PDA

View Full Version : Its all about Tackling...


2bikemike
11-30-2004, 05:06 PM
One of the biggest things that pisses me off about this defense is the way our guys tackle. Tackling around the shoulder pads being my number one bitch. Followed by the failed highlight reel hits where our guys leave his feet for the big hit only to bounce off the offensive player.

I looked around at some stats and found the following info.

First off in the AFCW our 3 enemies have 3 guys each with more tackles than our leader (Fujita) With a 4th guy right on his heels.

Den.
Al Wilson 69 tackles
Dj Williams 65
Champ 60
Kennedy 57

Oakland
Danny Clark 87
Ray Buchannon 67
Marques Anderson 60
Charles Woodson 58

San Diego
Donnie Edwards 92
Terrance Kiel 65
Randall Godfrey 60
Jerry Wilson 57

KC
Fuji 59
Wesley 48
Woods 41
Warfield 41

I also looked up total tackles in the AFC.

Buffalo 791, Miami 784, New England 787, Jets 760

B'more 795, Cinci 816, Cleveland 796, Pitts. 642

Houston 737, Indy 802, Jax 710, Tenn. 716

Denver 670, Oak. 795, San Diego 696, KC 629

The only team close to our low number of tackles is Pitts. Who is #1 in the AFC in the Yds/gm. Interestingly Indy leads the AFC in yds given up but has the 2nd most tackles.

Bottom line we suck at tackling.

Sure-Oz
11-30-2004, 05:08 PM
How hard is it really to tackle??? These guys have been playing football for a long time, it is the simplest fundamentals, ****ing wrap up, give them a ****ing hug and htey won't move. They still continue to push and shove most of the time.

Demonpenz
11-30-2004, 05:11 PM
hey you try to tackle top tier backs like mike pittman

2bikemike
11-30-2004, 05:11 PM
How hard is it really to tackle??? These guys have been playing football for a long time, it is the simplest fundamentals, ****ing wrap up, give them a ****ing hug and htey won't move. They still continue to push and shove most of the time.

Unfortunately this is the way it is done.

Demonpenz
11-30-2004, 05:13 PM
tackle requires alittle bit of an attitude too, something (Along with balls) our defense lacks

Sure-Oz
11-30-2004, 05:13 PM
Arm tackling is the only way our retards know how, if you're ass isn't on the ground with the offensive player, you aren't tackling.

Skip Towne
11-30-2004, 05:14 PM
We were always taught to tackle low...a guy can't run with your arms around his legs. But that was back when the ball was filled with feathers so maybe things have changed.

2bikemike
11-30-2004, 05:16 PM
We were always taught to tackle low...a guy can't run with your arms around his legs. But that was back when the ball was filled with feathers so maybe things have changed.

IIRC from the history books didn't you wear leather helmets or did you not have helmets?

redhed
11-30-2004, 05:16 PM
It's also about not biting on EVERY DANG PLAY FAKE any team uses. Our DBs never saw a pump-fake they couldn't take a shark-sized bite out of. The LBs too, I've never seen anything like it.

Saulbadguy
11-30-2004, 05:17 PM
Unfortunately this is the way it is done.
Hey..that picture was of a 5 yard loss!

ROYC75
11-30-2004, 05:20 PM
Why do we need guys who tackle the ball carrier, we have Mitchell. Just ask GoChiefs, ZachKC and a few select others on this BB.

After all, that will come in time when our players get more experence.

Sure-Oz
11-30-2004, 05:20 PM
Kawika Mitchell is the master of the chiefs art of "tackling".

2bikemike
11-30-2004, 05:20 PM
Hey..that picture was of a 5 yard loss!

Then Kawika must of hit him about 20 yds behind the line of scrimmage.

ROYC75
11-30-2004, 05:23 PM
No, no tackling, we are the Kansas City Chiefs !

Calcountry
11-30-2004, 06:17 PM
It's also about not biting on EVERY DANG PLAY FAKE any team uses. Our DBs never saw a pump-fake they couldn't take a shark-sized bite out of. The LBs too, I've never seen anything like it.
Don't forget the DE biting on every misdirection play, bootleg, reverse etc.

Against SD, they burned us not once, not twice, but thrice on misdirection end arrounds for big gainers.

Each and every time, our DE who has responsibility for containment is flowing with the line of scrimage leaving nothing but acres and acres of arrowhead turf for the runner to run with.

This is chit they teach to high schoolers and they cannot figure it out they aren't ever going to get it. It is just plain fuggin lazyness for an NFL Dlineman to play that way.

The coaches probably figure, fug, they should already know that chit, I don't get paid to waste time teaching basic HS level fundamentals to professional ball players, fug, they would be offended if I so much as said anything. Fug those chit heads fire em all.

el borracho
11-30-2004, 06:22 PM
Why do we need guys who tackle the ball carrier, we have Mitchell. Just ask GoChiefs, ZachKC and a few select others on this BB.

After all, that will come in time when our players get more experence.
http://www.swim-city.com/galleries/swimpictures_new/thumbs/synchr_01.jpg

|Zach|
11-30-2004, 06:42 PM
Why do we need guys who tackle the ball carrier, we have Mitchell. Just ask GoChiefs, ZachKC and a few select others on this BB.

