09:05 PM
Except for DE only played MLB his first couple years in KC. The he got moved outside.

FWIW, I don't think Kawika has the personality to be a team leader. Neither does Wilkerson. I met them both in March and they seemed timid as cats. Hell, I intimidated them. I'm not kidding or patting myself on the back with that statement, either. It's the truth.

Oh yeah I forgot about Marvcus Patton who played the middle from 99 to 02.

Lbedrock1
11-24-2004, 09:16 PM
I think our problems started when Marty decided to make Grbac our QB no matter what. When they decided he was our QB that started a down hill spiral that we have not completely got out of yet. It is the curse of E.G.

John_Wayne
11-24-2004, 09:16 PM
That is one of the dumbest things I have heard on this board.

You gonna start claiming that Grbac was the second coming?

I don't even agree with what I wrote. I'm just bored and trying to stir up some conversation.

morphius
11-24-2004, 09:25 PM
The only thing we lost when he left was a D leader, not a great player, but a leader. He missed too many tackles and had to catch them from behind to make his numbers. Yes he occasionally had a good pick or the like, but he was nowhere near what he thought he was worth, and was so upset that the Chiefs didn't give him the money, and realizing he couldn't get anyone else to pay him what he wanted, had to swallow his pride and signed for a lot less with the bolts.

It was a shame that he wasn't a real on the field leader, but more of a Hicks type.

Pitt Gorilla
11-24-2004, 09:30 PM
Even Fujita hasn't been playing well; what's going on?!?

2bikemike
11-24-2004, 09:34 PM
Even Fujita hasn't been playing well; what's going on?!?

Like several others have said and Morphius just restated. Lack of Leadership!

PastorMikH
11-24-2004, 09:57 PM
The beginning of the end started wtih DT's death.



Yep.

Skip Towne
11-24-2004, 10:11 PM
Except for DE only played MLB his first couple years in KC. The he got moved outside.

FWIW, I don't think Kawika has the personality to be a team leader. Neither does Wilkerson. I met them both in March and they seemed timid as cats. Hell, I intimidated them. I'm not kidding or patting myself on the back with that statement, either. It's the truth.
Yeah, I believe it, the time I met you I was left a quivering mass of humanity. I hope I don't have that happen again.

dtebbe
11-24-2004, 10:32 PM
Peterson didn't want to pay him. Was that the beginning of the end?

I always thought the front office thought we was not good enough against the run. I seem to remember that was thier logic for refusing to match offers on him. The run was not DT"s strengh either, so maybe King Carl thought he could poop a run stuffing LB for less than Edwards was asking. Who knows? :shrug:

I guess Marty didn't share that opinion....

DT

dtebbe
11-24-2004, 10:35 PM
Oh yeah I forgot about Marvcus Patton who played the middle from 99 to 02.

Patton was solid. Period. He would be an upgrade over what we have now, even at 40 or however old he is now. At least he could wrap up and tackle, and his lack of speed prevented him from overrunning plays.

DT

2bikemike
11-24-2004, 10:59 PM
Patton was solid. Period. He would be an upgrade over what we have now, even at 40 or however old he is now. At least he could wrap up and tackle, and his lack of speed prevented him from overrunning plays.

DT

Strong as an ox too!

Count Zarth
11-24-2004, 11:03 PM
Patton was solid. Period. He would be an upgrade over what we have now, even at 40 or however old he is now. At least he could wrap up and tackle, and his lack of speed prevented him from overrunning plays.

DT

The Chiefs run D was ranked 11th, 17th, 27th and 24th while Patton was the middle linebacker.

alanm
11-24-2004, 11:15 PM
Patton was solid. Period. He would be an upgrade over what we have now, even at 40 or however old he is now. At least he could wrap up and tackle, and his lack of speed prevented him from overrunning plays.

