PDA

View Full Version : A look at the top NFL safeties over the last 3 years...


Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 06:38 AM
After the Chiefs signing of "The Red Knight" and waging verbal war with Donk fans over it for an hour last night, I decided to do a little research.

NFL Safeties with 15 or more turnovers in the last three years

1. Ed Reed - 28
2. Tony Parrish - 23
3. Greg Wesley - 21
4. Darren Sharper - 20
5. Sammy Knight - 18
6. Dwight Smith - 17
7. Roy Williams - 15

Right off the bat, that's some damn fined company. But Sammy Knight is not a top 10 safety, right?

Now, lets take that list, and organize it by total number of tackles:

Three-year tackle totals of five premiere NFL safeties plus Sammy Knight and Greg Wesley

1. Sammy Knight - 298
2. Roy Williams - 265
3. Tony Parrish - 236
4. Greg Wesley - 234
5. Ed Reed - 232
6. Darren Sharper - 220
7. Dwight Smith - 197

Again, the results indicate that's some damn fined company. In fact, over the last three seasons, Sammy Knight has recorded more tackles than any safety in the NFL, save Rodney Harrison, who has 350 in that time span. But Sammy Knight is not a top 10 safety, right?

So, to sum up, Sammy Knight records 18 turnovers in the last three years, ranking him fifth among ALL NFL safeties. He also records 298 tackles, ranking him second only to Rodney Harrison, and blowing away the competition amongst his "ballhawk" peers. But despite this, we are expected to believe he is not a top 10 NFL safety?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit that not only have the Chiefs signed a top 10 safety in Sammy Knight, who will provide top notch run support and force turnovers, but, in fact, they ALSO have another one ALREADY ON THE ROSTER in one Greg Wesley!

Finally, it appears the Chiefs also have the top safety in their own division! Here are the three-year stat totals of the other "leading" safeties in the AFC West:

1. John Lynch: 200 tackles, 9 turnovers.
2. Jerry Wilson: 164 tackles, 8 turnovers
3. Marques Anderson: 208 tackles, 7 turnovers

The defense rests.

Pants
03-11-2005, 06:42 AM
Dude, you just put a big shit-eating grin on my face. I will go off to class smiling like a retard dreaming of the next season. Rep.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 06:45 AM
The Red Knight aaaalways triumphs!

Kris Kringle
03-11-2005, 06:46 AM
Cool. :thumb: I didn't know anything about him until now.

ChiefGator
03-11-2005, 06:53 AM
Nice job scrounging up the stats.

You really should place Rodney Harrison on the list of tackles though. He is considered a premier safety and it looks like you are saying Knight is first in tackles.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 07:09 AM
http://img139.exs.cx/img139/8070/28040594rk.jpghttp://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=10861&stc=1

NY CHIEF
03-11-2005, 07:22 AM
Great job,looks like a great pick up :clap:

Coach
03-11-2005, 07:24 AM
gochiefs, that's some good work you did.

Don't mind if I can use the stats as well?

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 07:27 AM
gochiefs, that's some good work you did.

Don't mind if I can use the stats as well?

Use whatever you like...just don't steal my pic for an avatar or sig. :D

InChiefsHell
03-11-2005, 07:40 AM
That's good stuff man!! Thanks for the stats. I had no idea we had such a good safety in Wesley...now with Knight there it should be quite the tandem!

ct
03-11-2005, 07:43 AM
So if Sammy Knight is a former Pro Bowler, who plays Strong Safety, yet Wesley is our prior SS, who as you illustrate is also top 10, why is this such a great tandem? We ain't gonna play 2 SS, so Wesley is the odd man out here.

HemiEd
03-11-2005, 07:46 AM
Great info, nice job! :thumb:

carlos3652
03-11-2005, 07:53 AM
Wesley must have been awsome his 2 seasons before last!!! Is he one of the the players resigned last year before the start of the season, because if thats true you can see where Carl got the info...

I think either we will move one of them to FS, I dont want to see sammy as a CB or Wesley as backup... Woods has some work to do...

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 07:54 AM
So if Sammy Knight is a former Pro Bowler, who plays Strong Safety, yet Wesley is our prior SS, who as you illustrate is also top 10, why is this such a great tandem? We ain't gonna play 2 SS, so Wesley is the odd man out here.

Yep, I wonder how much everyone here is going to like this signing when Wesley is demoted to backup, and the starters are Woods and Knight. We'll have the slowest safety tandem in the league.

But hey, we signed somebody!!

siberian khatru
03-11-2005, 07:57 AM
http://img139.exs.cx/img139/8070/28040594rk.jpghttp://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=10861&stc=1

You're still a freak :p , but that's a nice job there. :thumb:

Cochise
03-11-2005, 07:58 AM
I wonder what number he'll get... 24 is taken and he wore 29 with the Aints, but that's taken too according to the Chiefs website. May have to adjust your photoshop goatcheese.

Rausch
03-11-2005, 08:00 AM
You're still a freak :p , but that's a nice job there. :thumb:

He looks like he's pinching his nipple, and really liking it...

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 08:00 AM
You're still a freak :p , but that's a nice job there. :thumb:

Doing Bell right now.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 08:05 AM
He looks like he's pinching his nipple, and really liking it...

In hindsight I should have chosen this image:

http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/51883477.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DE7F9CD95D11365232AF02CBF87378C81F621B2AC3A62513D3

Ralphy Boy
03-11-2005, 08:10 AM
Wesley must have been awsome his 2 seasons before last!!! Is he one of the the players resigned last year before the start of the season, because if thats true you can see where Carl got the info...