After all, that will come in time when our players get more experence.
Roy, you are just getting stupid now...

I have said before that we need better at LB but that Mitchell is the best available to us at this point in time.

David.
11-30-2004, 06:53 PM
Scanlon is the answer to our tackling woes Roy? C'mon, you're smarter than that aren't you?

Sure-Oz
11-30-2004, 07:06 PM
Scanlon ain't got sh1t on Calvin Pickering.

Rain Man
11-30-2004, 07:09 PM
Interesting stats, but by definition there's going to be a tackle on every play. Having fewer tackles just means that we're either running fewer defensive plays, or we're not giving three guys tackles on each play.

That said, the problem is that the tackles are occurring too far downfield. It'd be interesting if there was a stat on missed tackles, because that would really be interesting.

|Zach|
11-30-2004, 07:11 PM
It'd be interesting if there was a stat on missed tackles, because that would really be interesting.
That would be interesting.

Deberg_1990
11-30-2004, 07:11 PM
Roy, you are just getting stupid now...

I have said before that we need better at LB but that Mitchell is the best available to us at this point in time.


Pretty pathetic hes the best available at this point isnt it? Zach, id rather see you suit up at middle linebacker than Mitchell, thats how much I think of that guy.

2bikemike
11-30-2004, 07:21 PM
Interesting stats, but by definition there's going to be a tackle on every play. Having fewer tackles just means that we're either running fewer defensive plays, or we're not giving three guys tackles on each play.

That said, the problem is that the tackles are occurring too far downfield. It'd be interesting if there was a stat on missed tackles, because that would really be interesting.

They did show the number of plays ran against a defense. I will try and find it.

2bikemike
11-30-2004, 07:30 PM
here is the link. for the stats http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/AFC/DEF-TOTAL/2004/regular

KC has had 636 plays and 629 tackles.

The number is skewed because Total tackles also takes into account assists. So you may have 3 guys in on one tackle.

But Rainman is correct in that we give up huge chunks of yds per play as does Indy. Where as Pittsburg gives up the least yds per play.

|Zach|
11-30-2004, 07:35 PM
Pretty pathetic hes the best available at this point isnt it? Zach, id rather see you suit up at middle linebacker than Mitchell, thats how much I think of that guy.
I guess I will just add you to the list of fools who think it can't get any worse than Mitchell who does really well against the run.

I wish we had better at LB than Mitchell...believe me.

But we dont.

David.
11-30-2004, 07:37 PM
yeah, it's not like our team is THAT bad against the run. It's the pass that kills us.

Skip Towne
11-30-2004, 07:41 PM
IIRC from the history books didn't you wear leather helmets or did you not have helmets?
Helmets are for sissies.

Skip Towne
11-30-2004, 07:47 PM
Interesting stats, but by definition there's going to be a tackle on every play. Having fewer tackles just means that we're either running fewer defensive plays, or we're not giving three guys tackles on each play.

That said, the problem is that the tackles are occurring too far downfield. It'd be interesting if there was a stat on missed tackles, because that would really be interesting.
A tackle on every play? No, I don't think so. How about touchdowns, extra points, fair catches, Ballcarrier running out of bounds and touchbacks?

Sure-Oz
11-30-2004, 07:47 PM
yeah, it's not like our team is THAT bad against the run. It's the pass that kills us.
No pass rush, period.

Why run it when you can throw it all over us. :banghead:

David.
11-30-2004, 07:48 PM
No pass rush, period.

Why run it when you can throw it all over us. :banghead:

exactly. Kawika mitchell is not the primary weakness on this defense. I think our CB's and Safeties are just...exposed.

ROYC75
11-30-2004, 08:32 PM
I guess I will just add you to the list of fools who think it can't get any worse than Mitchell who does really well against the run.

I wish we had better at LB than Mitchell...believe me.

But we dont.

List of fools ...... :hmmm: Well against the run ? :shake:

Every stop and think you might be on that list ?


I can hear Bob Seger in the background with a few words changed in Ship ( List ) of fools.

Tell me quick said ZackKC, what's this all have to do with me
I've spent all my time you see,a believer
:shake:

Count Zarth
11-30-2004, 08:37 PM
I'd buy into this tackling thing if we didn't have alot more tackles last year, when our D was just as bad and worse in some areas.

We're giving up alot more big plays this year and the defense has not been on the field as much - hence less tackles.

Last year the D was on the field more and exploited our soft zones for easy first downs and long drives - hence more tackles.

The main problem is not being able to cover people and not being able to rush the passer. Bad tackling only makes those problems worse.

|Zach|
11-30-2004, 08:42 PM
List of fools ...... :hmmm: Well against the run ? :shake:

Every stop and think you might be on that list ?


I can hear Bob Seger in the background with a few words changed in Ship ( List ) of fools.

Tell me quick said ZackKC, what's this all have to do with me
I've spent all my time you see,a believer
:shake:
Mitchell is horid in coverage and has problems in space. Yet, he has done well against the run. You were just to busy stroking yourself looking for Rich to see that.

But keep going on and twisting my position to suit what you want the conversation to be like. I wish we had another LB rather than Mitchell. He is a project. But he is the best we have. Don't paint me like I think Mitchell is a pro bowler or future hall of famer.

