PDA

View Full Version : So who had the better offseason defensively? Minnesota or KC.


donkhater
04-28-2005, 11:15 AM
Read anything about the Vikings the last few months and you'd be convinced that they are the reincarnation of the Purple People Eaters with the additions they've made. But their defense was nearly as bad as KC's the last few years and according to Trey Wingo and Merril Hoge it'll take time for them to gel as a unit---or at least that was their argument for KC.

Judge for yourself:

Minnesota:

CB--Fred Smoot
Safety--Darren Sharper
Linebacker--Nap Harris and Sam Cowart
DE--Erasmus James
DT--Pat Williams

KC:

CB--Patrick Surtain
Safety--Sammy Knight
Linebacker--Derrick Johnson and Kendrell Bell
DE--Carlos Hall
DT--None

I guess maybe I'd be considered biased, but I like the looks of our additions more than Minnesota's.

Hoover
04-28-2005, 11:19 AM
I have to go with the Vikings

However to get there they had to hurt their offense. While the Chiefs did not hurt their offense in getting their players. So while the Vikes additions are better on defense, the Chiefs have had a better offseason IMO.

eazyb81
04-28-2005, 11:22 AM
Trying to be as unbiased as possible, I think Minnesota probably had the better offseason defensively. Smoot is a top young CB, Williams is a solid DT (however I do think he is a little overrated), and Sharper is one of the best safeties in the league. Cowart and Harris are marginal players, but I guess Harris still has some potential since he is young. Erasmus James could be a great DE in this league, but he could also have an injury-riddled career.

I think some analysts also tend to forget that they lost Randy Moss, arguably the best offensive player in the game.

dirk digler
04-28-2005, 11:29 AM
Vikings

htismaqe
04-28-2005, 11:36 AM
I think it's about even.

People look at Minnesota and their mind tricks them into factoring in Winfield, even though they signed him last year.

jspchief
04-28-2005, 11:38 AM
In terms of off-season moves, I'd say the two teams are very close. the thing that evens it out for me is that Napolean Harris and Cowart are both MLBs (if I remember correctly) so one of those guys is going to have to switch positions to be first string.

The reason that I think the Vikes are getting more pub is that they are adding to some existing talent. They have Winfield where we have Warfield. They have Kevin Williams where we have Ryan Sims. They already had a head start on us in terms of talent.

Besides, the media hates the Chiefs. Everytime anyone says anything good about KC, they fall flat on their face and make these hacks look foolish.

Soupnazi
04-28-2005, 11:41 AM
Eh, who cares? As long as the Vikes have Mike Tice as their head coach, they'll be perpetual underachievers.

Spicy McHaggis
04-28-2005, 12:02 PM
The Chiefs but it is close.

KCTitus
04-28-2005, 12:05 PM
While Minn and KC did get nearly the same amount of defensive pickups, KC didnt have to give up TG, Holmes or other offensive weapon ~ R. Moss.

I think the loss of Moss will hurt them putting all the pressure on their new revamped defense.

KC doesnt have that worry.

Mr. Laz
04-28-2005, 12:06 PM
vikes

bogie
04-28-2005, 12:07 PM
Losing Moss is like the Lakers losing Shaq. We know how that turned out.

dirk digler
04-28-2005, 12:10 PM
While Minn and KC did get nearly the same amount of defensive pickups, KC didnt have to give up TG, Holmes or other offensive weapon ~ R. Moss.

I think the loss of Moss will hurt them putting all the pressure on their new revamped defense.

KC doesnt have that worry.

IMO I think losing Moss is really going to help the Vikes. No more of the media circus that goes with Moss and all of his antics. Sometimes it is addition by subtraction and now Dante can spread the ball around to 3 very good WR's without having to worry about forcing the ball to Moss.

alpha_omega
04-28-2005, 12:11 PM
Chiefs.

Surtain over Smoot is the deciding factor.

KCTitus
04-28-2005, 12:13 PM
IMO I think losing Moss is really going to help the Vikes. No more of the media circus that goes with Moss and all of his antics. Sometimes it is addition by subtraction and now Dante can spread the ball around to 3 very good WR's without having to worry about forcing the ball to Moss.

Maybe...Moss opened up the other receivers. Now defenses dont have that worry. It will be interesting to see what happens, but that team relies on the passing game first. Getting rid of one of the best WR's in the league just has to hurt, off-field distractions notwithstanding.

Count Alex's Losses
04-28-2005, 12:13 PM
It's pretty close. They added more D-line, we added more LB.

Rain Man
04-28-2005, 12:15 PM
Assuming that DJ is the real deal, I'd go with the Chiefs, even though I like Pat Williams at DT. If DJ isn't a superstud LB, then maybe the Vikings by a hair.

As mentioned earlier, though, we didn't have to give up our biggest star to make our additions.

donkhater
04-28-2005, 12:17 PM
While I think KC spent for their additions, it may not as cost them as much (i.e. losing a ALL-Pro offensive player).

You ask me whcih you would rather have.

Smoot or Surtain---Surtain in a landslide

Sharper or Knight--Sharper, but not by much

DJ and Bell or Cowart and Harris--Cowart is a has-been and Harris is marginal. I'll take the duo we ended up with.

Hall or James--You'd rather have James, but many around here sure didn't.

Williams--Solid pick-up.

My point is is that their offseason pickups are VERY comparable to what KC did and KC did it without sacrificing offensive punch. Yet they are the cinch team to be most improved? Please.

dirk digler
04-28-2005, 12:22 PM
Maybe...Moss opened up the other receivers. Now defenses dont have that worry. It will be interesting to see what happens, but that team relies on the passing game first. Getting rid of one of the best WR's in the league just has to hurt, off-field distractions notwithstanding.

