PDA

View Full Version : What about the O?


Gaz
03-25-2005, 01:56 PM
We all know our Defense stunk in 2004, but it should not overshadow the fact that our Offense stalled at critical moments in several games.

So, it is Defense, Defense, Defense or do the Offense Homers get a seat at the banquet, too?

xoxo~
Gaz
Thowing the OHo’s a bone.

Count Alex's Losses
03-25-2005, 01:57 PM
What I find interesting is that after Priest's injury the "offense choking" bug seemed to disappear.

Could it be that without their main man the rest of the offense decided to suck it up and get it done? Or something along those lines?

I'm just glad our offense can function without Priest...that wasn't the case in 2002.

DenverChief
03-25-2005, 01:57 PM
You will get KJ in FA and a few OL in the draft and maybe a RB/FB or two

Deberg_1990
03-25-2005, 01:59 PM
This is why I pray that Sammie Parker is the next Steve Smith. But i gaurantee you that we will draft another WR somewhere in this draft.

htismaqe
03-25-2005, 02:01 PM
What I find interesting is that after Priest's injury the "offense choking" bug seemed to disappear.

Could it be that without their main man the rest of the offense decided to suck it up and get it done? Or something along those lines?

I'm just glad our offense can function without Priest...that wasn't the case in 2002.

I really wonder if the "2000 yards" thing had something to do with it - it sure seemed like they approached passing to the RB's differently after Johnson and Blaylock too over.

Dr. Facebook Fever
03-25-2005, 02:02 PM
We obviously need a WR and the line isn't getting any younger.

Idahored
03-25-2005, 02:02 PM
Another WR would be nice.

stevieray
03-25-2005, 02:03 PM
Parker
Wilson
Bo
Johnson
Draft WR?

We can hope.

Deberg_1990
03-25-2005, 02:04 PM
Quick, someone name an impact WR that Carl has drafted with the Chiefs?? Hmmmmm.........and No, Joe Horn doesnt count.....

CosmicPal
03-25-2005, 02:05 PM
We need depth and/or new starter at WR

We need depth at RB and/or FB

We need depth at QB

We need a new punter

It would be nice to add depth to the OL

The TE position is just about the only position on the field that is well balanced from the starter to the reserves.

DenverChief
03-25-2005, 02:06 PM
I thought Kevin Johnson was high on our list of FA WR's?

Chiefnj
03-25-2005, 02:06 PM
I wouldn't be shocked if the Chiefs drafted Barron, Williams or Clayton in the first if any of them fell to 15.

CosmicPal
03-25-2005, 02:10 PM
Quick, someone name an impact WR that Carl has drafted with the Chiefs?? Hmmmmm.........and No, Joe Horn doesnt count.....

Sylvester Morris. Despite what you cynics might say, Morris had the tangibles to be a stunning WR in our league and his first couple of games he proved to be the kind of wideout that would be quite special for years to come. But, then we all know the tragic string of injuries the poor guy went thru. I only wonder how dynamic that guy would have been had it not been for all of those unfortunate injuries he suffered.

whoman69
03-25-2005, 02:10 PM
The O certainly can't be ignored or it will become the next casualty. We have young backups on the line, wide receivers, tight end, and running back. We will need a backup FB, a young QB and perhaps even more help on the line.

DenverChief
03-25-2005, 02:11 PM
I thought Kevin Johnson was high on our list of FA WR's?

Hello is this thing on?

Rain Man
03-25-2005, 02:12 PM
I certainly wish we would upgrade the WRs and last year I even advocated a WR with the 1st round pick. However, the offense is great as it stands. Let's try to catch the defense up with 8 or 9 new starters.

Count Alex's Losses
03-25-2005, 02:15 PM
Complete teams win championships (generally). The Patriots offense could not have overcome our pathetic defense.

Brock
03-25-2005, 02:18 PM
I thought Kevin Johnson was high on our list of FA WR's?

It's obviously not a high priority.

DenverChief
03-25-2005, 02:19 PM
Updated: March 22, 2005
Kevin Johnson* Kansas City.com states that Johnson has visited KC.* The Chiefs once tried to trade for Johnson when he played for Cleveland

http://www.fantasytailgate.com/RUMORS.html

When was this I missed it?

DenverChief
03-25-2005, 02:20 PM
It's obviously not a high priority.

not priority wise...just on the list of offense upgrades...which should be last after all the defensive needs are met

DenverChief
03-25-2005, 02:28 PM
My Guess is that if we decide to get Johnson it will be after the draft and a shortt time later Morton will be cut (June 1) IIRC Holmes was an after the draft signing just before June 1 :shrug:

beavis
03-25-2005, 02:33 PM
My Guess is that if we decide to get Johnson it will be after the draft and a shortt time later Morton will be cut (June 1) IIRC Holmes was an after the draft signing just before June 1 :shrug:
Actually, didn't he sign just before the draft?

Hydrae
03-25-2005, 02:34 PM
Honestly I think we are okay at WR with the number of young guys we have. (Go ahead, start the flaming).

My concerns on O are the aging of the o-line and the lack of a young QB for the future. Unless anyone seriously thinks Clausen will be our next starting QB?

DenverChief
03-25-2005, 02:38 PM
Actually, didn't he sign just before the draft?

I have no idea actually...finding that information has proven harder than one would think

SCTrojan
03-25-2005, 02:44 PM
I think 80/20 defense to offense ratio with the draft. WR is a concern as is FB and a backup QB. Having said that, I think Samie Parker will be a stud, based on how he played in college against some pretty good USC teams. There are also some fairly young OL players on the roster that have some promise.