ROYC75
11-30-2004, 08:45 PM
Mitchell is horid in coverage and has problems in space. Yet, he has done well against the run. You were just to busy stroking yourself looking for Rich to see that.

But keep going on and twisting my position to suit what you want the conversation to be like. I wish we had another LB rather than Mitchell. He is a project. But he is the best we have. Don't paint me like I think Mitchell is a pro bowler or future hall of famer.

For a kid that just turned , what is it, 18,19,20 ? You sure do know alot about football, do you and Mel Kiper Jr share notes ?

|Zach|
11-30-2004, 08:49 PM
For a kid that just turned , what is it, 18,19,20 ? You sure do know alot about football, do you and Mel Kiper Jr share notes ?
Your argument is weak so you deflect to something cheap.

I know enough about football to trust the judgment of a coach who sees a player every single day of practice and has gone over every play he has done at least multiple times in video over a fan who saw a few snaps on TV in a pre season game.

But keep blaming position coaches for the draft and for free agent dealings...you were going down that road earlier...

ROYC75
11-30-2004, 08:52 PM
Your argument is weak so you deflect to something cheap.

I know enough about football to trust the judgment of a coach who sees a player every single day of practice and has gone over every play he has done at least multiple times in video over a fan who saw a few snaps on TV in a pre season game.

But keep blaming position coaches for the draft and for free agent dealings...you were going down that road earlier...

Have you ever thought an old goat as myself has seen something in a player that most people doesn't see yet ?

|Zach|
11-30-2004, 08:54 PM
Have you ever thought an old goat as myself has seen something in a player that most people doesn't see yet ?
So by your logic we should make Skip the head coach of the Chiefs. Fantastic.

Count Zarth
11-30-2004, 08:58 PM
Your argument is weak so you deflect to something cheap.

I know enough about football to trust the judgment of a coach who sees a player every single day of practice and has gone over every play he has done at least multiple times in video over a fan who saw a few snaps on TV in a pre season game.

But keep blaming position coaches for the draft and for free agent dealings...you were going down that road earlier...

I suggest you put him on ignore. Whenever you disagree with him it's "You are a dumbass because you are not as old as me."

|Zach|
11-30-2004, 08:59 PM
I suggest you put him on ignore. Whenever you disagree with him it's "You are a dumbass because you are not as old as me."
I would do the same thing...first of all his argument is weak...and then he tries to twist my points to make it conveinent for him...and then he comes at me with this age crap?

Good times.

ROYC75
11-30-2004, 09:04 PM
I would do the same thing...first of all his argument is weak...and then he tries to twist my points to make it conveinent for him...and then he comes at me with this age crap?

Good times.


My bad, teenagers know it all.

Look, it's simple, we have difference in opinions, many members have taken the liberty to pick a little fun over it. Which is fine, I have had alot of good laughs over it.

But lord forbid if I pick back and have alittle fun. :shake:

You kids need to mellow out some, understand this is just a conversation board when we choose to be to have fun.

Enjoy ! :p

|Zach|
11-30-2004, 09:07 PM
My bad, teenagers know it all.

Look, it's simple, we have difference in opinions, many members have taken the liberty to pick a little fun over it. Which is fine, I have had alot of good laughs over it.

But lord forbid if I pick back and have alittle fun. :shake:

You kids need to mellow out some, understand this is just a conversation board when we choose to be to have fun.

Enjoy ! :p
Have all the fun you want. Give me another gem of football knowlege. Because of your age I will be sure to take it as the gospel.

I just don't appreciate what I say to be twisted up and spit out and then told that all of my football takes are void because of my age. You never said anything about age until I start punching holes in your argument. Just sounds like horseshit to me. But what do I know...

ROYC75
11-30-2004, 09:15 PM
Have all the fun you want. Give me another gem of football knowlege. Because of your age I will be sure to take it as the gospel.

I just don't appreciate what I say to be twisted up and spit out and then told that all of my football takes are void because of my age. You never said anything about age until I start punching holes in your argument. Just sounds like horseshit to me. But what do I know...


Horseshit, many of you clowns have been shooting holes at my comments like swiss cheese. When I gave you guys solid reasons, backed them up with facts and opinons of other so called draft experts, all I heard was the coaches feel this, coaches feel that , if, if, if....

I made the comment that at times coaches are wrong.....

The mere mention of the name sends shock waves into planteers like a San Andreas shaker does.

Again, it boils down to what ones opinions are..... it's really is just that simple. You continue to pimp Mitchell as a run stopper even thou it's clear in living color that we all see it.

I'll continue back Scanlon whom I feel has more damn ability and potential than Mitchell ever dreamed about having. I want better than what Mitchell is providing, not willing to set back for another year to develope.

Opinions..... it's just that simple. :D

Count Zarth
11-30-2004, 09:17 PM
What teenagers is he talking about?

|Zach|
11-30-2004, 09:19 PM
You continue to pimp Mitchell as a run stopper even thou it's clear in living color that we all see it.

Tell me LT's rushing stats from the San Diego game...

This started as you thinking Scanlon was better and me thinking Mitchell was better. When you didn't gain any ground you tried to paint me like I thought Mitchell was some great LB in this league when all I have been stating is that he is the best MLB the Chiefs have right now.

But hey you are older and I am a dumbshit.

