PDA

View Full Version : Safety...


jspchief
02-02-2005, 10:53 AM
There's a lot of talk about us needing a CB, LB, and even another rush end. But I also wonder about looking at the safety position. I'm not talking about converting him into a corner either....

If you look at some of the top defenses in the league this year, a common theme is top notch safeties.

Top 10 defenses and the safeties that play for them:
*PIT Chris Hope, Troy Polamalu (Pro bowl)
BUF Troy Vincent, Lawyer Milloy
WAS Sean Taylor, Ryan Clark
*DEN Kennoy Kennedy, John Lynch (Pro bowl)
TB Jermaine Phillips, Dwight Smith
BAL Ed Reed (Pro bowl), Will Demps
*NYJ Reggie Tongue, Eric Coleman
MIA Arturo Freeman, Sammy Knight (former Pro-bowler)
*NE Eugene Wilson, Rodney Harrison
*PHI Brian Dawkins (Pro bowl), Michael Lewis (Pro bowl)

*made play-offs
BOLD: Marquee players(IMO)

Those teams were also top ten in 2004 in average yards-per-play...A stat KC was dead last in (by a glaring margin). IMO, a good safety is a guy that keeps 10 yard runs at 10 yards. A guy that makes sure WRs don't put up big YAC. They are the epitomy of the cliche "you can't stop him, you can only hope to contain him". They keep the big plays from becoming huge plays.

KC's safeties were often invisible on plays where our CBs got burned. They were consistently out of position on running plays. Everyone seems to be missing how bad these guys have played for us. And It's not just Woods and Wesley. I've seen nothing from Harts, Pile, or Sapp to make me think they would be an improvement.

There isn't a safety worthy of round 1 pick, but there are several that I would look hard at in the second. My personal pick would be Ernest Shazor. This guy hits like a mack truck, tackles well, and has a nose for the ball. Recent history shows that safeties chosen in the first two rounds have a good chance of panning out.

Brock
02-02-2005, 10:57 AM
I think it is pretty funny how some people complain about the possibility of drafting a safety. It's like they don't remember how Kevin Ross and Deron Cherry used to be the heart of the chiefs defense. The fact is, Woods and Wesley are a liablity, and both need to be replaced.

Chiefnj
02-02-2005, 11:15 AM
Here's my take on the Chiefs and a safety.

I think both starting safeties (woods and wesley) suffered because the front 7 and the corners are weak. I think they both tend to creep up too much to play the run (because they can't rely on the front 7) and then are out of position on some passing plays because of it.

I also think both were bothered by injuries this last year. Fans, myself included, tend to shrug off injuries to players unless they are severe like Holmes' hip. I can't help but think of Warfield 2-3 years ago and his chronic back problems. This past off-season he finally has surgery, his back feels better and lo and behold he has a really solid year.

With all that being said, I think the Chiefs are okay at strong safety. I think Wesley will pull it together. He was pretty good in run support this year. Plus, I think Harts would make a decent backup strong safety as run support seems to be his area of strength.

As far as free safety goes, I'm not sure where I stand. On one hand Woods really did play well the first half of 2003 and played well at the nickle corner that year. I don't know if it was injuries plaguing him last year, but he was definately a liability. I watch the Jets and see Tongue still being productive, so I kind of hold out some glimmer of hope that the Woods of old can return. Probably won't happen though, but I kind of like Woods.

If the Chiefs were to draft a safety I'd opt for a ball hawking FS.

Rausch
02-02-2005, 11:33 AM
I think it is pretty funny how some people complain about the possibility of drafting a safety. It's like they don't remember how Kevin Ross and Deron Cherry used to be the heart of the chiefs defense. The fact is, Woods and Wesley are a liablity, and both need to be replaced.

Becuase we've got 11 safeties on roster.

I think Harts and Wesley would be fine IF we upgrade the CB position. We're getting beat deep, consistently.

I agree that Woods just seemed to hit a wall last year, and odds are, he's done. He does need to be replaced.

HC_Chief
02-02-2005, 11:36 AM
Woods is done.

Wesley is still a good SS, but we need a FS. Harts is okay, and I wouldn't shed any tears if we used him there next season.

The problem with our safety play has already be alluded-to: HORRIBLE LB and CB play. S is a 'tweener' position: expected to support both run AND pass defense. If one area is getting torched, you call in the cavalry (ie safeties). KC's problem is any corner on the roster not named Warfield = burnt toast, so the safeties have to play deep to help cover. BIG problem: the LB play was complete shit as well, so the safeties have to play up closer to the los to help stop the run. Now you see the delima: if they help versus the run, we give up a big pass. If they play deep to help in coverage, we get gashed in the running game.

We need to improve our LB corps, first & foremost, then add a legit CB to play opposite Warfield.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 11:37 AM
Well the primary issue I believe is that the safeties are a bit overworked.

They should be there to assist in coverage or run support.

I can't honestly believe that our safties went from pro bowl level to doh bowl level in a single season talent wise.

Brock
02-02-2005, 11:38 AM
Becuase we've got 11 safeties on roster.


We've got 11 crappy safeties. There isn't one safety on the Chiefs roster than anyone is afraid of. I'm not arguing the Chiefs don't need 2 corners. I'm saying they need 2 new safeties, and not the half-assed players they currently have at that position.

Mr. Laz
02-02-2005, 11:40 AM
both our safeties just got new contracts....


doesn't really matter what we need etc, we're stuck



maybe a guy like Harts or Pile wins the starting job, but i don't see any significant changes being made.

cdcox
02-02-2005, 11:43 AM
I think that upgrading safety is probably the fastest, cheapest, most sure-fire way to improve our defense. If you took out all the big plays that occured when our safties were out of position or whiffed on tackles, I bet we would have a decent defense. I don't think if Battle or Bartee could be converted to a pro-bowl calibur safety.

I still want a LB or two and some better play at corner, but if I were GM, I think I would add a talented S somewhere in my off-season planning.

Rausch
02-02-2005, 11:44 AM
We've got 11 crappy safeties. There isn't one safety on the Chiefs roster than anyone is afraid of. I'm not arguing the Chiefs don't need 2 corners. I'm saying they need 2 new safeties, and not the half-assed players they currently have at that position.

For whatever reason our scouting dept. can't pick a S worth a $#it. Just can't.

Perhaps we get lucky this year. And I agree that we need to find someone to replace Woods, but I don't agree about Wesley.

And I think there's a huge difference between needing more talent (like at S) and completely sucking butt (like at CB.)

Warfield is a solid no 2 CB, but that's it. We need a FA there who can come in immediately and make an impact. A rookie S or CB is going to get burned and beaten his first year. That's just how it goes. If we do try and improve at S I hope to hell it's through free agency...

chiefz
02-02-2005, 11:45 AM
Jerome Woods 2003: 58.0 tackles, 18 assists, 3 interceptions (2 for touchdowns), 2 forced fumbles (one recovered) 8 pass deflections and a trip to the pro bowl.

Jerome Woods 2004: 35.0 tackles, 6 assists, 0 interceptions, 1 forced fumble, 1 pass deflection and a trip to the DOH bowl.

Hmmm, just doesn't seem possible does it?