DTPatton was a stud against the run. I still can't believe all the guys that railed on him and wanted him gone all the time we had him. Sure he had lost some of his speed from his Buffalo and Washington heydays but even now at 38-39 and being retired from the game 2 yrs he's still better than anyone we have at LB now.:banghead:

Count Zarth
11-24-2004, 11:56 PM
Patton was a stud against the run. I still can't believe all the guys that railed on him and wanted him gone all the time we had him. Sure he had lost some of his speed from his Buffalo and Washington heydays but even now at 38-39 and being retired from the game 2 yrs he's still better than anyone we have at LB now.:banghead:

The Chiefs run D was ranked 11th, 17th, 27th and 24th while Patton was the middle linebacker.

royr17
11-25-2004, 12:04 AM
I think the loss of Donnie Edwards really hurt, but ask yourself if you could have him back would you want him, and if we got him back where would you start him on the outside or inside ?

And go with a LB core of Barber when not injured or Beisel, Edwards, and Fujita ?

royr17
11-25-2004, 12:05 AM
Patton was a stud against the run. I still can't believe all the guys that railed on him and wanted him gone all the time we had him. Sure he had lost some of his speed from his Buffalo and Washington heydays but even now at 38-39 and being retired from the game 2 yrs he's still better than anyone we have at LB now.:banghead:

I agree i'd take a 36 year old Patton over Mitchell any day.

Captain Obvious
11-25-2004, 12:43 AM
I'm sure they just didn't want to get banned.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but that made me laugh.

Phobia
11-25-2004, 12:57 AM
I can't believe I'm saying this, but that made me laugh.


Yeah, it was funny. I think I'm gonna go throw him some rep.

Count Zarth
11-25-2004, 01:34 AM
Yeah, it was funny. I think I'm gonna go throw him some rep.

The long haul back to 4K starts. ROFL

Tribal Warfare
11-25-2004, 02:02 AM
It has been a deteriation since Carl's Coaches haven't been able teach their players to keep over achieving. therefore Peterson tries to find a damn good coach while he makes shitty personel decisions. Thats including Head Coaches too

DaWolf
11-25-2004, 05:52 AM
Beginning of the end? I'll go with when Hasty was nearing the end and when we signed Chester McGlockton and when we signed Carlton Gray and when we signed Lew Bush and when we gave a huge contract to Dan Williams. That should have clued us in that the front office was clueless...

Count Zarth
11-25-2004, 05:54 AM
Beginning of the end? I'll go with when Hasty was nearing the end and when we signed Chester McGlockton and when we signed Carlton Gray and when we signed Lew Bush and when we gave a huge contract to Dan Williams. That should have clued us in that the front office was clueless...

Chester was a force. Sure, he jumped offsides occasionally. Our defensive line was stout against the run and we had bunches of sacks when he was here though. There was a noticeable difference when Vermeil got rid of him.

Ari Chi3fs
11-25-2004, 08:01 AM
well i for one truly miss Donnie Edwards... But I think he has been gone long enough to say that he is NOT the problem. Maz wouldnt have got hurt, I say we at least force the Colts to punt a couple times, insuring that we play the Pats in AFC champ game...

DaWolf
11-25-2004, 08:11 AM
Chester was a force. Sure, he jumped offsides occasionally. Our defensive line was stout against the run and we had bunches of sacks when he was here though. There was a noticeable difference when Vermeil got rid of him.

He was pretty much hurt his first year. He had flashes after that, but not much for what we paid to get him (including the 2nd rounder). He had a total of 7 sacks for us while here. He had 7 sacks or more in 4 individual seasons while in Oakland. IMO he just got his money and then became lazy. He lacked the desire.

We were about #1(4), #11(17), and #1(15) in points allowed in the NFL in '95-'97 (total defense rankings are in parenteses). In '98 we fell to #22(9). In '99 we got back up to #13(14), but them in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and so far in 2004 we were ranked #19(20), #23(22), #28(32), #19(29), and #28(29). So I date the demise back to '98, and that's when the crap signings began, along with the decline of DT. Lew Bush was a disaster. Carlton Gray was a disaster. Dan Williams was a disaster after 1 fluke year. Those were Carl's responses to losing DT, Dale Carter, and Keith Traylor over a span of a couple of years, along with Neil Smith. And that was just the start...

unlurking
11-25-2004, 08:18 AM
I don't even agree with what I wrote. I'm just bored and trying to stir up some conversation.
ROFL

OK Taco John!