I can't believe you even talk to anyone on the board under 30.

CanadaKC
11-30-2004, 10:09 PM
According to a bonofide NFL scout....

“The Chiefs’ linebackers are terrible,” he told PFW. “Shawn Barber (before he got hurt) missed way too many tackles. Of their seven linebackers, only one is anything more than a marginal backup in the league — Scott Fujita. The rest you can cut. No. 50 (second-year MLB Kawika Mitchell) was tackling with his elbows, like he’s back in the old days. I kept saying, ‘Just wrap him up.’ His arms can’t be that short.” Another scout said that once Mitchell gets to the ball, he’s actually not a bad tackler. “But it’s just a matter of him finding the (expletive) ball,” he said. “He’s lost out there. Taking him in the second round was obviously an error.”


Can you say Derrick Johnson? :thumb:

|Zach|
11-30-2004, 10:17 PM
Tell me LT's rushing stats from the San Diego game...

ROFL

svuba
11-30-2004, 10:31 PM
KC
Fuji 59
Wesley 48
Woods 41
Warfield 41



Bottom line we suck at tackling.


You forgot one our best tacklers: The End Zone ---No player has been able stop the opponent's drives this year as consistently as the endzone! I guess that has somthing to do with the fact that the chiefs lead the AFC in points allowed.

KC
Fuji 59
Wesley 48
Woods 41
Warfield 41
End Zone 37

If you add in the Goalpost's contribrution to ending drives the Duo would be Challenging Fujita for team leader in tackles!

2bikemike
11-30-2004, 10:39 PM
Tell me LT's rushing stats from the San Diego game...

This started as you thinking Scanlon was better and me thinking Mitchell was better. When you didn't gain any ground you tried to paint me like I thought Mitchell was some great LB in this league when all I have been stating is that he is the best MLB the Chiefs have right now.

But hey you are older and I am a dumbshit.

I can't believe you even talk to anyone on the board under 30.


While LT didn't tear it up, something he has never done in Arrowhead (BTW the San Diego paper had an article about how LT doesn't like the turf at Arrowhead.) The Chargers rushed for 127 yds. Brees and Parker were the other rushers.

2bikemike
11-30-2004, 10:41 PM
yeah, it's not like our team is THAT bad against the run. It's the pass that kills us.

IMHO if the Secondary wasn't so porous I think the rushing defense would look worse. Why run when you can pass successfully?

Count Zarth
11-30-2004, 10:43 PM
IMHO if the Secondary wasn't so porous I think the rushing defense would look worse. Why run when you can pass successfully?

I have to disagree. The Chargers TRIED to run the ball quite a bit yesterday with LT and had very little success.

2bikemike
11-30-2004, 10:50 PM
I have to disagree. The Chargers TRIED to run the ball quite a bit yesterday with LT and had very little success.

The San Diego Tribune had an article about how LT struggles at Arrowhead. He slipped more than anything sunday. Hell he scored his first touchdown in Arrowhead ever on sunday.

No matter how you slice it they still got 127 yds rushing.

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 07:13 AM
Again, why argue with a bunch of clowns that can't see the whole picture....

SD had over 100 yards, could of had more, it was really easy to get yards in chunks by the air.

Right now any team we play has it's way rather they choose to run it or pass it.

We can't stop the run, we can't stop the pass, it is that simple, we have no playmakers on a team that lacks talent on defense. You guys can spin it anyway you want, it is what it is.

Count Zarth
12-01-2004, 08:37 AM
No matter how you slice it they still got 127 yds rushing.

Yeah we still can't defend a reverse worth shit.

|Zach|
12-01-2004, 11:15 AM
Again, why argue with a bunch of clowns that can't see the whole picture....

Why don't you tell us Roy?

It seems as though your opinion is on this huge pedestal and the rest of CP is far below you in your own mind.

Sure-Oz
12-01-2004, 11:38 AM
Roy sounds like my sister, she can never be wrong and your opinion sucks.

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 11:48 AM
Why don't you tell us Roy?

It seems as though your opinion is on this huge pedestal and the rest of CP is far below you in your own mind.


OK, so it's clear to see that you must be reminded daily that we have players that suck, can't tackle and no matter how you want to spin it, our D is not really any better overall.

We need guys who can play and make tackles,anything wrong with that ?

|Zach|
12-01-2004, 11:51 AM
OK, so it's clear to see that you must be reminded daily that we have players that suck, can't tackle and no matter how you want to spin it, our D is not really any better overall.

We need guys who can play and make tackles,anything wrong with that ?
My post had nothing to do with the players and everything to do with how it seems that you see yourself as some absolute authority on this board and anyone with a different opinion is a clown.

I don't even know why you take the time for us mere football mortals.

ENDelt260
12-01-2004, 12:07 PM
For a kid that just turned , what is it, 18,19,20 ? You sure do know alot about football, do you and Mel Kiper Jr share notes ?
Heh... how old is Rich Scanlon?

ENDelt260
12-01-2004, 12:12 PM
we have no playmakers on a team that lacks talent on defense.

And yet a certain someone still can't beat out the currently active folks for a roster spot...

Calcountry
12-01-2004, 12:16 PM
Interesting stats, but by definition there's going to be a tackle on every play. Having fewer tackles just means that we're either running fewer defensive plays, or we're not giving three guys tackles on each play.