Brock
02-02-2005, 11:46 AM
I think that upgrading safety is probably the fastest, cheapest, most sure-fire way to improve our defense. If you took out all the big plays that occured when our safties were out of position or whiffed on tackles, I bet we would have a decent defense. I don't think if Battle or Bartee could be converted to a pro-bowl calibur safety.

I still want a LB or two and some better play at corner, but if I were GM, I think I would add a talented S somewhere in my off-season planning.

Zackly.

Skip Towne
02-02-2005, 11:46 AM
I think it is pretty funny how some people complain about the possibility of drafting a safety. It's like they don't remember how Kevin Ross and Deron Cherry used to be the heart of the chiefs defense. The fact is, Woods and Wesley are a liablity, and both need to be replaced.
Ross was a CB, not a safety.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 11:48 AM
Woods is done.

Wesley is still a good SS, but we need a FS. Harts is okay, and I wouldn't shed any tears if we used him there next season.

The problem with our safety play has already be alluded-to: HORRIBLE LB and CB play. S is a 'tweener' position: expected to support both run AND pass defense. If one area is getting torched, you call in the cavalry (ie safeties). KC's problem is any corner on the roster not named Warfield = burnt toast, so the safeties have to play deep to help cover. BIG problem: the LB play was complete shit as well, so the safeties have to play up closer to the los to help stop the run. Now you see the delima: if they help versus the run, we give up a big pass. If they play deep to help in coverage, we get gashed in the running game.

We need to improve our LB corps, first & foremost, then add a legit CB to play opposite Warfield.

What he said.... :clap:

chiefz
02-02-2005, 11:50 AM
Greg Wesley 2003: 89.0 tackles, 15 assists, 2 sacks, 6 interceptions, 1 forced fumble, 6 pass deflections, got screwed out of the pro bowl.

Greg Wesley 2004: 59.0 tackles, 7 assists, 0 sacks, 4 interceptions, 4 forced fumbles, 3 pass deflections.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 11:51 AM
Now, can someone honestly tell me that the reason both of our safties numbers declined this much from 2003 to 2004 because their talent ran out completely and now they suck?

Seems to me that they are being asked to do too much.

Hoover
02-02-2005, 11:53 AM
I think we will have to go with Woods and Wesley next season. We just can't change all 11 guys. I think we will see 2 new LB, a new CB, and a new .05 CB

Rausch
02-02-2005, 11:54 AM
Now, can someone honestly tell me that the reason both of our safties numbers declined this much from 2003 to 2004 because their talent ran out completely and now they suck?

Seems to me that they are being asked to do too much.

Also remember that starters at MLB and OLB missed 6 or more games. Maz and Barber are likely done. Sometimes we were playing with 3rd string LB's and S's...

And Wesley also missed time this year with injury...

Brock
02-02-2005, 11:55 AM
Ross was a CB, not a safety.


That is true, thank you for the correction. However, he was a good safety toward the end of his career.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 11:55 AM
... If you took out all the big plays that occured when our safties were out of position or whiffed on tackles..... I don't think if Battle or Bartee could be converted to a pro-bowl calibur safety...

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but as HC points out...Safeties are always in between....one of the reasons our safeties were always out of position was because our DBs and LBs (sans Fujita and Warfield, who are serviceable) were complete crap....so the safeties were always caught compensating, not for one or the other, but often BOTH the LBs and CBs....McCleon and Bartee were dreadful; and our our MLB and SLB were generally "lost." Hence the safeties were scrambling to try to cover...for both.

Safeties will look good if you are getting pressure in the backfield, AND you have decent coverage from your corners. We almost never had both--and often had neither.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 11:56 AM
Again, there is no way that the talent of our safties Woods and Wesley (two of the best together in 2003) went straight down the toilet in a single season.

Brock
02-02-2005, 11:56 AM
Seems to me that they are being asked to do too much.

Set the stats aside for just a second, and tell me when the last time you saw a Chiefs safety blow a guy up was.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 11:58 AM
I think we will have to go with Woods and Wesley next season. We just can't change all 11 guys. I think we will see 2 new LB, a new CB, and a new .05 CB

Wesley/Harts (Woods/Pile) should be fine next year, IF.....IF.....IF....we fix LB and CB....and it will take at LEAST three players, and probably four to do that....IMO.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 11:59 AM
Also remember that starters at MLB and OLB missed 6 or more games. Maz and Barber are likely done. Sometimes we were playing with 3rd string LB's and S's...

And Wesley also missed time this year with injury...

Woods missed more than Wesley but I am not sure their numbers would have been as good as they were in 2003 anyway.

My point is that you cannot blame all our problems in the secondary on the safeties when they were playing at pro bowl level the year before.

If anything they had to extend their own game so much to help the lack of linebacker and cornerback production that it hurt their game.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 11:59 AM
Again, there is no way that the talent of our safties Woods and Wesley (two of the best together in 2003) went straight down the toilet in a single season.

Exactly right. Woods has lost a step (and maybe Harts is better), but I think he'd be okay with another stud LB and CB to take the pressure off them.

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 12:01 PM
I'm not gonna cry if we pick up a FS this offseason. We've need one since the late 90's.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 12:03 PM
I'm not gonna cry if we pick up a FS this offseason. We've need one since the late 90's.

I won't cry, but MLB, OLB, CB, and DE should all take precedence, IMO....either in FA or the draft.

Amnorix
02-02-2005, 12:04 PM
Good/great safeties can be the glue that holds a defense together, especially the secondary.


Quick -- name the CBs on the Giants Super Bowl teams? Nope? How about the 85 Bears? Nope. I can't either.

The safeties and linebackers were the guys that got it done for the Giants, and it was the front 7 plus a couple very good safeties for the Bears.

Premier CBs are nice, but they're extremely rare and very expensive, and you just don't need 'em as much as you need a premier QB, an above-average left tackle, and good interior defensive players.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 12:04 PM
Set the stats aside for just a second, and tell me when the last time you saw a Chiefs safety blow a guy up was.

I saw Greg Wesley plow Corey Dillon hard enough at the 2 yard line in November to force one of only five fumbles Dillon had all season long.

cdcox
02-02-2005, 12:05 PM
I don't really think that being over worked trying to cover both the run and the pass is the whole problem. Look at Woods play on Chad Johnson. He was lined up for the kill shot that would have made the pass incomplete. Then he completely misses and Johnson makes the play.

Who do opposing WR need to look out for after they make the catch?

Which safety do we have that can reliabley make an open field tackle aganist a fast back?

Portis and Manning exposed our week safties in 2003. We just saw it in full force last year. We will see it again in 2005, if we maintain the status quo.

Chiefnj
02-02-2005, 12:06 PM
Good/great safeties can be the glue that holds a defense together, especially the secondary.


Quick -- name the CBs on the Giants Super Bowl teams? Nope? How about the 85 Bears? Nope. I can't either.

The safeties and linebackers were the guys that got it done for the Giants, and it was the front 7 plus a couple very good safeties for the Bears.

Premier CBs are nice, but they're extremely rare and very expensive, and you just don't need 'em as much as you need a premier QB, an above-average left tackle, and good interior defensive players.

I think the Bears had Fencick.

Brock
02-02-2005, 12:07 PM
I saw Greg Wesley plow Corey Dillon hard enough at the 2 yard line in November to force one of only five fumbles Dillon had all season long.