;)

Count Zarth
11-25-2004, 08:32 AM
He was pretty much hurt his first year. He had flashes after that, but not much for what we paid to get him (including the 2nd rounder). He had a total of 7 sacks for us while here. He had 7 sacks or more in 4 individual seasons while in Oakland. IMO he just got his money and then became lazy. He lacked the desire. .

Chester wasn't being paid to sack the QB. He was being paid to stuff the run and eat up blockers. Chester McGlockton is the reason why Eric Hicks looked like a good defensive end one year.

1998 - 10th in yards per rush
1999 - 10th in yards per rush
2000 - 16th in yards per rush

Each of those years we had at least 40 sacks, if I remember. We had something like 54 one year. They don't list team sacks on pro-football-reference.com.

DaWolf
11-25-2004, 11:25 PM
Chester wasn't being paid to sack the QB. He was being paid to stuff the run and eat up blockers. Chester McGlockton is the reason why Eric Hicks looked like a good defensive end one year.

1998 - 10th in yards per rush
1999 - 10th in yards per rush
2000 - 16th in yards per rush

Each of those years we had at least 40 sacks, if I remember. We had something like 54 one year. They don't list team sacks on pro-football-reference.com.

You know looking at that site and looking at the crap we had on offense, it made me realize that Carl and Marty did as poor a job putting together an offense in those days as Carl and Vermeil have done putting together a defense these days. It is bizarre...

Count Zarth
11-25-2004, 11:35 PM
You know looking at that site and looking at the crap we had on offense, it made me realize that Carl and Marty did as poor a job putting together an offense in those days as Carl and Vermeil have done putting together a defense these days. It is bizarre...

Oh, I don't know. I think we had talent that was being misused. Elvis wasn't total shit at QB (you can't be and throw 28 TD). The offensive line was great. We should have been starting Horn over Rison's no-heart, washed up ass. RBBC was gay as hell.....

Jimmy Raye. :shake:

royr17
11-26-2004, 03:04 AM
Oh, I don't know. I think we had talent that was being misused. Elvis wasn't total shit at QB (you can't be and throw 28 TD). The offensive line was great. We should have been starting Horn over Rison's no-heart, washed up ass. RBBC was gay as hell.....

Jimmy Raye. :shake:

Yes we should've kept Horn and started him over Rison, but I think your right on being misused part. When gun took over he made Kimble Anders the starting HB moving from FB to HB, and the very first game i saw him play in he looked good carrying the rock and than boom he got injured against the Bears and was out for the year.

I think when he got injured that spelled the opening for RBBC, and i didnt like it cause i like having one guy as the main back instead of 5 or 6, and oh yea Bam Morris sucked, and I actually do think Grbac sucked, he just had a good year, look at all the other years especially his 5 TD 12 INT ratio.

TEX
11-26-2004, 10:40 AM
You know looking at that site and looking at the crap we had on offense, it made me realize that Carl and Marty did as poor a job putting together an offense in those days as Carl and Vermeil have done putting together a defense these days. It is bizarre...

I agree and what is the ONE constant in that statement? :hmmm:

Count Zarth
11-26-2004, 06:48 PM
I actually do think Grbac sucked, he just had a good year, look at all the other years especially his 5 TD 12 INT ratio.

Grbac had 3 good statistical years, one bad statistical year.


| 1997 kan | 10 | 179 314 57.0 1943 6.2 11 6 | 30 168 1 |
| 1998 kan | 8 | 98 188 52.1 1142 6.1 5 12 | 7 27 0 |
| 1999 kan | 16 | 294 499 58.9 3389 6.8 22 15 | 19 10 0 |
| 2000 kan | 15 | 326 547 59.6 4164 7.6 28 14 | 30 111 1