That said, the problem is that the tackles are occurring too far downfield. It'd be interesting if there was a stat on missed tackles, because that would really be interesting.
YPC, Yards prior to tackle.

I am sure our stat is league high, something like 25 YPC.

Calcountry
12-01-2004, 12:19 PM
I suggest you put him on ignore. Whenever you disagree with him it's "You are a dumbass because you are not as old as me."
Age has a way of doing that to a person. Me, I am half way there.

Show some respect to your elders. Just remember, what goes arround, comes arround.

:p

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 12:58 PM
Its all about Tackling...

This says it all, but yet you guys want to make it a Scanlon thread.

Zach thinks we have a good / OK D in stopping the run. I disagree.
Zach thinks Mitchell needs more time to learn .... I disagree.

It is his opinion about certain players/positions to my opinions. Fact remains, we will never find out unless all players get to play/ perform in actual games.

I say we play all the guys on the roster see who can cut it and who can't. Some guys just might step up when given the oppertunity to play.What we do know is that if never given the chance in ... game time situations... we will never know.

I don't buy all the bullshit about , well the coaches says so. Fug em, look who we have now and we suck ! Why sit idle on our ass's ( Chiefs management ) now and wait until training camp again. F*ck all that, get ahead start on finding who not only wants to play, but can play. Not ride some HB's shoulders looking like some kids on a piggyback ride.

IMHO, each player on the roster should get some playing time the remainder of this season to not only get experence, but to have that chance to step up and unseat some other lazy deadbeat we have on the team.

We all know this year is shot to hell, why wait till next year to see what we need to do about the defensive problems. May I remind you all that it's the whole defense, not just one damn position.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the life of me, I do not understand why anybody wants to sit on the players we have, or use the excuses that we have nobody better with out try'n everybody we have . It appears that other teams can find players to step up when faced with adversity, why not let our guys try ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 01:00 PM
And yet a certain someone still can't beat out the currently active folks for a roster spot...


And what chances has he had ? TC ? That's it. They don't scrimmage anymore in the 1 day a week practice.

But IMHO, it's just a matter of time he has that chance, time will tell.

I want to see Fox get out there and play .

|Zach|
12-01-2004, 01:12 PM
This says it all, but yet you guys want to make it a Scanlon thread.

Zach thinks we have a good / OK D in stopping the run. I disagree.
Zach thinks Mitchell needs more time to learn .... I disagree.

It is his opinion about certain players/positions to my opinions. Fact remains, we will never find out unless all players get to play/ perform in actual games.

Yet another example about how you are to busy thinking you know everything and not ACTULLY READING MY POSTS.

This message board thing gets a little bit stupid if you just start making up points for other people that they didn't make wouldn't you say Roy? Don't you think that would make our board look foolish if we always did this.

I didn't say our run defense was good. I said Mitchell was solid against the run. You see there is a difference in those two viewpoints. One has to do with a player where the other has to do with a whole team. I am laying this out in simple terms so you can not keep going around telling me I think things that I dont but I dont believe anything will stop you.

You know what is sad? What is sad is how bad the other MLB's are our team are that they can't beat out Mitchell. Doesn't that make you sad? If the coaches thought any other healthy LB would do a better job they would be in there.

You have different opinions and I can respect that. But when you change my points and pull out this old man bullshit I am going to call you out. This isn't just about haviing different opinions that happens all the time on the Planet without this kind of discourse.

But you said it yourself. I can't believe you even take time out to argue with us clowns.

Amnorix
12-01-2004, 01:22 PM
Tackling stats are nearly worthless.

First, they don't give you any real measure of how good the player is, or how good a game he had. Example: Player X might have forced running back A into Player Z's arms. Player X makes the play, but Z get the tackle, even though the guy came right to him.

Second, defenses are group efforts. Tackling is just one stat that says how many opportunities to tackle YOU got. For example -- Rodney Harrison had 20 tackles in the Pats/Steelers game? Does that mean he had a great game? No, what it really means is that our front 7 SUCKED and the safety had to come up and make the tackle 20 times! Not good!!

Third, a poor defense that allows alot of first downs gets MORE tackling opportunities than a good defense that forces alot of three and outs. So if team X has 100 more tackles than Team Y, that does NOT mean Team X is a better tackling team. Far from it.

For cornerbacks, for example -- a guy who allows more catches in his area should have more tackles than a "shutdown" corner. If the guy never catches the ball, or the other team never throws in his direction, he'll have fewer tackles.

ALL that said, good tackling skills are critical. As Belichick has many times said about defensive players -- "if he can't tackle, what good is he on defense?".

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 01:40 PM
Zach, it's simple, I respect your opinion, we just differ on it.

Question : IYHO, Would rather the Chiefs only play the current starters and never make any changes to expand their playing experence ?

Or

Would you rather them play all the guys on the roster to gain experence to further evaluate their abilities for next year ?

|Zach|
12-01-2004, 01:44 PM
Zach, it's simple, I respect your opinion, we just differ on it.

Question : IYHO, Would rather the Chiefs only play the current starters and never make any changes to expand their playing experence ?