No, you didn't. You saw Fred Jones do that.

siberian khatru
02-02-2005, 12:12 PM
I think that upgrading safety is probably the fastest, cheapest, most sure-fire way to improve our defense. If you took out all the big plays that occured when our safties were out of position or whiffed on tackles, I bet we would have a decent defense. I don't think if Battle or Bartee could be converted to a pro-bowl calibur safety.

I still want a LB or two and some better play at corner, but if I were GM, I think I would add a talented S somewhere in my off-season planning.

That's an intriguing argument. I'd love to hear Gunther's analysis of the problems. Maybe he'd just adopt a Capt. Caveman voice and repeat "BIG CORNERBACKS! BIG CORNERBACKS!"

Hoover
02-02-2005, 12:15 PM
If we think a Saftie can make a huge change fine, go out and Get Darius as a FA, move Woods to a Nickel back, I just don't see that happening, so we need to improve at LB and CB

chiefz
02-02-2005, 12:15 PM
Good/great safeties can be the glue that holds a defense together, especially the secondary.


Quick -- name the CBs on the Giants Super Bowl teams? Nope? How about the 85 Bears? Nope. I can't either.

The safeties and linebackers were the guys that got it done for the Giants, and it was the front 7 plus a couple very good safeties for the Bears.

Premier CBs are nice, but they're extremely rare and very expensive, and you just don't need 'em as much as you need a premier QB, an above-average left tackle, and good interior defensive players.

Giants - Reyna Thompson Pro Bowl Cornerback 1990 (Superbowl)

Bears - Mike Richardson and Leslie Frazier but were obviously not the stars, Fencik and Duerson were the reasons that secondary was good.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 12:15 PM
I don't really think that being over worked trying to cover both the run and the pass is the whole problem. Look at Woods play on Chad Johnson. He was lined up for the kill shot that would have made the pass incomplete. Then he completely misses and Johnson makes the play.

Who do opposing WR need to look out for after they make the catch?

Which safety do we have that can reliabley make an open field tackle aganist a fast back?

Portis and Manning exposed our week safties in 2003. We just saw it in full force last year. We will see it again in 2005, if we maintain the status quo.

We'll see what Gun does/wants to do in the off-season. In HIS system and the way he wants to play "D", I say the key is CBs....

Amnorix's argument is correct in many schemes--especially zone "D." With more man, you need stronger corners, IMO.

ck_IN
02-02-2005, 12:18 PM
What's the thought on moving Battle to safety?

He's a lost cause at CB. He's one of our CB/safety projects from Tenn where I think he played mostly safety. Perhaps we can still salvage that pick.

siberian khatru
02-02-2005, 12:19 PM
What's the thought on moving Battle to safety?

He's a lost cause at CB. He's one of our CB/safety projects from Tenn where I think he played mostly safety. Perhaps we can still salvage that pick.

That's the nice thing about our CBs. They've all got experience playing safety. :banghead:

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 12:22 PM
What's the thought on moving Battle to safety?

He's a lost cause at CB. He's one of our CB/safety projects from Tenn where I think he played mostly safety. Perhaps we can still salvage that pick.

Unless Gun has some magic powder, I think his confidence is shot; I also think he's someone who's tryin' to think too much....but isn't equipped. He should rely more on his physical skills and instincts, but seems to have forgotten how.... :banghead:

Hoover
02-02-2005, 12:23 PM
That's the nice thing about our CBs. They've all got experience playing safety. :banghead:
Sad but so true

PatriotofMaine
02-02-2005, 12:27 PM
This is the deepest year for quality safeties in a long time...perhaps ever. It would be a good idea to pick up at least one of these guys.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 12:27 PM
...Portis and Manning exposed our week safties in 2003. We just saw it in full force last year. We will see it again in 2005, if we maintain the status quo.

True. But I'm convinced the weakness Portis exposed our crappy LBs, and Manning exposed our crappy CBs....Safeties are SUPPOSE to be the last line of defense, NOT the first or second. Sometimes they'll wiff on a play like Wesley. However, going back over the film, I'd be willing to bet they wiffed much, much less than McCleon, Bartee, Barber, Mitchell, Beisel, Jones, and the other clowns we subbed in there.... :banghead:

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 12:28 PM
This is the deepest year for quality safeties in a long time...perhaps ever. It would be a good idea to pick up at least one of these guys.

I'd be okay with that in round 3 or 4....not one or two though. :mad:

cdcox
02-02-2005, 12:28 PM
Amnorix's argument is correct in many schemes--especially zone "D." With more man, you need stronger corners, IMO.

The point made in the Dan Pompei thread is that there is not a CB playing who can shut down an elite WR in man coverage. The trend is to go to zone coverages where having a great CB is not much benefit. Gun backed away from man coverage toward the end of the year because we just didn't have the guys to play it. I'm not convinced that those guys exist anymore. Safties are cheaper, there are more of them, and they can do more things.

One of the biggest problems with our defense is that they are not physical. Your S and LB are the guys that do that for you. We have zero phyisical guys in any of those positions.

Skip Towne
02-02-2005, 12:32 PM
That is true, thank you for the correction. However, he was a good safety toward the end of his career.
I don't remember him playing safety. The dude only weighed 180 lbs.

Hoover
02-02-2005, 12:38 PM
Do we know what Welbourn cost yet?

jspchief
02-02-2005, 12:38 PM
So if the safeties can't cover the pass because they are compensating for the run....

And the safeties can't cover the run because they are compensating for the pass...

Why are they invisible in both areas of the defense? it's not like "our pass D sucks, but at least we stop the run", or vice versa. These guys aren't good at anything. Why couldn't they figure out how to be in position to stop at least one part of opposing offenses? If they were getting burned on the pass from biting on play action, at what point to they tell themselves to back off the run D? Why were they invisible even in blatant pass situations? Why were teams able to break off 40+ yard runs if the safeties were playing the run? The over-worked arguement doesn't fly with me because they weren't "working" on anything.

How could they be good one year and not the next? I don't know. How could Hugh Douglas go from being a big money FA to cut? Maybe they've become lazy since their payday. Maybe age just hit hard and fast. Maybe they are mentally worn down from sucking perenially. I don't have that answer. I do know that a few years ago I'd have argued to anyone that we had one of the best safety tandems in the league. I also know I think it's the weakest spot on the field for us now.

If you want to know why NE could be effective against the pass with schmos in at CB, look no further than Harrison and Wilson.

KC's pass rush wasn't that bad. We were in the top ten in sacks. The problem was that our CBs were always in man coverage, even when they were supposed to be getting support from the safeties.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 12:39 PM
The point made in the Dan Pompei thread is that there is not a CB playing who can shut down an elite WR in man coverage. The trend is to go to zone coverages where having a great CB is not much benefit. Gun backed away from man coverage toward the end of the year because we just didn't have the guys to play it. I'm not convinced that those guys exist anymore. Safties are cheaper, there are more of them, and they can do more things.

One of the biggest problems with our defense is that they are not physical. Your S and LB are the guys that do that for you. We have zero phyisical guys in any of those positions.

I understand what you are saying, but damn....I hope you are wrong. I know man is used less than it use to be, but I'm gonna hate the NFL if you have to play zone all three downs! :mad:

I think the Patriots have certainly illustrated what you are saying, is true. IF that's the case then, I expect to see a lot more 4 and 5 reciever sets in the coming years. I'm hopin, I guess....that refs back off on the pass interference/illegal contact ticky-tack calls, and teams get back to playin' more physical out on the corners.