I think either we will move one of them to FS, I dont want to see sammy as a CB or Wesley as backup... Woods has some work to do...


Nice job covering up your ignorance, but I did see that you said Harrison was a CB and that was why you thought he wasn't on the list.

Manila-Chief
03-11-2005, 08:20 AM
Great job, GoChiefs!!! You done good.

Nothing like facts to confuse the debate!!!!

I'll trust Gun to sort out who plays where and when. I just celebrate the fact that Gun now has valid choices to be made at S.

Now, if Gun will just get him an impact C.B. ... doubt if he would have too many tough decisions to make regarding who to start at C.B. in that case.

Nightfyre
03-11-2005, 08:36 AM
Wesley must have been awsome his 2 seasons before last!!! Is he one of the the players resigned last year before the start of the season, because if thats true you can see where Carl got the info...

I think either we will move one of them to FS, I dont want to see sammy as a CB or Wesley as backup... Woods has some work to do...
Knight has seen some action at FS already. I still think Wesley would make a good free safety as well. Bottom Line: You will see them both starting together at safety.

Brando
03-11-2005, 08:38 AM
I'm always quick to criticize you boy. Let me say congrats on some nice work this time.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 08:48 AM
Who cares? In a pressure-oriented defense the saftey is the least important position. You have to have good COVER CORNERS first, then consistent pass-rushing DEFENSIVE ENDS, LBs who can TACKLE and occassionally BLITZ - sometimes ZONE COVER, DTs who can consistently DISRUPT BLOCKING and get a hand up in front of the QB - force the pass, <i>then</i> safeties who can help corners or come on the occassional blitz, or aid in run-support. It's a UTILITY ROLE. To make it a priority above corner is stupid and assinine - especially when you already have a dozen safeties on your active roster. :grr:

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 09:03 AM
Who cares? In a pressure-oriented defense the saftey is the least important position. You have to have good COVER CORNERS first, then consistent pass-rushing DEFENSIVE ENDS, LBs who can TACKLE and occassionally BLITZ - sometimes ZONE COVER, DTs who can consistently DISRUPT BLOCKING and get a hand up in front of the QB - force the pass, <i>then</i> safeties who can help corners or come on the occassional blitz, or aid in run-support. It's a UTILITY ROLE. To make it a priority above corner is stupid and assinine - especially when you already have a dozen safeties on your active roster. :grr:

I agree. If we got Sammy for the vet's minimum, I'll take him. But if we had to use any of our precious sal cap space on another freakin' safety, it will be pretty disappointing.

Knight would be great in a defense that has a great pass rush. Because he's so smart, he could sit back and pick off all the errant throws that QB's make when they're hurried. But without a pass rush, you really need a safety that can help out the CB's, and I'm not sure Sammy is quick enough to do that.

Chan93lx50
03-11-2005, 09:05 AM
Yeah Go chiefs Knight does suck, we are DOOOOOOMED

Good job posting the stats, rep!

Chan93lx50
03-11-2005, 09:07 AM
Anybody think Knight will be a CB by season's end LOL

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 09:07 AM
Knight has seen some action at FS already. I still think Wesley would make a good free safety as well. Bottom Line: You will see them both starting together at safety.

I think the safety position is a bit like wide receivers. Doesn't really matter where they line up. Traditionally the FS is there for coverage and the SS for run support but, meh. Mix it up.

Iowanian
03-11-2005, 09:09 AM
More work like This, and you'd be a very popular poster meatpeeker.

Nice job. I admit to not being very excited about the signing, assuming Woods is gone June1....but this info puts it in a bit better light.

Pants
03-11-2005, 09:11 AM
Anybody think Knight will be a CB by season's end LOL

No, he'll be a SS and Wesley will be a FS. BTW, (this is mostly for Stinger) Wesley was ranked 92 in ESPN 2K4.

chiefs4me
03-11-2005, 09:12 AM
Well I kind of like Darren Sharper....and the pack doesn't want him anymore. He is only 29.......

C-Mac
03-11-2005, 09:14 AM
It would be interesting to know the stat\ per plays also, but I would bet that the defenses that Knight played for, were on the field less plays.
:thumb:

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 09:16 AM
Knight would be great in a defense that has a great pass rush. Because he's so smart, he could sit back and pick off all the errant throws that QB's make when they're hurried. But without a pass rush, you really need a safety that can help out the CB's, and I'm not sure Sammy is quick enough to do that.

Yeah, having a couple of solid vet DTs like Bowens and Zgonina up front, with a legit MLB in Zach Thomas and a TRUE pass-rushing DE like Jason Taylor didn't hurt. Neither did having outside coverage applied by the likes of SAM MADISON and PATRICK SURTAIN.

Nah, it's all the safeties... :rolleyes:

PHOG
03-11-2005, 09:17 AM
Nice job, GC.

According to the stats you provided, it looks as if they have 2 TOP 5 safeties... :)

Now, GET A DAMN CB, CARL! :cuss: :banghead:

Iowanian
03-11-2005, 09:21 AM
HC,

I don't think I've seen anyone saying that Signing Knight is going to save the Chiefs. I agree that a pass rush, pressure by the DTs, improved LB play(Bell should help...I'm still holding out hope for Hartwell)........and cover corners is important.

I still think the Chiefs sign a Corner, and Draft Corner or LB in Round 1.