Or

Would you rather them play all the guys on the roster to gain experence to further evaluate their abilities for next year ?
So you are just going to glaze over the fact that you have been changing what I have been saying. Fantastic.

I am not interested in change for the sake of change. Alot of the guys we have in there are young guys. I think anyone who has a chance of being part of next years plan in the fact that they are young and have shown talent to possibly part of the solution is out there for evaluation.

Mitchell
Harts
Pile
Battle

I believe we are evaluation our young talent. Some people on the roster are so far from being NFL starter level players that they don't show up on the radar.

Now after your read this post be sure to tell me how I think our defense is really good from the things that I typed. We might as well be consistant. I am all about being par for the course.

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 02:17 PM
The fact that I believe we have somebody better than Mitchell is my opinion. I satnd by what I believe, even thou it goes against the norm around here.

Most times, I'm right alongside the norm, but this time I'm not, backing down is out of the question, yes, I'm the oddball in this disagreement.

Your opinions and takes on this generally goalong with most others views and opinions. many members do not like Mitchell. Some don't want to see anybody else pay that spot until next year, others want to see a change to find out if we have anybody better.

For the longest time I wanted to see Caver on the outside, get a good feel for what he can do. He hasn't lighted up the OLB position, but he has been solid as a backup.

I have been wanting to see Fox on the OLB as well. But so far he hasn't had the chance to play. There are members who want to see what Fox can do.

There are a select few who want to see what Rich can do.

As for the guys you listed, Harts can be a good player, he has been around and is good backup material, this we already know. Pile is still learning,he has came along ways off the practice squad. Battle is struggling to say the least, the coaches must see things in him like they do Mitchell. Personally, I have yet to see it in both of them. can they be productive players some day, yes, but how long do we wait on them ? Many times teams have gave up on players, rather they are starters or backups only to find that the next year they breakout and become productive.

This is why I say we play all of them since this season is a lost cause. ( record wise )

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 02:22 PM
So you are just going to glaze over the fact that you have been changing what I have been saying. Fantastic.

I'm not glazing over it, you said Mitchell was solid, IMHO he is not.

You said in a different thread that Mitchell and the D was better stopping the run. IMHO, I disagree.

What we do agree on is that we disagree with his play and the fact that we might have someone who is better to replace him with .

|Zach|
12-01-2004, 06:32 PM
I'm not glazing over it, you said Mitchell was solid, IMHO he is not.

You said in a different thread that Mitchell and the D was better stopping the run. IMHO, I disagree.

What we do agree on is that we disagree with his play and the fact that we might have someone who is better to replace him with .
I tried to write it as simple as I could...I tried really really hard. You still messed it up. Maybe if I bold some of this.

What I said - Mitchell is solid against the run.

What you keep telling me that I said - Our whole defense is good against the run.


There is a big difference between those two things Roy. Why is it you can't do this thing without misquoting me?? It would be one thing if you had done it once but you have been doing it for a whole thread.

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 08:14 PM
OK Zach, Mitchell is solid against the run ROFL ROFL ROFL

Welcome to Burger King, have it youe way ! :thumb:

|Zach|
12-01-2004, 08:17 PM
OK Zach, Mitchell is solid against the run ROFL ROFL ROFL

Welcome to Burger King, have it youe way ! :thumb:
Well hey...at least you are not twisting my story. It took a whole thread to get my point through your head so it can be processed.

Most of LT's attempted running was between the outside shoulders of both the tackles. Tell me how many yards he got Roy.

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 08:23 PM
Well hey...at least you are not twisting my story. It took a whole thread to get my point through your head so it can be processed.

Most of LT's attempted running was between the tackle. Tell me how many yards he got Roy.

Why use the SD game when it was clear to see they could move the ball in the air much easier getting bigger chunks ?

Our run D is better only because teams are throwing the ball instead of running it.

Teams pick the poision they want to administer to us, Ref: Denver* running the ball......Ref: Indy, throwing the ball. Face it, teams have there way with us, either way of play.

OK, time to let this go, we both want the best for our team, we have difference in opinions on how to get there. :thumb:

|Zach|
12-01-2004, 08:28 PM
Why use the SD game when it was clear to see they could move the ball in the air much easier getting bigger chunks ?

Our run D is better only because teams are throwing the ball instead of running it.

Teams pick the poision they want to administer to us, Ref: Denver* running the ball......Ref: Indy, throwing the ball. Face it, teams have there way with us, either way of play.

OK, time to let this go, we both want the best for our team, we have difference in opinions on how to get there. :thumb:
I just thought since you knew so much more about football you could enlighten young Zach how a team runs with thier all star RB 21 times and gets 48 yards out of it with a MLB that didn't do a good job against the run.

Somehow I think running 21 times means a team attempted to make their RB a force in the game.

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 08:33 PM
I just thought since you knew so much more about football you could enlighten young Zach how a team runs with thier all star RB 21 times and gets 48 yards out of it with a MLB that didn't do a good job against the run.

Somehow I think running 21 times means a team attempted to make their RB a force in the game.


Damn, let it go. I haven't a clue as how many times Mitchell got a tackle on LT last Sunday ? Enlighten us, out of 21 runs , how many tackles did Mitchell make on LT ? How many tackles did the DT's make ? How many tackles did the OLB's make on LT ? How many tackles did the defensive backs make on LT ?

