PDA

View Full Version : Our Defense Looks EXACTLY Like Raiders of a Few Years Ago....


Stuckinbama
11-14-2000, 02:04 AM
and IMHO it's NO COINSIDENSE. Let's see, we now have Chet and everybody and their mother can RUN at will against us. We now have Willie Shaw and his "soft zones" and everybody can pass against us. Our defense plays "scared" and rarely forces the issue and is a FAR CRY from the ball - hawking tough CHIEF defenses of the past. JQ and Duck warned us of this and I'd say we they were RIGHT!

Clint in Wichita
11-14-2000, 03:11 AM
Frankly I thought our defense was soft last year too, without Shaw. This year we've got two rookies starting in the backfield and have lost our defensive catalyst in DT, and we are even softer. Gun's defense wasn't that great in '98 either. We've had major problems stoping teams on key 3rd downs since after '97, and that is a huge problem...

DoktorSmith
11-14-2000, 07:35 AM
DaWolf's memory is intact. Our Defense was awful last season and did not look great in '98 [although it was still the only thing keeping us in the games]. The "soft zone" is nothing new. Schottenheimer used it before Shaw arrived on our shores. If the posts were still there, you could go to the Star BB and read my incoherent rants on the Spineless DC.

The problem here is not Shaw. He is not calling the Defense. The problem in '00 is the same problem as in '99: Schottenheimer has no guts. He calls the "bend but don't break" Defense that should be anathema to stout Chiefs fans. He has already lost three games this year [Titans, Raiders, Raiders] with his pitiful zone Defense.

Don't blame Shaw [although I do not want him as DC]. Schottenheimer sucked before Shaw got here.

xoxo~
gaz
disgusted with what the Spineless Stooge has done to the Chiefs D.<BR>

sun
11-14-2000, 07:45 AM
DT was often double teamed. This made Dan Williams and Chester especially effective. Without DT,Dan and Chet are minimal. Even our blitzes produce little. Without the big sack threat and QB pressure, our DBs are out on a slippery slope.

CaptnRon
Hoping someone stands up

Lurker Brett
11-14-2000, 08:45 AM
As usual Gunther comments on this weeks game are dubious at best. He says that as the season progressed he knew other teams would catch on to the fact we were playing rookies in the defensive backfield, and he expected these results. At least that is the way I interpretted it. My question, should the rookies not be getting better. Dennis is abhorant, and Bartee can't take his place, which speaks volumes about him. These two are the Warfields of last year, and the future looks bleak. I am sure no one misses the interference calls agains Dishman, but at least they indicate he was doing something out there, instead of playing off 7 to 10 yards. We just have to get rid of Gunther, and then all the coordinators are gone too.

DoktorSmith
11-14-2000, 08:48 AM
Does Dennis [Bartee, Warfield, so forth] decide on his own to play 10 yards off the WR or is that part and parcel of Schottenheimer's zone D?

xoxo~
gaz
wants to bash the right guy.<BR>

Lurker Brett
11-14-2000, 08:58 AM
Gaz - Since all Gunther can do is rant and rave about the need to get better, and then make no changes, I guess we will never know.

TheBigChief
11-14-2000, 09:00 AM
I have to agree! As a matter of fact, I would have to say our entire team reminds me of the 90s faiders: Weak, almost non-existent D; O which relies solely on big plays; horrible Special Teams; and an uncanny ability to play like crap one week, then trounce a good team the next week. Dear God, we've become the faiduhs...

RE: Chester - have you noticed, that guy actually opens running lanes for our opposition?!?! Hell, we should move him to OG - he opens more holes for RBs than any of our OL do!

BigChief
11-14-2000, 10:18 AM
Agree 100% said in a past post the chiefs have turned into the raiders Mr willie is killing us never i say never have i seen the chiefs play such soft D.

Stuckinbama
11-14-2000, 10:54 AM
Gaz,
You're correct about the Chiefs D looking soft in '98 and '99. '98 we never had a "legit" D-line with Chet's injury and Williams hold out. Last year, the zones were there but, as yousaid, our defense kept us in many games. This year, our defense has lost many games on it's own and the Chiefs play more soft zones that I have ever seen (to "protect" the rooks) Combine that with very predictable blitz packages, when they do have the guts to blitz, and trouble is always one play away on defense. I do agree that Kurt was ans IS the main problem. What I'm saying is that WIllie Shaw has taken Kurt to a LOWER level - the Chiefs are the Raiders of the '90's and for that BOTH shoould be gone the second the season is over!

Warrior5
11-14-2000, 12:32 PM
Chester at OG...interesting thought HC!

I wonder...would it help to have him on the other side of the ball? At least then he would KNOW the snap count, instead of guessing every play, 5yds at a time!

That may be reason enough right there!!!

ct

Griese Fan
11-15-2000, 10:18 AM
I agree with everthing Tx says. To add to his thoughts, Shaw is the one responsible for the 10 yard cushion, and the fact that Hasty is not lined up against the opponent's best receiver every game. These are the things that JQ warned us about.
the milkman

Stuckinbama
11-15-2000, 11:25 AM
Coryt,
My bet is that Chet would STILL jump off sides!


LB,
I'm not right that often, but I hit the mark here. I was listening to the warnings of our Raider BB brotheren.