I'm not a carl supporter, but he does pull a rabbit out of the hat a couple of times per decade. I can see a "taa Daaaa" followed by Law or Surtain.

siberian khatru
03-11-2005, 09:24 AM
How many rep points has gochiefs gained on this thread?

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 09:26 AM
I think Knight is a big upgrade over Woods. It's clear to me that they targeted Knights instead of Sharper because they wanted a safety that would kick some ass in run support. We won't be seeing any long runs next year.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 09:27 AM
HC,

I don't think I've seen anyone saying that Signing Knight is going to save the Chiefs. I agree that a pass rush, pressure by the DTs, improved LB play(Bell should help...I'm still holding out hope for Hartwell)........and cover corners is important.

I still think the Chiefs sign a Corner, and Draft Corner or LB in Round 1.

I'm not a carl supporter, but he does pull a rabbit out of the hat a couple of times per decade. I can see a "taa Daaaa" followed by Law or Surtain.

I am just pissed that we spent FA money on safety... I don't care who it was. Knight is a fine player, but he is at a position of MUCH lesser need. We still need a couple of corners, another LB, a DE, hell, even another DT before we needed to add a safety. I just see it as more stupidity from the people who brought you the 32 _efense

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 09:27 AM
How many rep points has gochiefs gained on this thread?

2,000 or so, LOL. Between this and my animated gifs of the Chiefs new players in Madden, it's been a boon for rep the last few days. ROFL

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 09:32 AM
I am just pissed that we spent FA money on safety... I don't care who it was. Knight is a fine player, but he is at a position of MUCH lesser need. We still need a couple of corners, another LB, a DE, hell, even another DT before we needed to add a safety. I just see it as more stupidity from the people who brought you the 32 _efense

Dude, did you see Woods play last year? He sucked repeatedly. As bad as Bartee or McCleon ever did. Hell, Bartee and McCleon made more plays INDIVIDUALLY than Woods did.

WilliamTheIrish
03-11-2005, 09:32 AM
Who cares? In a pressure-oriented defense the saftey is the least important position. You have to have good COVER CORNERS first, then consistent pass-rushing DEFENSIVE ENDS, LBs who can TACKLE and occassionally BLITZ - sometimes ZONE COVER, DTs who can consistently DISRUPT BLOCKING and get a hand up in front of the QB - force the pass, <i>then</i> safeties who can help corners or come on the occassional blitz, or aid in run-support. It's a UTILITY ROLE. To make it a priority above corner is stupid and assinine - especially when you already have a dozen safeties on your active roster. :grr:

My first thought on this signing:

"Are we gonna make him a corner now?"

I can't believe we signed a(nother) Safety.

the Talking Can
03-11-2005, 09:35 AM
My first thought on this signing:

"Are we gonna make him a corner now?"

I can't believe we signed a(nother) Safety.

You mean it doesn't make sense to you to have $50 million tied up in safties?

You're not a true-fan.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 09:36 AM
Nice job, GC.

According to the stats you provided, it looks as if they have 2 TOP 5 safeties... :)

Now, GET A DAMN CB, CARL! :cuss: :banghead:

Wesley's too inconsistent to be a top safety...he's like the Jake Plummer of safeties. A big play one moment, a bonehead play the next.

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 09:43 AM
I think Knight is a big upgrade over Woods. It's clear to me that they targeted Knights instead of Sharper because they wanted a safety that would kick some ass in run support. We won't be seeing any long runs next year.

You don't think Sharper's good in run support? :rolleyes:

PHOG
03-11-2005, 09:49 AM
Wesley's too inconsistent to be a top safety...he's like the Jake Plummer of safeties. A big play one moment, a bonehead play the next.
True, but I really don't think it's going to matter who is playing safety, if'n we don't sign a starting CB.

Don't like the prospect of starting a 1st rounder opposite Warfield (plus the games Warfield is going to miss), it could really be ugly. JMO

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 09:51 AM
You don't think Sharper's good in run support? :rolleyes:

Sharper's not AS GOOD as Knight. Look at the tackles, hell, look at the straight up defensive rankings. Green Bay's D has sucked baows the last few years.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 09:51 AM
True, but I really don't think it's going to matter who is playing safety, if'n we don't sign a starting CB.

Don't like the prospect of starting a 1st rounder opposite Warfield (plus the games Warfield is going to miss), it could really be ugly. JMO

Our FO isn't that stupid.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 09:53 AM
Sharper's not AS GOOD as Knight. Look at the tackles, hell, look at the straight up defensive rankings. Green Bay's D has sucked baows the last few years.

Stats really <i>are</i> for losers.

PHOG
03-11-2005, 09:55 AM
Our FO isn't that stupid.

This is the same FO that has tried :Bartee: at CB for how long? :rolleyes:

shaneo69
03-11-2005, 10:00 AM
Sharper's not AS GOOD as Knight. Look at the tackles, hell, look at the straight up defensive rankings. Green Bay's D has sucked baows the last few years.

Knight was probably the 4th best safety available behind Sharper, Dwight Smith, and Kenoy Kennedy.

Sharper or Smith would've been better options since they are FS. Smith would've been the best option because he's 26, only ended up with a $3.5 mil signing bonus, and could've played CB while/if Warfield serves a suspension.

But hey, we signed somebody!!

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 10:01 AM
But hey, we signed somebody!!
Yeah!
Now let's sign a FB to placate the masses further! They're relatively cheap... and maybe we can convert them to a position requiring greater skill, but typically costs more money if we were to acquire an <i>actual</i> position player!! :thumb:

Iowanian
03-11-2005, 10:05 AM
Contrary to popular opinion...the Chiefs DO need a FB. I think thats a UFA after the draft though, because Omar Easy isn't going to get it done.