What are the odds it comes up to 21 ? :hmmm:

Sure-Oz
12-01-2004, 08:46 PM
For some odd reason we OWN LT, and he has been playing with an injured groin so he may not be effective. Stopping the running game don't matter this season, you watch the rest of the league just throw bombs all day.

|Zach|
12-01-2004, 08:47 PM
For some odd reason we OWN LT, and he has been playing with an injured groin so he may not be effective. Stopping the running game don't matter this season, you watch the rest of the league just throw bombs all day.
We did really well against him the first game of last year. I think he got like 28 yards on 15 carries.

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 08:50 PM
Come on Zack, answer me, I want to go to bed, this old bird is tired.

|Zach|
12-01-2004, 08:53 PM
Come on Zack, answer me, I want to go to bed, this old bird is tired.
Sorry I missed it....

I do nto have those exact numbers.

If you would like to contend that our MLB didn't have much to do with holding a RB that generally runs between the tackles to 48 yards rushing on 21 attempts then it is time for you to go to bed.

If you actully think this then I would not go around touting your football knowlege out loud.

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 09:00 PM
Sorry I missed it....

I do nto have those exact numbers.

If you would like to contend that our MLB didn't have much to do with holding a RB that generally runs between the tackles to 48 yards rushing on 21 attempts then it is time for you to go to bed.

If you actully think this then I would not go around touting your football knowlege out loud.


OK, I'm off to bed, nothing new here to report. But before I go, send me you addy on PM, I'll send you a copy of the game to watch again.

Good night little buddy ! :thumb:

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 09:07 PM
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20041128_SD@KC

2 1/2 tackles on LT ..... You can look it up or I'll send you the tape !


K. Mitchell 3-1 0.0 0 0


Your boy played the whole game on D......

My boy played far less plays and had 2 tackles........

I have said all along that Scanlon will make more tackles , avg. per snaps than Mitchell, said this in preseason. That game right there says it, he has a better nose for the ball and shead blockers better.

Wanna figure that game up, do the math, No contest .

Mitchell 68 snaps 3 - 1 - 0 Times on the ball 0.06 %
Scanlon 9 snaps 2 - 0 - 0 Times on the ball 0.18 %

Fujita was the leading tackler with 10-1

Times on the ball 0.16 %

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 09:33 PM
No comments, Zach ?

David.
12-01-2004, 09:39 PM
I have to poop

ROYC75
12-01-2004, 09:42 PM
I have to poop


Columbia ,Mo. is the poop capital of the world. Let it loose there, if you can't make it there in time, Fed Ex it. :thumb:

David.
12-01-2004, 09:43 PM
Columbia ,Mo. is the poop capital of the world. Let it loose there, if you can't make it there in time, Fed Ex it. :thumb:

I.....have no idea what that means ROFL

royr17
12-02-2004, 06:42 AM
bump

ROYC75
12-02-2004, 06:55 AM
I.....have no idea what that means ROFL

Now that's funny.... Sorry david not really laughing at you. It's just you didn't get the the Tigger U / poop compairson. :Poke::thumb:

|Zach|
12-02-2004, 10:57 AM
No comments, Zach ?


I would like to take this time to apologize for not spending every waking hour explain basic football ideas such as how different pre season football is compared to regular season football.

Tell me who Rich Scanlon was tackling? Who was he going up against?

Wast it against LT? Was it against a starting offensive line?

To be able to hold LT to 45 or 48 yards in that game. I can't remember what it was then that means Kwika did his part against the run. There is no way around that.

I would think someone as old with so much knowlege of football would understand how foolish it is to make regular season\pre season comparisons. But sometimes I assume to much.

ROYC75
12-02-2004, 12:14 PM
I would like to take this time to apologize for not spending every waking hour explain basic football ideas such as how different pre season football is compared to regular season football.

Tell me who Rich Scanlon was tackling? Who was he going up against?

Wast it against LT? Was it against a starting offensive line?

To be able to hold LT to 45 or 48 yards in that game. I can't remember what it was then that means Kwika did his part against the run. There is no way around that.

I would think someone as old with so much knowlege of football would understand how foolish it is to make regular season\pre season comparisons. But sometimes I assume to much.


ROFL Please stop, yur making me laugh to hard, I'm old, remember !

Fact is, for anything you say or I say, it can be spun a 100 different reasons.

ST players are NFL talent, anyway you want to slice it. Same as 1st string offense players , Fujita had a good day, so did Harts, much better than Mitchell. Why does Fuji have better stats than Mitchell does ?

Because he is better, not because he played against lesser talent.

Again, stop spinning the stats, they are what they are.

Again, I don't much give a flip who is making the tackles as long as they get done around the LOS, not 30 some yards down field as Mitchell is slapping the ball out of the players hands, which was forced out by another player.

As for your take on Mitchell and LT, it seems that other Chiefs players were making the tackles on LT, But this isn't about Mitchell and LT, IT'S ABOUT MITCHELL NOT TACKLING WELL !

Why is this so hard to understand for you ? Oh, I forgot, he is solid ! :rolleyes:

BTW, if you want to replace Mitchell with Scanlon, I'm ready, I feel that he will excell far and above what Mitchell has done, BTA, it would take much to do that .

royr17
12-02-2004, 12:38 PM
Wow Zach, dad just dropped a bomb on you ...

el borracho
12-02-2004, 12:44 PM
hmmph

el borracho
12-02-2004, 12:48 PM
My boy played far less plays and had 2 tackles........