Perhaps it's too late for that though.... :shake:

Hoover
02-02-2005, 12:40 PM
I wish we could have CBs, that allow our Safites to play the run and short passes

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 12:40 PM
So if the safeties can't cover the pass because they are compensating for the run....

And the safeties can't cover the run because they are compensating for the pass...

Why are they invisible in both areas of the defense? it's not like "our pass D sucks, but at least we stop the run", or vice versa. These guys aren't good at anything. Why couldn't they figure out how to be in position to stop at least one part of opposing offenses? If they were getting burned on the pass from biting on play action, at what point to they tell themselves to back off the run D? Why were they invisible even in blatant pass situations? Why were teams able to break off 40+ yard runs if the safeties were playing the run? The over-worked arguement doesn't fly with me because they weren't "working" on anything.

How could they be good one year and not the next? I don't know. How could Hugh Douglas go from being a big money FA to cut? Maybe they've become lazy since their payday. Maybe age just hit hard and fast. Maybe they are mentally worn down from sucking perenially. I don't have that answer. I do know that a few years ago I'd have argued to anyone that we had one of the best safety tandems in the league. I also know I think it's the weakest spot on the field for us now.

If you want to know why NE could be effective against the pass with schmos in at CB, look no further than Harrison and Wilson.

KC's pass rush wasn't that bad. We were in the top ten in sacks. The problem was that our CBs were always in man coverage, even when they were supposed to be getting support from the safeties.

Excellent post.

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 12:41 PM
This is the deepest year for quality safeties in a long time...perhaps ever. It would be a good idea to pick up at least one of these guys.

That's why I'm not going to cry if we take one.

HC_Chief
02-02-2005, 12:45 PM
If you want to know why NE could be effective against the pass with schmos in at CB, look no further than Harrison and Wilson.

Bzzzt, wrong. Look no further than their front-seven. Their DL and LB corps puts ours to shame. They can apply pressure, stop the run, and every last one of them knows how to tackle.

We have a decent DL, and a SHIT LB corps.... absolutely atrocious LB play. I would kill to have a Bruschi and Ted Johnson on this roster.

Mr. Laz
02-02-2005, 12:46 PM
That's why I'm not going to cry if we take one.

if we draft a safety we better start cutting some of the million other safeties we have on the roster.


11 is enough

PatriotofMaine
02-02-2005, 12:49 PM
Look for a guy like Gerald Sensabaugh (NC) or Andre Maddox (NC State) in the 4th round, or an Aaron Fransisco (BYU), Sean Considine (Iowa) or Morgan Scalley (Utah) after that...

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 12:49 PM
...Why are they invisible in both areas of the defense? it's not like "our pass D sucks, but at least we stop the run", or vice versa.

....

If you want to know why NE could be effective against the pass with schmos in at CB, look no further than Harrison and Wilson.

KC's pass rush wasn't that bad. We were in the top ten in sacks. The problem was that our CBs were always in man coverage, even when they were supposed to be getting support from the safeties.

It's not that they are "invisible;" it's that they often "guess" wrong....or are fooled.

The reason NE is so effective is that two of those units (LB and S) are very strong; whereas with us, two of our units (LB and CB) are dreadful.

I don't pretend to know it all....but as someone who's coached (albeit at the HS level) if two of three of those units are bad....I don't care how good the other unit is, it's gonna look bad. If one unit is weak, but the other two strong....you can cover for that.

You are right, zone with exceptional safeties seems to be an emerging formula for success. But like anything, offenses are gonna look for a way to exploit that....with 4 and 5 reciever sets, for example. Then your CBs better be decent, or you are gonna really get your shorts lit up.

Physical CB play that is effective (perhaps it is no longer possible in the NFL--but I think it is still possible), can be the cornerstone to a good defense....but you also HAVE to have a strong LB corp. We don't, and it made our Pro-bowl safety tandem of 2003 look really, really bad.

JMHO. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 12:52 PM
Bzzzt, wrong. Look no further than their front-seven. Their DL and LB corps puts ours to shame. They can apply pressure, stop the run, and every last one of them knows how to tackle.

We have a decent DL, and a SHIT LB corps.... absolutely atrocious LB play. I would kill to have a Bruschi and Ted Johnson on this roster.

Excellent post. :thumb:

Brock
02-02-2005, 12:54 PM
I don't remember him playing safety. The dude only weighed 180 lbs.

He played at S for the Chargers and Falcons.

jspchief
02-02-2005, 12:55 PM
That's why I'm not going to cry if we take one.

The biggest reason I'm leaning that way is first day safeties have shown the ability to come in and start right away. Polamalu did, Reed did, Eugene Wilson, Archuleta...I could go on. There are more 1st and 2nd round Safeties that make an immediate impact than probably any other position on defense.

I still think we need a LB and a CB, and I'm willing to wait on DE.

Chances of finding an effective (as in, "this year") CB in the draft aren't that good. There hasn't been a CB taken in round one that had an immediate impact in at least 3 years.

I say get a CB and LB in free agency, then get a LB and Safety in the first two rounds of the draft. IMO, that gives us the best shot at getting the most new talent on the field.

Brock
02-02-2005, 12:57 PM
Bzzzt, wrong. Look no further than their front-seven. Their DL and LB corps puts ours to shame.

But so does their secondary, man for man.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 12:59 PM
Coaches?

Where do you put your BEST athletes on Defense? CB and LB

Where do you put your SMARTEST athletes? MLB or Safety

All our players at those postions, generally, suck. With people around them, Fujita and Warfield would be okay.

cdcox
02-02-2005, 01:00 PM
I say get a CB and LB in free agency, then get a LB and Safety in the first two rounds of the draft. IMO, that gives us the best shot at getting the most new talent on the field.

:thumb:

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 01:01 PM
....I say get a CB and LB in free agency, then get a LB and Safety in the first two rounds of the draft. IMO, that gives us the best shot at getting the most new talent on the field.

When you say it like that, we agree.

Coogs
02-02-2005, 01:02 PM
The biggest reason I'm leaning that way is first day safeties have shown the ability to come in and start right away. Polamalu did, Reed did, Eugene Wilson, Archuleta...I could go on. There are more 1st and 2nd round Safeties that make an immediate impact than probably any other position on defense.

I still think we need a LB and a CB, and I'm willing to wait on DE.

Chances of finding an effective (as in, "this year") CB in the draft aren't that good. There hasn't been a CB taken in round one that had an immediate impact in at least 3 years.

I say get a CB and LB in free agency, then get a LB and Safety in the first two rounds of the draft. IMO, that gives us the best shot at getting the most new talent on the field.

Polamalu did not start as a rookie...

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/396174/gamelogs/2003


...but I still wished he played for us right now.

jspchief
02-02-2005, 01:05 PM
It's not that they are "invisible;" it's that they often "guess" wrong....or are fooled.


Fair enough. All that determines it that they aren't smart enough to play in the NFL.

Every player guesses wrong on occasion. Hell, that's the whole point of the "safety"...to clean up when your LBs and CBs guess wrong. The problem was that these guys guessed wrong more often than right.

PatriotofMaine
02-02-2005, 01:08 PM
Get one of the guys I mentioned above in the middle rounds, and draft DL/LB higher up...All those guys are 2nd (or even late 1st) rounders in most years.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 01:11 PM
So if the safeties can't cover the pass because they are compensating for the run....