I'm all for signing a starting corner, and drafting another.........what a wonderful problem to have, if they were forced to bench a first round corner or Warfield.....and cut some dead weight.

I think that Any signing, that improves a position, is in the over all best interest of the Chiefs and Defense. An upgrade at Any position helps.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 10:05 AM
Knight was probably the 4th best safety available behind Sharper, Dwight Smith, and Kenoy Kennedy.

Sharper or Smith would've been better options since they are FS. Smith would've been the best option because he's 26, only ended up with a $3.5 mil signing bonus, and could've played CB while/if Warfield serves a suspension.

But hey, we signed somebody!!

Kenoy Kennedy? No way.

I agree that Sharper and Smith were better options as free safeties, but I think the Chiefs want to try Wesley at FS. The dude has picked off 16 passes in 3 years, so he's got the skillz.

Here's Bell. Not as good as my Red Knight photoshop but, eh:

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 10:06 AM
Contrary to popular opinion...the Chiefs DO need a FB. I think thats a UFA after the draft though, because Omar Easy isn't going to get it done.

I'm all for signing a starting corner, and drafting another.........what a wonderful problem to have, if they were forced to bench a first round corner or Warfield.....and cut some dead weight.

I think that Any signing, that improves a position, is in the over all best interest of the Chiefs and Defense. An upgrade at Any position helps.

Now is not the time to be thinking about the FBOTF. A mid round draft pick wouldnt hurt though.

Iowanian
03-11-2005, 10:08 AM
Thats why I said a Fullback would be picked up from the heap AFTER the draft........or the guy from last year brought back in. Cheap....but better than Easy is all they need. shouldn't be too tough.


FYI....Mike McMahon just signed with Philly.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 10:09 AM
Thats why I said a Fullback would be picked up from the heap AFTER the draft........or the guy from last year brought back in. Cheap....but better than Easy is all they need. shouldn't be too tough.


FYI....Mike McMahon just signed with Philly.

Fine by me...I want that crackhead as far away from KC as possible.

Pants
03-11-2005, 10:11 AM
I gotta agree with Goat on Sammy here.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 10:18 AM
Contrary to popular opinion...the Chiefs DO need a FB. I think thats a UFA after the draft though, because Omar Easy isn't going to get it done.

I'm all for signing a starting corner, and drafting another.........what a wonderful problem to have, if they were forced to bench a first round corner or Warfield.....and cut some dead weight.

I think that Any signing, that improves a position, is in the over all best interest of the Chiefs and Defense. An upgrade at Any position helps.

I thought Wilson was our saviour there? C'mon, I keep hearing about how he'll be our best receiver and a FB and an H-Back and blah blah blah. :grr:

You're right - we do need someone to replace TRich. Easy isn't that person... why's he still on the roster? He's not even a ST standout. :shrug:

We also need a WR. Morton eats up WAY too much cap space and he has a shitty attitude.

We desperately need 2 CBs. Unless, of course, we're going to settle for McCleon/Bartee/Battle at nickle.

We desperately need another LB. Unless, of course, we're going to settle for Mitchell/Beisel/Caver/Jones at MLB/WLB *shudder*

We really need another DE. Unless, of course, we're going to settle for "mr productivity" Eric Hicks.

We could use another DT. Unless, of course, we expect Sims to magically pull his fat head out of his fat ass and start playing like a sixth-overall selection. Or Siavii figures out how to use that mass to his advantage.

We got a better safety. Wow. I guess that fixes the #2 LB and #2 CB quandries eh? After all, we're already expecting our safeties to compensate for the current shitty players now. It worked so well for us last year.

:grr:

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 10:35 AM
We got a better safety. Wow. I guess that fixes the #2 LB and #2 CB quandries eh? After all, we're already expecting our safeties to compensate for the current shitty players now. It worked so well for us last year.


The Chiefs addressed a need by signing Knight. Hopefully they address a need by signing a corner next.

Bob Dole
03-11-2005, 10:39 AM
Thats why I said a Fullback would be picked up from the heap AFTER the draft........or the guy from last year brought back in. Cheap....but better than Easy is all they need. shouldn't be too tough.

We already re-signed Joe Hall.

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 10:47 AM
I thought Wilson was our saviour there? C'mon, I keep hearing about how he'll be our best receiver and a FB and an H-Back and blah blah blah. :grr:

You're right - we do need someone to replace TRich. Easy isn't that person... why's he still on the roster? He's not even a ST standout. :shrug:

We also need a WR. Morton eats up WAY too much cap space and he has a shitty attitude.

We desperately need 2 CBs. Unless, of course, we're going to settle for McCleon/Bartee/Battle at nickle.

We desperately need another LB. Unless, of course, we're going to settle for Mitchell/Beisel/Caver/Jones at MLB/WLB *shudder*

We really need another DE. Unless, of course, we're going to settle for "mr productivity" Eric Hicks.

We could use another DT. Unless, of course, we expect Sims to magically pull his fat head out of his fat ass and start playing like a sixth-overall selection. Or Siavii figures out how to use that mass to his advantage.

We got a better safety. Wow. I guess that fixes the #2 LB and #2 CB quandries eh? After all, we're already expecting our safeties to compensate for the current shitty players now. It worked so well for us last year.

:grr:

We're going to get a CB, be patient. Peterson is going to get a starter, otherwise Gunther might just quit.