I have said all along that Scanlon will make more tackles , avg. per snaps than Mitchell, said this in preseason.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com/jpeg19/yuzme1.jpg

|Zach|
12-02-2004, 04:30 PM
The fact that Mitchell has not played like a stud just makes Scanlon look worse.

He is not a good enough player to replace a mediocre player.

He hasn't even done enough to inspire the Chiefs to write anything about him after his college career on thier own website. Hopefully he will be a good enough scrub next year to get his picture on the site.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/player/rich_scanlon/

If you would like to say that a MLB had nothing to do with stopping an opposing RB during the span of a whole football game then more power to you.

Every single player that starts in the NFL is there because they worked hard enough in the offseason and in training camp to show that they are better in thier position than the other players. Coaches, of course...are not right all the time. But I am just going to go with the odds on this one. Enjoy the rest of #91's career behind average LBs.

I still can't believe you are discounting the difference in situations between who Scanlon played against in preseason and what the situation would be in regular season games. Lets not even begin to talk about how vanilla the offenses are. You are basing your opinions on a few plays agasint a scrub offense that is running a vanilla offense.

Have you ever really been around a football program? Not even a big one. Hell even my high school coaching staff watched hours of film of practices every single day. There is tons of film of my play just sitting at that school right now that I was evaluated with.

Just imagine how much bigger the evaluation process is in the NFL. But why would you care about any of that when you have seen the TV showing of a few preseason games?

You did alot better using your "I am older than you defense."

Sure-Oz
12-02-2004, 04:37 PM
Wow this thread will never end, fear zach attack!! If Scanlon is SOOO much better he would be on the field as well.

|Zach|
12-02-2004, 04:38 PM
Wow this thread will never end, fear zach attack!! If Scanlon is SOOO much better he would be on the field as well.
It keeps drawing me back in ROFL Thats my main point. If the guy was that much better then coaches would be falling over themselves to replace him.

ROYC75
12-02-2004, 07:13 PM
It keeps drawing me back in ROFL Thats my main point. If the guy was that much better then coaches would be falling over themselves to replace him.

In due time.....

You, the coaches and any member that believes that Mitchell is better, go ahead and continue to believe it. The day is coming when he gets his chance. :thumb:

BTW.... the stats I threw at you were for the SD game. But you knew that, you just decided to spin it another round of a possible 100 ways of spin.

Is it OK if I call you .... Spin Doctor ?

OK, It's plan to see, you can't change my opinion and I'm not changing yours, if the day ( which I think it will ) comes and Scanlon or some other LB is starting over Mitchell, will you say that I'm right about Mitchell ? Likewise, it nobody unseats Mitchell, I will proclaim that Zack was right, I was the fool not believing in Mitchell.

NY CHIEF
12-03-2004, 09:40 AM
Hey roy, I cant wait untill scanlon plays a half and tears up the field!I wonder if everyone will eat crow :hmmm:

ROYC75
12-03-2004, 10:07 AM
Hey roy, I cant wait untill scanlon plays a half and tears up the field!I wonder if everyone will eat crow :hmmm:

Probally not, most of them here are hardheaded like me ! ROFL

It will take a couple of game for them to come around. Right now all we can do is set back, let him continue to show his ability on ST's and wait for that chance to get on the field.

There was a nice read today in the paper about Trent Green and Norv Turner, claiming how he under estimated his ability and wished he would have given him a chance sooner.

I feel the same is happening here with Rich.... his day will come in due time.
:thumb:

el borracho
12-03-2004, 10:18 AM
I feel the same is happening here with Rich.... his day will come in due time.
:thumb:
http://www.real-sports.com/mag/images/oly_synchswim_big.jpg

ROYC75
12-03-2004, 10:21 AM
http://www.real-sports.com/mag/images/oly_synchswim_big.jpg


Hey big guy, your stupid pictures are ..... just stupid. They bring no value to the conversation. :rolleyes:

But, that's just me, it must bring some kind of joy to you . :shake:

Count Zarth
12-03-2004, 10:23 AM
You did alot better using your "I am older than you defense."

If Roy lives in Kentucky you must acquit.

ROYC75
12-03-2004, 11:39 AM
If Roy lives in Kentucky you must acquit.

So says " our resident troll ".

el borracho
12-03-2004, 01:22 PM
Hey big guy, your stupid pictures are ..... just stupid. They bring no value to the conversation. :rolleyes:

But, that's just me, it must bring some kind of joy to you . :shake:
Yep. Synchronized swimming is stupid, gay, and annoying.... just like your insistence (and your boy's insistence) that Rich Scanlon is now, or will become, a superior middle linebacker. You don't know that. None of us do. But as long as you (both) want to post your tripe, I will tripe back.

Here is some bonus tripe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/945000/images/_948132_france_synch_ap300.jpg

ROYC75
12-03-2004, 03:32 PM
All I have ever said he is better than what we currently have, Mitchell,I have said many times, anybody we have is better than Mitchell. problem is the Chiefs have to play them and can Mitchell's ass to the bench.