And the safeties can't cover the run because they are compensating for the pass...

Why are they invisible in both areas of the defense? it's not like "our pass D sucks, but at least we stop the run", or vice versa. These guys aren't good at anything. Why couldn't they figure out how to be in position to stop at least one part of opposing offenses? If they were getting burned on the pass from biting on play action, at what point to they tell themselves to back off the run D? Why were they invisible even in blatant pass situations? Why were teams able to break off 40+ yard runs if the safeties were playing the run? The over-worked arguement doesn't fly with me because they weren't "working" on anything.

How could they be good one year and not the next? I don't know. How could Hugh Douglas go from being a big money FA to cut? Maybe they've become lazy since their payday. Maybe age just hit hard and fast. Maybe they are mentally worn down from sucking perenially. I don't have that answer. I do know that a few years ago I'd have argued to anyone that we had one of the best safety tandems in the league. I also know I think it's the weakest spot on the field for us now.

If you want to know why NE could be effective against the pass with schmos in at CB, look no further than Harrison and Wilson.

KC's pass rush wasn't that bad. We were in the top ten in sacks. The problem was that our CBs were always in man coverage, even when they were supposed to be getting support from the safeties.

The point is if they do too much of both they will lack in all areas.

I don't know about you but I have rarely seen a team that was able to overcome the fact that their linebacking corp, interior line, strong side pass rush and cornerbacks all had problems so they just fixed them with safeties that played exceptionally well.

I am sorry but I am not buying the fact that solid play from two safeties (one basically being solid year in and year out) dropped off dramatically in one offseason therefore causing our entire defense to suck because "they got lazy", outside the fact that we had numerous injuries in the defense including the safety position pretty much all season long.

Douglas is hardly the same situation, you took a product of the system and picked him up and put him on a different team, different scheme, different coaches and surrounded by completely different players.

All I can say is I saw mistakes from almost every position out there.

It is not a safties job to stop the big play when they were brought up to blitz or support the run and a horrible corner is covering a receiver man to man.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 01:12 PM
Fair enough. All that determines it that they aren't smart enough to play in the NFL.

Every player guesses wrong on occasion. Hell, that's the whole point of the "safety"...to clean up when your LBs and CBs guess wrong. The problem was that these guys guessed wrong more often than right.

To go from "near ProBowl" to crap in ONE year??? :shrug:

chiefz
02-02-2005, 01:13 PM
Fair enough. All that determines it that they aren't smart enough to play in the NFL.

Every player guesses wrong on occasion. Hell, that's the whole point of the "safety"...to clean up when your LBs and CBs guess wrong. The problem was that these guys guessed wrong more often than right.

Well, the only time you can guess is when you play zone, or spy more often than not the scheme already had them brought up to far on the line to defend the run or had them blitzing. At that point in time it would be too damned late to make an adjustment downfield.

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 01:23 PM
To go from "near ProBowl" to crap in ONE year??? :shrug:

Woods made the Pro-Bowl because good fortune had him return two INT's for TD's in the same year.

He's struggled ever since Vermeil arrived.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 01:28 PM
Woods made the Pro-Bowl because good fortune had him return two INT's for TD's in the same year.

He's struggled ever since Vermeil arrived.

Thats not all true, all his numbers were good that season, the two TDs helped but he also had 76 tackles and 8 pass deflections to go with those 3 interceptions.

His overall numbers were as good as anyones.

As far as struggling, he has had one pro bowl season, been out one season on injury, had a decent first season with Vermiel and played last season (which I will agree he struggled in) with injury as well.

jspchief
02-02-2005, 01:31 PM
The point is if they do too much of both they will lack in all areas. So if it was causing failure in all areas, why didn't they concentrate on one? And it still doesn't explain their inability to play the pass even on blatant passing downs

I don't know about you but I have rarely seen a team that was able to overcome the fact that their linebacking corp, interior line, strong side pass rush and cornerbacks all had problems so they just fixed them with safeties that played exceptionally well.

Which is hardly what I'm suggesting. Read my posts. I said I believe we need to address many positions, and that safety is one place where a rookie might make an immediate impact.

I am sorry but I am not buying the fact that solid play from two safeties (one basically being solid year in and year out) dropped off dramatically in one offseason therefore causing our entire defense to suck because "they got lazy", outside the fact that we had numerous injuries in the defense including the safety position pretty much all season long.

Why is so hard to believe that these guys aren't good anymore? Look at McCleon in '04 vs '03. One big reason Woods and Wesley put up big numbers under Robinson is because his style of defense leads to that. If you don't think Woods was complete crap last year, I don't know what games you were watching.

It is not a safties job to stop the big play when they were brought up to blitz or support the run and a horrible corner is covering a receiver man to man.

Those are explanations for when the safety gets legitimately beat. Of course they'll be out of position when blitzing. And yes, the CB will be on an island sometimes. But these guys were out of position in routine zone coverage. They failed to support the run even when they played run. A perfect example is the Carolina game. 4th qtr, Carolina is trying to protect the lead, first play of the drive. KC didn't blitz. Deshaun Foster rips one up the middle for the biggest run of his career (71 yards) and he's in the clear five yards past the line of scrimmage. Both safeties over pursued on a weak counter move. They were nowhere near him.

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 01:32 PM
Thats not all true, all his numbers were good that season, the two TDs helped but he also had 76 tackles and 8 pass deflections to go with those 3 interceptions.

His overall numbers were as good as anyones.

As far as struggling, he has had one pro bowl season, been out one season on injury, had a decent first season with Vermiel and played last season (which I will agree he struggled in) with injury as well.

Sure, take a look at his stats in a vacuum and that's what you come up with.

Watch the games, and watch what Woods' position (or lack thereof) does to the rest of the defense.

He hasn't been "adequate" since about 1998.

Hoover
02-02-2005, 01:34 PM
IMO Woods has been lost ever since Toung leaft town.

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 01:36 PM
IMO Woods has been lost ever since Toung leaft town.

Bingo.

jspchief
02-02-2005, 01:40 PM
IMO Woods has been lost ever since Toung leaft town.

Amen.

cdcox
02-02-2005, 01:59 PM
I think everyone in the pro-safety group is advocating improvements at LB and CB too. We just think it is a mistake to assume that we are adequate at S.

Pittsburgh had a very good defense in 2002. But their safties were EXPOSED in the playoffs. They drafted Polamalu in the draft following that season to address the need.

Likewise, our safties have been exposed. We haven't had great play from them for a couple years now. (Woods made the Pro-Bowl based on a couple of INT returns for TD; otherwise his play wasn't that great in 2003). Many people questioned us resigning them after Manning demolished them in the playoffs. Looks like they were right. We would be foolish to pass up an opportunity to upgrade here.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 02:00 PM
So if it was causing failure in all areas, why didn't they concentrate on one? And it still doesn't explain their inability to play the pass even on blatant passing downs

Are you saying that the safties are the reason our passing game was so awful? Are you suggesting that if we had better safeties we would have given up less big plays on the weakside while damned near every corner on our team got beaten in man coverage?

I can't explain why Gunther would stretch the safeties so thin, he would have to answer that. The only explaination I can come up with is that he thought the corners would D up at some point.