As for needing 2, here's a thought for you:

The last time Jerome Woods played nickel CB, he had 2 INT returns for TD's and we went 9-0.

Don't hate on the Knight move just because we still need a CB. We just got a HUGE upgrade at safety.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 10:48 AM
Don't hate on the Knight move just because we still need a CB. We just got a HUGE upgrade at safety.

I've never "hated" on Knight. He is a safety upgrade... no doubt about it.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 10:51 AM
We're going to get a CB, be patient. Peterson is going to get a starter, otherwise Gunther might just quit.

Impatience is what has led to people bitching all offseason. They want fixes NOW.

Just because the Chiefs have not signed a corner does not mean they won't. There's no way we won't get one after what happened last year.

Iowanian
03-11-2005, 11:20 AM
HC........Of your list of .05 of McCleon, battle and bartee...........I'll remind you that Benny Sapp played pretty well down the stretch. He's at least the dime, and could be nickle.

I'd prefer to see at least 2 of the 3 you mentioned replaced via FA and top 2 rounds of the draft.

Beisel isn't signed last time I heard, and had said he had to be a starter to re-sign. There is definitely a need for at least another LB.........I'm on the Hartwell bandwagon bigtime, however if he doesn't....maybe Jamie Sharper, and or a draft pick.(Johnson, Crowder)

ct
03-11-2005, 11:40 AM
...

You're right - we do need someone to replace TRich. Easy isn't that person... why's he still on the roster? He's not even a ST standout. :shrug:

...
:grr:

Easy was an RFA, but we didn't even offer him a tender offer, so he is now UFA. He's gone, finally!

I see the upgrade of S with Sammy Knight, just don't see the need for this AT ALL!! Woods, Wesley, Harts, and a draftee/Bartee/Battle(if they go that route) is just fine. I would have much preferred to sign a solid CB, which still appears we will do(damn well better!), further solidify our LB corp with a Hartwell, moving Bell outside, or a true OLB like Boulware/Sharper. That in itself will improve the secondary.

IMO we just wasted the $.

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 11:51 AM
Impatience is what has led to people bitching all offseason. They want fixes NOW.

Just because the Chiefs have not signed a corner does not mean they won't. There's no way we won't get one after what happened last year.

Two of the corners most people coveted most before the start of free agency are still available. Only 1 of the 3 (Smoot) is off the market.

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 11:54 AM
Easy was an RFA, but we didn't even offer him a tender offer, so he is now UFA. He's gone, finally!

I see the upgrade of S with Sammy Knight, just don't see the need for this AT ALL!! Woods, Wesley, Harts, and a draftee/Bartee/Battle(if they go that route) is just fine. I would have much preferred to sign a solid CB, which still appears we will do(damn well better!), further solidify our LB corp with a Hartwell, moving Bell outside, or a true OLB like Boulware/Sharper. That in itself will improve the secondary.

IMO we just wasted the $.

"Just fine" is how we ended up in this mess in the 1st place.

Our safeties have been woefully inadquate since DV got here. It's painfully obvious. It's just been overshadowed by the needs at higher-profile positions, namely CB.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 12:08 PM
"Just fine" is how we ended up in this mess in the 1st place.

Our safeties have been woefully inadquate since DV got here. It's painfully obvious. It's just been overshadowed by the needs at higher-profile positions, namely CB.

Woods went to the Pro Bowl. Wesley was generally considered by the fanbase to be even better than Jerome.

Nice Clinton-esque attempt at re-writing history. :thumb:

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 12:19 PM
Woods went to the Pro Bowl. Wesley was generally considered by the fanbase to be even better than Jerome.

Nice Clinton-esque attempt at re-writing history. :thumb:

Woods went to the Pro Bowl because he returned two INT's for a 13-3 team as a NICKEL CORNERBACK.

As for re-writing history, I so wished the search function worked.

I've been bitching about having inadequate safeties, ESPECIALLY Woods, for almost 4 years...I'm sure there's people here that will back me up.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 12:21 PM
HC_Chief, if the Chiefs had a safety tandem worth a shit the last four years they wouldn't have given up so many god awful long ass gaping runs and passes.

Safety = last line of defense

milkman
03-11-2005, 07:17 PM
HC_Chief, if the Chiefs had a safety tandem worth a shit the last four years they wouldn't have given up so many god awful long ass gaping runs and passes.

Safety = last line of defense

And if the Chiefs actually had CBs and LBs, they wouldn't have needed that last line of defense so damn often.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 07:23 PM
And if the Chiefs actually had CBs and LBs, they wouldn't have needed that last line of defense so damn often.

There's that too, but it doesn't excuse the safeties.

keg in kc
03-11-2005, 07:31 PM
The last time Jerome Woods played nickel CB, he had 2 INT returns for TD's and we went 9-0.I seem to recall that Woods absolutely sucked at the nickel, and that the best comment anybody could make towards the end of the year, following Bartee's return, was, "well, at least he wasn't as bad as Burntee".

My point: let's not try to take this too far. Woods was not good in that role. Not at all.

milkman
03-11-2005, 07:44 PM
There's that too, but it doesn't excuse the safeties.

No it doesn't.

But the point is that with so many holes to fill, safety was low on the list of priorities.

And with so many safeties on the roster, we should have given some of those that were converted to corner a shot to find out if we already had an upgrade on the roster already.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 07:46 PM
No it doesn't.

But the point is that with so many holes to fill, safety was low on the list of priorities.

And with so many safeties on the roster, we should have given some of those that were converted to corner a shot to find out if we already had an upgrade on the roster already.