What scares me most is the lack of a quality backup QB. They need to address it and soon. Trent is nearly 35 and we're just one big hit away from the big, dark abyss of Todd Collins being our starting QB. We have the picks, so I wouldn't mind seeing the QB of the future coming in this year.

Bottom line, though, defense needs to be addressed. CB definitely needs to be upgraded and the LB corps, despite the signing of Bell, still needs to be addressed. Defense should be the focus, but not to the complete disregard of the few holes we have on offense.

tiptap
03-25-2005, 02:44 PM
The sputtering of the offense was not the lack of fire power at WR. A good route WR would be great but that wasn't the problem. The problem with the offensive personnel was the RT. And the problem with the offense was the greater number of 3-4 defenses faced by the Chiefs. HUH
Two years ago, with Tait at RT, the Chiefs ran to the left one third (33%) of the time, to the middle one third of the time and to the right one third of the time. ONLY the Packers showed this split. Most teams run the middle 50% of the time (defense needs a MLB) and to the left or right 25% of the time (defense bad stopping plays to the left).
Last year we ran to the right 18% of the time making up the difference running to the middle a lot more and some more to the left. We lost options in where we could be successful running. Luckily we had the horses on the left side to make it work.
The second part of my though is that the 3-4 last NFL appearance in the 80's was in response to the Coryell offense and runs outside of tackles out of that offense. (Sound familiar). Teams are moving to the 3-4 to push our running game to the middle. (LJ is a bigger back for that kind of running) But to counter this trend in defense the Chiefs were looking to use the H-back and several TE to put the point of attack in the running game to outside again with the options for passes coming from the strength. That is what Wilson represented. But it will mean that a RT as well as a healthy Wilson and the rest of the TE will be needed. The one other outcome of facing 3-4 more often is that this will put pressure on our very good but a bit undersized Center. Two gap play on defense will be looking to force help from the guards for center in the NT.
RT, healthy core of TE. then only then a WR.

DenverChief
03-25-2005, 02:47 PM
The sputtering of the offense was not the lack of fire power at WR. A good route WR would be great but that wasn't the problem. The problem with the offensive personnel was the RT. And the problem with the offense was the greater number of 3-4 defenses faced by the Chiefs. HUH
Two years ago, with Tait at RT, the Chiefs ran to the left one third (33%) of the time, to the middle one third of the time and to the right one third of the time. ONLY the Packers showed this split. Most teams run the middle 50% of the time (defense needs a MLB) and to the left or right 25% of the time (defense bad stopping plays to the left).
Last year we ran to the right 18% of the time making up the difference running to the middle a lot more and some more to the left. We lost options in where we could be successful running. Luckily we had the horses on the left side to make it work.
The second part of my though is that the 3-4 last NFL appearance in the 80's was in response to the Coryell offense and runs outside of tackles out of that offense. (Sound familiar). Teams are moving to the 3-4 to push our running game to the middle. (LJ is a bigger back for that kind of running) But to counter this trend in defense the Chiefs were looking to use the H-back and several TE to put the point of attack in the running game to outside again with the options for passes coming from the strength. That is what Wilson represented. But it will mean that a RT as well as a healthy Wilson and the rest of the TE will be needed. The one other outcome of facing 3-4 more often is that this will put pressure on our very good but a bit undersized Center. Two gap play on defense will be looking to force help from the guards for center in the NT.
RT, healthy core of TE. then only then a WR.

What a very well thought out and excellent post :toast:

Idahored
03-25-2005, 02:52 PM
Holmes was picked up the day before the draft. We traded our first for Green (which we would have used for a RB) and signed Holmes. I remember this well.

|Zach|
03-25-2005, 02:54 PM
I still think Chris Wilson is going to pan out very well for us.

Count Alex's Losses
03-25-2005, 02:57 PM
I still think Chris Wilson is going to pan out very well for us.

I think he's going to be a big factor in play-action and short-yardage situations. I think what we saw the Chiefs doing with Jason Dunn last year (i.e. Baltimore game) will be Wilson's role.

Coogs
03-25-2005, 03:04 PM
I wouldn't be shocked if the Chiefs drafted Barron, Williams or Clayton in the first if any of them fell to 15.

Just for the heck of it, let's throw another scenario in here as well. IF, the 49ers make the trade situation listed in another thread with the Bolts, and IF the Browns as rumored decide to wait until the 2nd round to draft Auburns QB, and one of the top two QB's slide down the draft board to #15....


could get interesting. I would love it if Rogers name was added to the 3 guys you have listed as winding up potential Chiefs.

DenverChief
03-25-2005, 03:05 PM
I think he's going to be a big factor in play-action and short-yardage situations. I think what we saw the Chiefs doing with Jason Dunn last year (i.e. Baltimore game) will be Wilson's role.

IIRC he was injured running a 10 yd route over the middle?

Coogs
03-25-2005, 03:09 PM
And to answer Gaz's original question, If CB is adressed by the time of the draft, or if it looks like Law is going to be added after the draft, then the drat should be wide open.

Remember, we still have draft picks from last year who could/should factor into the improvement of the defense as well.

Count Alex's Losses
03-25-2005, 03:09 PM
IIRC he was injured running a 10 yd route over the middle?

Yes, so?

DenverChief
03-25-2005, 03:22 PM
Yes, so?

Those were the plays he was running last preseason...freeing up TG to strech the outside and force 1 on 1 coverage for the WR on that side (or actually force 1 on 1 coverage of TG)...to bad we don't have the diagram a play anymore :(