I am also not saying that the safeties didn't blow some plays, god knows everyone did but I am saying that I feel they got a bad wrap considering the success they had in the past.

Which is hardly what I'm suggesting. Read my posts. I said I believe we need to address many positions, and that safety is one place where a rookie might make an immediate impact.

I don't disagree with the fact that a rookie can make a big impact at safety for the simple fact that it is not a premier skilled position. You hardly expect safties to cover number one receivers in man coverage nor blitz every down to try and sack the QB. They are there for EXACTLY what their name says "saftey".

The only thing I see wrong is the fact that I don't think the safeties are the problem, I think it is the linebackers, the gut and the weakside corner position.

Why is so hard to believe that these guys aren't good anymore? Look at McCleon in '04 vs '03. One big reason Woods and Wesley put up big numbers under Robinson is because his style of defense leads to that. If you don't think Woods was complete crap last year, I don't know what games you were watching.

Number one McCleon is so undersized at corner with the rule emphasis that he is totally ****ed now, if he can't make a play on the ball you will get a big gain period. McCleon is not big enough to bump a receiver at the line and give the rush enough time to get to the QB. This is Gunther style ball. The only reason he had as much success as he did in 2003 was because all of the zone that Robinson played, how many times did you see McCleon in man coverage when Robinson was here?

As far as Woods I cannot even believe that anyone in their right mind would say that Woods played like crap in 2003.

Those are explanations for when the safety gets legitimately beat. Of course they'll be out of position when blitzing. And yes, the CB will be on an island sometimes. But these guys were out of position in routine zone coverage. They failed to support the run even when they played run. A perfect example is the Carolina game. 4th qtr, Carolina is trying to protect the lead, first play of the drive. KC didn't blitz. Deshaun Foster rips one up the middle for the biggest run of his career (71 yards) and he's in the clear five yards past the line of scrimmage. Both safeties over pursued on a weak counter move. They were nowhere near him.

I believe you need to watch the highlight of that play AGAIN (see it on panthers.com) Wesley was right there are caught the big block off the fullback, Woods was just to his side and actually jumped for his feet and missed by a few inches because Foster blew by them so quick.

The problem was not the safeties or their position the problem was the fact that he ran through the LOS with a hole the size of a Mack truck, got up to full speed and two linebackers COMPLETELY missed laying a hand on him as well as McCleon tripping over his own two feet. The funny part is that Warfield was playing bump and run at the LOS the opposite direction Foster ended up running and ultimately he is the one that ended up running him down and tackling him.

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 02:00 PM
I think everyone in the pro-safety group is advocating improvements at LB and CB too. We just think it is a mistake to assume that we are adequate at S.

Exactly.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 02:02 PM
Sure, take a look at his stats in a vacuum and that's what you come up with.

Watch the games, and watch what Woods' position (or lack thereof) does to the rest of the defense.

He hasn't been "adequate" since about 1998.

With all due respect, how can a guy with that many interceptions, defended passes and tackles on a season be out of position?

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 02:04 PM
With all due respect, how can a guy with that many interceptions, defended passes and tackles on a season be out of position?

I remember AT LEAST 2 INT's Wesley had this year because he was HORRIBLY out of position and the ball was overthrown...

You need to watch the games. I've been saying this for going on 3 years - our safeties, and especially Jerome Woods - struggle playing "help" coverage...

Hoover
02-02-2005, 02:12 PM
If we can get new Starters to replace:

Hicks
Mitchell
Barber
Woods
CB#2

I'm all for it.

But we are looking at 2 Defensive FA starters if you ask me, the rest come from the draft, and who knows if they will be ready to start

chiefz
02-02-2005, 02:13 PM
I remember AT LEAST 2 INT's Wesley had this year because he was HORRIBLY out of position and the ball was overthrown...

You need to watch the games. I've been saying this for going on 3 years - our safeties, and especially Jerome Woods - struggle playing "help" coverage...


Again, with all due respect I do watch the games, I tape them, study them, hell I run a Chiefs site I am such a fanatic.

I have also had several debates on this subject here with people that swear one thing happened and then when I suggest they watch the tape or the replay they change their minds.

I am not saying they are perfect but with linebackers that could tackle and corners that can cover they can do their job just fine.

P.S. Many highlight plays are made by players being out of position, even the best.

Hoover
02-02-2005, 02:13 PM
I remember AT LEAST 2 INT's Wesley had this year because he was HORRIBLY out of position and the ball was overthrown...

You need to watch the games. I've been saying this for going on 3 years - our safeties, and especially Jerome Woods - struggle playing "help" coverage...
I agree, I think that why I would be all for bringing in a guy like Darious from Jacksonville to QB the backfield. but it would cost us our FA CB IMO

chiefz
02-02-2005, 02:15 PM
Just out of curiousity, does anyone think that Denvers safeties suck (Lynch and Kennedy)?

Anyone catch what Indy did to that pass defense when Herndon (their number 2) was moved to cover Stokely in the slot and put Roc Alexander on Reggie Wayne, even with safety help?

He got owned all day long.

Outside of this I am not going to continue this debate because it is a waste of time but if someone can come up with some real examples outside of "I know I seen it" I would be happy to watch the tape and discuss them.

shaneo69
02-02-2005, 02:20 PM
After Cherry and Burruss retired after the '91 season, we used a lot of no-name players at Safety, and a couple old CB's in Collins and Ross. But we remained a top defensive unit despite using guys like Doug Terry, Charles Mincy, David Whitmore, William White, and Brian Washington, because we had playmakers at other positions. While I believe Woods' Chiefs career should come to an immediate end, I think Wesley, Harts, and Pile can be better than most of those previous guys, and I think Bartee and Connot could even develop at this position. I wouldn't take any safeties in this draft, even after cutting Woods loose.

Brock
02-02-2005, 02:24 PM
I agree, I think that why I would be all for bringing in a guy like Darious from Jacksonville to QB the backfield. but it would cost us our FA CB IMO

I don't see why it would. Safeties are far from being as expensive as corners.

jspchief
02-02-2005, 02:26 PM
Just out of curiousity, does anyone think that Denvers safeties suck (Lynch and Kennedy)?

Anyone catch what Indy did to that pass defense when Herndon (their number 2) was moved to cover Stokely in the slot and put Roc Alexander on Reggie Wayne, even with safety help?

He got owned all day long.

Outside of this I am not going to continue this debate because it is a waste of time but if someone can come up with some real examples outside of "I know I seen it" I would be happy to watch the tape and discuss them.

No one is claiming the safeties are solely to blame, nor are they claiming new safeties will fix everything. What part of that don't you understand?

As far as whether or not our safeties played like sh*t in '04, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You can blame it on Gunther, and you can blame it on our other sh*tty players, but I still know those guys were worthless.

cdcox
02-02-2005, 02:28 PM
After Cherry and Burruss retired after the '91 season, we used a lot of no-name players at Safety, and a couple old CB's in Collins and Ross. But we remained a top defensive unit despite using guys like Doug Terry, Charles Mincy, David Whitmore, William White, and Brian Washington, because we had playmakers at other positions. While I believe Woods' Chiefs career should come to an immediate end, I think Wesley, Harts, and Pile can be better than most of those previous guys, and I think Bartee and Connot could even develop at this position. I wouldn't take any safeties in this draft, even after cutting Woods loose.