I don't think it was "low on the list" at all. It's as big of a need as OLB, IMO.

keg in kc
03-11-2005, 07:48 PM
I also don't think it was low on the list. We didn't spend big bucks on it (this year), so I don't have a problem with it. What I really wish is that we hadn't wasted $$$ re-signing Woods last year. I thought it was a stupid move then, it looks even moreso now.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 07:50 PM
I also don't think it was low on the list. We didn't spend big bucks on it (this year), so I don't have a problem with it. What I really wish is that we hadn't wasted $$$ re-signing Woods last year. I thought it was a stupid move then, it looks even moreso now.

No one's failing to accuse the FO of stupidity in the past...

KC Kings
03-11-2005, 08:01 PM
I also think that safety was low on the list. If we had Bell and could only make one other free agent move, I would list the importance level of the remaining holes as CB, CB, OLB, DE, then S.
To use Goat's own evidence against him, we have a horrible defense with only the SS in the top 5 in the league at his position. Another top 5 SS, (it is great, and I am glad we got him), is pretty far down on the list.

IF, Wesley can switch to FS, and IF Knight can play FS as a top 5, then I would look at the safety tandem and maybe rank it a little higher on the list.

Count Zarth
03-11-2005, 08:06 PM
Wesley isn't a top five safety. He has stats like one, but he's clearly NOT.

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 08:34 PM
I seem to recall that Woods absolutely sucked at the nickel, and that the best comment anybody could make towards the end of the year, following Bartee's return, was, "well, at least he wasn't as bad as Burntee".

My point: let's not try to take this too far. Woods was not good in that role. Not at all.

He was better at nickel in 2003 than he was at FS in 2004.

Bowser
03-11-2005, 08:35 PM
He was better at nickel in 2003 than he was at FS in 2004.

Yep.

Why exactly did we move away from that particular defense in 2003? After we dismantled the Bills, I thought we had it all figured out.......

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 08:35 PM
I also think that safety was low on the list. If we had Bell and could only make one other free agent move, I would list the importance level of the remaining holes as CB, CB, OLB, DE, then S.
To use Goat's own evidence against him, we have a horrible defense with only the SS in the top 5 in the league at his position. Another top 5 SS, (it is great, and I am glad we got him), is pretty far down on the list.

IF, Wesley can switch to FS, and IF Knight can play FS as a top 5, then I would look at the safety tandem and maybe rank it a little higher on the list.

You're assuming we can only make one other free agent move.

We won't stop with Knight.

htismaqe
03-11-2005, 08:36 PM
Yep.

Why exactly did we move away from that particular defense in 2003? After we dismantled the Bills, I thought we had it all figured out.......

Bartee got healthy.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Bowser
03-11-2005, 08:38 PM
Bartee got healthy.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Go ****ing figure.

:shake:

keg in kc
03-11-2005, 08:39 PM
He was better at nickel in 2003 than he was at FS in 2004."Better" is such a relative term.

tk13
03-11-2005, 08:43 PM
Yep.

Why exactly did we move away from that particular defense in 2003? After we dismantled the Bills, I thought we had it all figured out.......
Maz got hurt.

Bowser
03-11-2005, 08:45 PM
Maz got hurt.

Did he get hurt in the game against the Bills? Or was it against the Bengals?

tk13
03-11-2005, 08:49 PM
Did he get hurt in the game against the Bills? Or was it against the Bengals?
Bengals game. Rufus Smaque over there goes nuts when you say that was the problem, but with Maz at MLB we allowed 17 ppg and forced 29 turnovers in 10 games. Since then with Kawika/Beisel at MLB, we've allowed 27 ppg and forced 26 turnovers in the 23 games the Chiefs have played. Coincidence? You decide. :)

Bowser
03-11-2005, 08:52 PM
Bengals game. Rufus Smaque over there goes nuts when you say that was the problem, but with Maz at MLB we allowed 17 ppg and forced 29 turnovers in 10 games. Since then with Kawika/Beisel at MLB, we've allowed 27 ppg and forced 26 turnovers in the 23 games the Chiefs have played. Coincedence? You decide. :)

They will hit their stride any day now!

I can't believe the dropoff with Maz out. Does one slow white boy in the middle make that big of a difference?*





*full of sarcasm

Wallcrawler
03-12-2005, 01:16 AM
Maz wasnt all that fast, thats a given. But what he lacked in speed he made up for in awareness. He knew what was coming, and he was able to get himself into position to make a play.

Theres another guy who did that also, he goes by the name of Zack Thomas. He's never been fleet of foot either, but he's been solid over the years.


Speed isnt everything at Middle Linebacker, if you have the awareness to make up for it. Mazlowski was our anchor in the middle. And when he went down, the defense went with him. Mitchell and Beisel dont know their ass from a hole in the ground. Mitchell seems to think that the thing to do is to run up and immediately get blocked and taken out of the play.

Now with Bell in there, we should be in pretty good shape if he stays within himself and doesnt get injured.

I like the Knight signing, after seeing more on what kind of player he is. I never followed the saints that much, nor the Dolphins. But his numbers clearly speak for themselves. He finds the football, he can bring the pain in tackling, and he's durable, starting the last 108 games.

I like it. Let Woods/Wesley/whoever battle it out for FS.


Only question I have is who gets #24 if they sign Law?

Bartee has it, and he wont keep it too long. Pretty much it would be between Sammy and Ty to decide who gets to wear that number.