The point is that we do not have any playmakers like DT, Neil Smith, Donnie Edwards and Dale Carter to pair with our maybe adequate S. We need to consider any and all places where we can get some better players. Safety is one of the easiest places to find a difference maker.

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 02:34 PM
chiefz is obviously far more qualified than the rest of us, and he says Woods is a Pro-Bowler...

beer bacon
02-02-2005, 02:35 PM
Chris Hope should have gone to the Pro Bowl.

shaneo69
02-02-2005, 02:38 PM
As far as whether or not our safeties played like sh*t in '04, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You can blame it on Gunther, and you can blame it on our other sh*tty players, but I still know those guys were worthless.

I think Wesley, Harts, and Pile underachieved because of the LB's and CB's. I don't know how many big plays you remember from our defense in '04, but two that stick out to me are Wesley's INT of Manning in the endzone to clinch that victory, and Wesley hustling his ass off to catch Tatum Bell and knock the ball out of his hands out of the endzone for a touchback. That play against Denver cemented Wesley's status with the team as far as I was concerned.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 02:41 PM
No one is claiming the safeties are solely to blame, nor are they claiming new safeties will fix everything. What part of that don't you understand?

As far as whether or not our safeties played like sh*t in '04, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You can blame it on Gunther, and you can blame it on our other sh*tty players, but I still know those guys were worthless.

I don't know of to many players on defense that did play well in 04 outside of Dalton, Allen and Warfield.

I don't "blame" their shitty play on anything outside of trying to do to much. If they are blitzing or pushed up to play run support and out of position to make a play on a receiver then it is certainly not their fault.

Your entire basis here is that the safeties where always "invisable" when the big runs where happening and the corners were getting burned and that better safeties would make a difference.

My point is that you could take one of the best safeties in the league and put them in the same position and they wouldn't do as well.

Half the guys you mentioned are coming from top flight defenses surrounded by great players.

You honestly think that Ed Reed would have been the player he was last season on the Chiefs defensive squad?

It would be great to replace the biggedefense with great players but the fact of the matter is it just ain't going to happen.

I simply stated that I think our safeties are capable of playing better than they did last season based on their performance in the past, you are the one that decided to disect my post.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 02:43 PM
chiefz is obviously far more qualified than the rest of us, and he says Woods is a Pro-Bowler...

Are you kidding me, don't try to put words into my posts or turn this into Chiefz versus the world.

All I said about Woods and the Pro Bowl is that he deserved to go with the numbers he had in 2003.

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 02:44 PM
Are you kidding me, don't try to put words into my posts or turn this into Chiefz versus the world.

All I said about Woods and the Pro Bowl is that he deserved to go with the numbers he had in 2003.

Numbers don't mean shit, and the Pro Bowl is a popularity contest.

Woods has been a weakness on this team since Vermeil got here. If the search function worked, I'd show you just how well I've documented it.

shaneo69
02-02-2005, 02:46 PM
Chiefz, you anywhere near Bloomington-Normal? I went to college at ISU but haven't been back there in awhile.

Claynus
02-02-2005, 02:47 PM
chiefz is obviously far more qualified than the rest of us, and he says Woods is a Pro-Bowler...

Don't forget CASHMAN

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 02:47 PM
chiefz is obviously far more qualified than the rest of us, and he says Woods is a Pro-Bowler...

Reasonable people can disagree, can't we?

....just like you guys aren't sayin' safeties will solve all the problems, I don't think he's saying Woods play didn't drop off in 2004--it did. But both Wesley and Woods in the same year? Weak CBs and horrendous LBs are the more likely culprit, IMO.

Say we can pick up three "impact" players....which would do more to improve our defense? IMO, improvement at CB, LB, and DE would help us the most. Safety's shouldn't be asked to bail-out the LB and CB on every other play....but that's what ours are asked to do, it seems to me.

Think about it: why are CBs paid so much better than Safeties, IF being a Safety is "more important"?

Claynus
02-02-2005, 02:48 PM
If the search function worked, I'd show you just how well I've documented it.

It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.... :D

Claynus
02-02-2005, 02:49 PM
But both Wesley and Woods in the same year?

Wesley picked off 4 passes and forced 4 fumbles; how many turnovers did Woods force? Did he have even one?

chiefz
02-02-2005, 02:49 PM
Numbers don't mean shit, and the Pro Bowl is a popularity contest.

Woods has been a weakness on this team since Vermeil got here. If the search function worked, I'd show you just how well I've documented it.

Oh I see,

Statistics mean shit and you are the final authority.

Well then, I don't know why I bothered at all.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 02:50 PM
Chiefz, you anywhere near Bloomington-Normal? I went to college at ISU but haven't been back there in awhile.
About 100 miles.

Spicy McHaggis
02-02-2005, 02:51 PM
Don't know if this has been brought up yet but what do you think about moving Battle back to safety? IMO its what we should have done with Bartee a long time ago but its a way too late to save him now. Perhaps he would thrive in the new role or at least take some steps forward.

Mr. Kotter
02-02-2005, 02:52 PM
Wesley picked off 4 passes and forced 4 fumbles; how many turnovers did Woods force? Did he have even one?

He sat out HOW MANY games, injured? :shrug:

chiefz
02-02-2005, 02:55 PM
He sat out HOW MANY games, injured? :shrug:

Yes, he forced one fumble.

He sat out 6 games.

shaneo69
02-02-2005, 02:58 PM
Don't know if this has been brought up yet but what do you think about moving Battle back to safety? IMO its what we should have done with Bartee a long time ago but its a way too late to save him now. Perhaps he would thrive in the new role or at least take some steps forward.

I would cut Battle immediately. At least you see flashes from Bartee occasionally in the nickle or on special teams. Battle has given us nothing. He has no heart. And then in the rare instance that the guy he's covering drops the pass, Battle gets in his face and starts trash-talking. He had a great chance to become a starter either last year or this year, and he's done nothing to improve. The guy is not an NFL football player at any position, IMO.

jspchief
02-02-2005, 03:00 PM
Your entire basis here is that the safeties where always "invisable" when the big runs where happening and the corners were getting burned and that better safeties would make a difference.


My point was that I believe safety is a position that also needs to be addressed, and that it's one of the better positions to try and get an immediate upgrade for from the draft. I also pointed out that most of the top defenses have a common element of good play from their safeties (among other things).

And Yes. I do think Reed would have played better than Woods or Wesley. I never claimed he would turn last years defense into the steel curtain.

IMO the most we can hope for is 4-5 new players on D, 4 is probably wishful thinking. It's also my opinion that we aren't likely to get more than 2 of those new players from free agency. That means we need to hope for 2 players from the draft. If we draft a corner, chances are he'll be a nickle, or get burned a lot if he starts. I personally think our D line could remain the same, If we get improved play from Siavii and Allen, and Dalton stays on the same pace, then I can live with Hicks as the weak link this year (very few teams have two effective rushing DEs). So it comes down to getting a LB and CB from free agency, then we take a LB in the first, and a safety in the second. It's an approach to our D that hardly puts all the emphasis on the safety position.

The only point we disagree on is whether or not Woods and Wesley (to a lesser degree) are good enough to remain starters. the rest of this is just you reading more into what I'm saying than is actually there.

Hoover
02-02-2005, 03:01 PM
Oh I see,

Statistics mean shit and you are the final authority.