PHOG
03-12-2005, 01:37 AM
Maz wasnt all that fast, thats a given. But what he lacked in speed he made up for in awareness. He knew what was coming, and he was able to get himself into position to make a play.
Just think what Bell will be able to do. (Assuming he's healthy :rolleyes: )

Theres another guy who did that also, he goes by the name of Zack Thomas. He's never been fleet of foot either, but he's been solid over the years.


Speed isnt everything at Middle Linebacker, if you have the awareness to make up for it. Mazlowski was our anchor in the middle. And when he went down, the defense went with him. Mitchell and Beisel dont know their ass from a hole in the ground. Mitchell seems to think that the thing to do is to run up and immediately get blocked and taken out of the play. I would doubt that that is really what he thinks.

Now with Bell in there, we should be in pretty good shape if he stays within himself and doesnt get injured. I'm sure he's going to go BALL'S WILD and fling himself around trying to do more than what he was hired to do.

I like the Knight signing, after seeing more on what kind of player he is. I never followed the saints that much, nor the Dolphins. But his numbers clearly speak for themselves. He finds the football, he can bring the pain in tackling, and he's durable, starting the last 108 games.

I like it. Let Woods/Wesley/whoever battle it out for FS.
I agree, this _efense needs an attitude more than anything except talent.


Only question I have is who gets #24 if they sign Law?

Bartee has it, and he wont keep it too long. Pretty much it would be between Sammy and Ty to decide who gets to wear that number.

PHOG
03-12-2005, 01:44 AM
My apologies to "The Stinger" , because I quoted him/you and I'm not computer/dumbshit enough to know how to take each one of the points and disagree/agree point by point.

So...my points, or completely off base ideas, show in his/her post that I had quoteth..... :huh:

beer bacon
03-12-2005, 02:02 AM
Just a reminder. Knights contract is actually pretty damn small. 5 years 11 million with a 2.7 million dollar SB, and I believe only 1.2 millon of that SB kicks in during the first year.

It is not like we can only sign a certain number of FAs this year. Knight will probably count one million or less against our cap this year. Do you think if we are serious about Law or Surtain signing we can't figure out how to move one million dollars worth of cap space?

Stop bitching so much. This is a great pick up.

Also, the fact that we are almost certainly going to have Knight playing SS and in run support a great deal is also a good sign. Why would we sign a guy that specializes in stuffing the run if we didn't plan on signing a quality CB? It wouldn't make sense to sign Knight then have to him covering the asses of our subpar CBs all the time instead of doing what he does best -- stuffing the run.

PHOG
03-12-2005, 02:18 AM
Just a reminder. Knights contract is actually pretty damn small. 5 years 11 million with a 2.7 million dollar SB, and I believe only 1.2 millon of that SB kicks in during the first year.

It is not like we can only sign a certain number of FAs this year. Knight will probably count one million or less against our cap this year. Do you think if we are serious about Law or Surtain signing we can't figure out how to move one million dollars worth of cap space?

Stop bitching so much. This is a great pick up.

Also, the fact that we are almost certainly going to have Knight playing SS and in run support a great deal is also a good sign. Why would we sign a guy that specializes in stuffing the run if we didn't plan on signing a quality CB? It wouldn't make sense to sign Knight then have to him covering the asses of our subpar CBs all the time instead of doing what he does best -- stuffing the run.

Is it a 11mil with(as in addition to) or 11mil including the 2.7mil?

I've never been able to get a definitive answer. :shrug:

Either way, I would suspect, with the option bonus figured, that most of his base salary is backloaded after the option bonus?

This man is definitely looking to show some people what they missed.

keg in kc
03-12-2005, 02:20 AM
Is it a 11mil with(as in addition to) or 11mil including the 2.7mil?In my experience, they always include the bonus in the total.

PHOG
03-12-2005, 02:23 AM
...................

Stop bitching so much. This is a great pick up.

.........................

I sure hope you're aren't addressing me with this comment because I think it was a good addition as well.





(as long as we get a starting CB along with it )

beer bacon
03-12-2005, 02:36 AM
I sure hope you're aren't addressing me with this comment because I think it was a good addition as well.





(as long as we get a starting CB along with it )

It was more in general to all the people that are outraged because they think we signed Knight instead of a CB or other FAs. When in actuality this should hardly effect at all our ability to pick up other FAs since the cap hit is so small.

PHOG
03-12-2005, 02:44 AM
In my experience, they always include the bonus in the total.

You've signed an 11 mil contract? :eek:


:)

keg in kc
03-12-2005, 02:45 AM
You've signed an 11 mil contract? :eek: No, but I did make about $11 last year.

PHOG
03-12-2005, 02:53 AM
No, but I did make about $11 last year.

:hmmm:

So out of that $11, was $2.70 you're signing bonus?

:toast:

keg in kc
03-12-2005, 03:15 AM
I wish my play warrented a $2.70 signing bonus.

PHOG
03-12-2005, 03:19 AM
I wish my play warrented a $2.70 signing bonus.

Man..lighten.

keg in kc
03-12-2005, 03:22 AM
What can I say, they gave me $2.25 and I considered myself lucky.

PHOG
03-12-2005, 03:24 AM
What can I say, they gave me $2.25 and I considered myself lucky.

Let me guess.. you've had dealings with..

Naw..couldn't be..

milkman
03-12-2005, 07:11 PM
I don't think it was "low on the list" at all. It's as big of a need as OLB, IMO.

Harts and Pile would probably be an upgrade at FS.
Bartee and Battle could be moved back to safety, where they belong, and more than likely would be evn more of an upgrade than Harts and Pile.