Well then, I don't know why I bothered at all.
Woods had good numbers but was on a shit D, there was no way he should have been a Pro Bowl DB. If he didn't have those 2 TDs he would not have been there.

chiefz
02-02-2005, 03:03 PM
Woods had good numbers but was on a shit D, there was no way he should have been a Pro Bowl DB. If he didn't have those 2 TDs he would not have been there.

Pro bowl is about individual effort, are you saying that those numbers did not express enough individual effort when they were better than most?

HC_Chief
02-02-2005, 03:10 PM
Pro bowl is about individual effort, are you saying that those numbers did not express enough individual effort when they were better than most?

Pro Bowl = popularity contest, and nothing more.

Bowser
02-02-2005, 03:21 PM
I would cut Battle immediately. At least you see flashes from Bartee occasionally in the nickle or on special teams. Battle has given us nothing. He has no heart. And then in the rare instance that the guy he's covering drops the pass, Battle gets in his face and starts trash-talking. He had a great chance to become a starter either last year or this year, and he's done nothing to improve. The guy is not an NFL football player at any position, IMO.

I wouldn't go that far. Julian Battle is waay out of position at corner. I will never understand why our scouts think they can turn these college safeties into NFL corners. I bet you would see a whole new player in Battle if he were allowed to play centerfield and see the whole field, rather than try to play man on a receiver. And Bartee can take his "flashes" and cram it. This is going to be his sixth season in the NFL, and as a second round draft pick, he has exactly ZERO interceptions. How the hell do you play corner for five seasons, and not even come up with a trash INT? That takes effort. Benny Sapp, and undrafted rookie, has more picks in his career than Bartee does. Now, I will say Bartee is above average on special teams, so there is where his value is, not at corner. Hell, take him and move him to linebacker like Marty did with Martin Bayless, and get somebody in here who can handle playing the nickle or dime back.

As far as safety goes, Woods looks like he lost two steps last year. I'm not sure if it's complacency, or if he had an injury that wasn't widely known. I say put Battle at free safety and keep Wesley at strong.

shaneo69
02-02-2005, 03:48 PM
I wouldn't go that far. Julian Battle is waay out of position at corner. I will never understand why our scouts think they can turn these college safeties into NFL corners. I bet you would see a whole new player in Battle if he were allowed to play centerfield and see the whole field, rather than try to play man on a receiver. And Bartee can take his "flashes" and cram it. This is going to be his sixth season in the NFL, and as a second round draft pick, he has exactly ZERO interceptions. How the hell do you play corner for five seasons, and not even come up with a trash INT? That takes effort. Benny Sapp, and undrafted rookie, has more picks in his career than Bartee does. Now, I will say Bartee is above average on special teams, so there is where his value is, not at corner. Hell, take him and move him to linebacker like Marty did with Martin Bayless, and get somebody in here who can handle playing the nickle or dime back.

I don't care that Battle is supposedly miscast at CB. Bartee has shown enough effort to at least be a starter off-and-on for five years. I don't want him at CB, but I could live with him as backup safety. Battle showed enough effort to be demoted behind an undrafted rookie free agent and not even suit up for games. If he really wanted to play, he would've pulled an LJ and complained about being stuck behind Burntee, McPasson, and the rookie. But I guess he was happy stealing a paycheck without having to actually set foot on the field.

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 03:52 PM
Oh I see,

Statistics mean shit and you are the final authority.

Well then, I don't know why I bothered at all.

Actually, that's not what I'm saying.

But because the search function is not available I can't go back and show all of the evidence I've gathered over the last 3 years that shows that Woods is ineffective and Wesley is adequate at best.

Honestly, I think Wesley will be fine if he'd get back that fire he had before. For whatever reason, he seems less willing to hit than he did early in his career. Maybe pussy Vermeil got to him...

Bowser
02-02-2005, 03:54 PM
Actually, that's not what I'm saying.

But because the search function is not available I can't go back and show all of the evidence I've gathered over the last 3 years that shows that Woods is ineffective and Wesley is adequate at best.

Honestly, I think Wesley will be fine if he'd get back that fire he had before. For whatever reason, he seems less willing to hit than he did early in his career. Maybe pussy Vermeil got to him...

Wesley looked like he was coming on the last third of the season. I just hope he can hold on and improve on that.

"Vermeilitis"?

Claynus
02-02-2005, 03:56 PM
He sat out HOW MANY games, injured? :shrug:

I dunno....he certainly didn't do anything while he wasn't hurt, though, and he played what, 10 or 11 games?

Claynus
02-02-2005, 03:58 PM
Honestly, I think Wesley will be fine if he'd get back that fire he had before. For whatever reason, he seems less willing to hit than he did early in his career. Maybe pussy Vermeil got to him...

That's exactly what I think. Early in his career Wesley was a prototypical Steve Atwater-type strong safety. He and Woods used to play bumper cars with wide receivers going over the middle...

Bowser
02-02-2005, 04:00 PM
That's exactly what I think. Early in his career Wesley was a prototypical Steve Atwater-type strong safety. He and Woods used to play bumper cars with wide receivers going over the middle...

Opporative words being "used to".

Woods just looked like he had nothing in the tank all year. I haven't given up on Wesley just yet.

htismaqe
02-02-2005, 04:01 PM
FYI, I've also gone on record saying that I think Woods is a better CB than S. He does better locking onto a slot WR in man than having to help out over the top or cover a zone.

It's no coincidence that his "Pro Bowl" season last year saw him lined up at nickel CB for the first quarter of the season. In fact, both of his TD return INT's were from the nickel, not the FS position.

Bowser
02-02-2005, 04:04 PM
FYI, I've also gone on record saying that I think Woods is a better CB than S. He does better locking onto a slot WR in man than having to help out over the top or cover a zone.

It's no coincidence that his "Pro Bowl" season last year saw him lined up at nickel CB for the first quarter of the season. In fact, both of his TD return INT's were from the nickel, not the FS position.

I agree with that. In 2003, before our D took a dump, Woods would cover the slot, and Harts would be at free safety. I think they did this due to injuries at CB, but it worked amazingly well. They went away from it in the second half of the season, and the rest is history.

cdcox
02-02-2005, 07:37 PM
FYI, I've also gone on record saying that I think Woods is a better CB than S. He does better locking onto a slot WR in man than having to help out over the top or cover a zone.

It's no coincidence that his "Pro Bowl" season last year saw him lined up at nickel CB for the first quarter of the season. In fact, both of his TD return INT's were from the nickel, not the FS position.

Yes, I was going to say the exact same thing about Woods 2003 stats being due to his play at corner, but then started getting confused if it was Woods or Wesley that played nickle during the first part of that season.

Skip Towne
02-02-2005, 09:49 PM
He played at S for the Chargers and Falcons.
I checked the '94 Falcons roster and he's listed as a CB. Same thing on the '95 and '96 Chargers roster. Not to start a fight but Ross was far too small to play safety.

htismaqe
02-03-2005, 04:46 AM
I checked the '94 Falcons roster and he's listed as a CB. Same thing on the '95 and '96 Chargers roster. Not to start a fight but Ross was far too small to play safety.

Maybe it was Albert Lewis? I know one of them played some safety after leaving here...

Skip Towne
02-03-2005, 04:53 AM
Maybe it was Albert Lewis? I know one of them played some safety after leaving here...
Very possibly.