At OLB, we got jack, nada, nuthin'.

OK, maybe Fox has potential, but that's it.

Count Zarth
02-19-2006, 11:17 PM
I have updated this list. How do you like these apples, Wesley haters?

NFL Safeties with 20 or more turnovers in the last four years

1. Darren Sharper - 30
2. Ed Reed -29
3. Greg Wesley - 28
4. Tony Parrish - 25
5. Sammy Knight - 22
6. Dwight Smith - 21
7. Roy Williams - 21

alanm
02-19-2006, 11:20 PM
Leading in TO's is one thing. Leading your team in tackles means your defense sucks. It's never a good thing for a safety to lead in tackles. ROFL

Count Zarth
02-19-2006, 11:23 PM
Leading in TO's is one thing. Leading your team in tackles means your defense sucks. It's never a good thing for a safety to lead in tackles. ROFL

None of these guys led their teams in tackles. Read the first post again.

alanm
02-19-2006, 11:30 PM
None of these guys led their teams in tackles. Read the first post again.
Don't care if they led the team in tackles or not it's still TOO many tackles for safety's. Which means your defense sucks. :shake:

Count Zarth
02-19-2006, 11:41 PM
Don't care if they led the team in tackles or not it's still TOO many tackles for safety's. Which means your defense sucks. :shake:

It doesn't mean they aren't good players. Your point is not relevant to the thread.

mikey23545
02-20-2006, 05:47 AM
Don't care if they led the team in tackles or not it's still TOO many tackles for safety's. Which means your defense sucks. :shake:

So in your mind the best safeties would have no tackles?

donkhater
02-20-2006, 06:01 AM
This may have been eluded to earlier in the thread when it first came out, but what these stats don't reveal is the one thing I want a safety to do and that is provide support for the run AND pass.

Sure they get turnovers, but how many times are they beat in coverage? How many times has Wesley seemingly been out of position in the last 4 years? The Turnover and tackles stats could be veiwed like the CB who gets a ton of INT's. He gets a ton because defenses are throwing his way.

Where do these two rank in missed tackles? Because I'm guessing that Giants put them both near the top for the season.

jspchief
02-20-2006, 06:15 AM
This may have been eluded to earlier in the thread when it first came out, but what these stats don't reveal is the one thing I want a safety to do and that is provide support for the run AND pass.

Sure they get turnovers, but how many times are they beat in coverage? How many times has Wesley seemingly been out of position in the last 4 years? The Turnover and tackles stats could be veiwed like the CB who gets a ton of INT's. He gets a ton because defenses are throwing his way.

Where do these two rank in missed tackles? Because I'm guessing that Giants put them both near the top for the season.I agree. They may get turnovers, but Greg Wesley routinely gets caught out of position both on his own man when he's supposed to provide deep support to the CBs. He's very inconsistent.

Knight was good for us in '05, but nowhere near great. It's clear that he's a liability in the passing game, and we need to give him help in the middle of the field.

We have an opportunity to get an imediate upgrade at the FS position via the draft. Yes, our front 7 needs help, but if you look at the great defenses in the league, they almost all have one playmaking safety.

vailpass
02-20-2006, 09:37 AM
I have updated this list. How do you like these apples, Wesley haters?

NFL Safeties with 20 or more turnovers in the last four years

1. Darren Sharper - 30
2. Ed Reed -29
3. Greg Wesley - 28
4. Tony Parrish - 25
5. Sammy Knight - 22
6. Dwight Smith - 21
7. Roy Williams - 21

There is so much more to evaluating the effectiveness of an NFL Safety within his given scheme than TO count.
I'm not saying it was intentional but this is an extremely skewed evaluation with zero insight as to the tangibles/intangibles of the game in general and the position in specific.
Perhaps you should stick to your natural position ROFL :

Mr. Laz
02-20-2006, 09:52 AM
post all the stats you want ......... i still don't want Wesley at free safety.


he misses tackles ... he gets runover ... 99% of his Int's are slop.

Mecca
02-20-2006, 10:36 AM
I have updated this list. How do you like these apples, Wesley haters?

NFL Safeties with 20 or more turnovers in the last four years

1. Darren Sharper - 30
2. Ed Reed -29
3. Greg Wesley - 28
4. Tony Parrish - 25
5. Sammy Knight - 22
6. Dwight Smith - 21
7. Roy Williams - 21

If you posted the amount of times he gets out of position or does something really stupid allowing a big play to happen. He'd probably lead that category by a huge margin. Greg Wesley does some good things, just his good things don't come close to outweighing his bad.

phxchief
02-20-2006, 10:55 AM
They both suck. Wesley catching a bunch of tipped balls and overthrows doesn't change that.

Count Zarth
02-20-2006, 06:19 PM
They both suck. Wesley catching a bunch of tipped balls and overthrows doesn't change that.

Wow, I suppose most safeties have 28 turnovers in the last four seasons! :rolleyes:

htismaqe
02-20-2006, 07:56 PM
I agree. They may get turnovers, but Greg Wesley routinely gets caught out of position both on his own man when he's supposed to provide deep support to the CBs. He's very inconsistent.

Knight was good for us in '05, but nowhere near great. It's clear that he's a liability in the passing game, and we need to give him help in the middle of the field.

We have an opportunity to get an imediate upgrade at the FS position via the draft. Yes, our front 7 needs help, but if you look at the great defenses in the league, they almost all have one playmaking safety.

Yup.