I think it will be interesting as well. But all you have to do as look at the Chiefs to see that you don't need to have a premiere WR to move the football and score points.

On Offense they have:

QB - Daunte Culpepper
RB - They are loaded with Bennett, Mewelde Moore, Onterrio Smith, and Moe Williams
TE - Jermaine Wiggins and Jim Kleinsasser
WR - Nate Burleson, Kelly Campbell, Marcus Robinson, Travis Taylor and Troy Williamson.

IMO they are more loaded offensively than we are.

ct
04-28-2005, 12:27 PM
On just defense alone, I lean slightly to Minnesota. Impact additions to DE, DT, CB, SS, and 1 minor and 1 medium upgrade to LB.

KC has impact upgrades to OLB, MLB(maybe), CB, SS, and a minor upgrade at DE.

However, you can't say it cost them Randy Moss to make those improvements unless you include WR Troy Williamson. So if you include losing Randy Moss, adding Troy Williamson, it downgrades to about even for now, but if Williamson can perform quickly and well, then they win.

KCTitus
04-28-2005, 12:29 PM
I think it will be interesting as well. But all you have to do as look at the Chiefs to see that you don't need to have a premiere WR to move the football and score points.

On Offense they have:

QB - Dante Culpepper
RB - They are loaded with Bennett, Mewelde Moore, Onterrio Smith, and Moe Williams
TE - Jermaine Wiggins and Jim Kleinsasser
WR - Nate Burleson, Kelly Campbell, Marcus Robinson, Travis Taylor and Troy Williamson.

IMO they are more loaded offensively than we are.

KC's game is not predicated on the long/deep passing game, either. I cant ignore the potential for drop off when your main weapon leaves the team. Is KC's passing game the same with Tony traded? I think not.

htismaqe
04-28-2005, 12:34 PM
On just defense alone, I lean slightly to Minnesota. Impact additions to DE, DT, CB, SS, and 1 minor and 1 medium upgrade to LB.

KC has impact upgrades to OLB, MLB(maybe), CB, SS, and a minor upgrade at DE.

However, you can't say it cost them Randy Moss to make those improvements unless you include WR Troy Williamson. So if you include losing Randy Moss, adding Troy Williamson, it downgrades to about even for now, but if Williamson can perform quickly and well, then they win.

Troy Williamson is not, and never will be, Randy Moss.

nmt1
04-28-2005, 12:41 PM
QB - Daunte Culpepper
RB - They are loaded with Bennett, Mewelde Moore, Onterrio Smith, and Moe Williams
TE - Jermaine Wiggins and Jim Kleinsasser
WR - Nate Burleson, Kelly Campbell, Marcus Robinson, Travis Taylor and Troy Williamson.

IMO they are more loaded offensively than we are.

I gotta disagree on that one.

QB is a wash. Don't get me wrong, Culpepper is the better athlete but Green fits our system perfectly and I can't think of anyone I'd rather have running our offense.
We have one RB that is far better than anything they have and one RB that is as good as all four of theirs.
We win at TE as well. Gonzales makes those guys look like practice squad candidates.
WR is a tie at best for us. Burleson is better than what we have. Marcus Robinson and Travis Taylor = Kennison and Morton. Kelly Campbell < Sammie Parker because Parker has the better upside. Williamson remains to be seen but could end up being stellar.

philfree
04-28-2005, 12:45 PM
Troy Williamson is not, and never will be, Randy Moss.

I think it's funny how a guy will say how great it is that Moss is gone from the Vikes and that makes them better but then in his next breath says how great Moss is for the Raiders. That same guy will also say that Williamson is gonna make a big impact as a rookie for the Vikes. It's so ridiculous to think that Willimson will step in a provide what Moss did. It's a downgrade in talent but an upgrade in character. I wouldn't want Moss on the Chiefs but that character ain't gonna cause a double team.

PhilFree:arrow:

ChiefsCountry
04-28-2005, 12:48 PM
Our offensive line kicks the crap out of the Vikings, which makes our offense more deadly.

htismaqe
04-28-2005, 12:50 PM
I gotta disagree on that one.

QB is a wash. Don't get me wrong, Culpepper is the better athlete but Green fits our system perfectly and I can't think of anyone I'd rather have running our offense.
We have one RB that is far better than anything they have and one RB that is as good as all four of theirs.
We win at TE as well. Gonzales makes those guys look like practice squad candidates.
WR is a tie at best for us. Burleson is better than what we have. Marcus Robinson and Travis Taylor = Kennison and Morton. Kelly Campbell < Sammie Parker because Parker has the better upside. Williamson remains to be seen but could end up being stellar.

Trent Green vs. Dante Culpepper?

Easy.

Trent Green doesn't turn the ball over 30+ times per year.

dirk digler
04-28-2005, 12:51 PM
KC's game is not predicated on the long/deep passing game, either. I cant ignore the potential for drop off when your main weapon leaves the team. Is KC's passing game the same with Tony traded? I think not.

No doubt we are running team first and Tony is a huge plus for us.

nmt1
04-28-2005, 12:51 PM
Our offensive line kicks the crap out of the Vikings, which makes our offense more deadly.

[smacking my forehead]I totally left them out. What was I thinking?[/smaking my forehead] You're right.

htismaqe
04-28-2005, 12:51 PM
Our offensive line kicks the crap out of the Vikings, which makes our offense more deadly.

Minnesota's o-line ain't chopped liver. Probably one of the 3 or 4 best in the league.

nmt1
04-28-2005, 12:53 PM
Minnesota's o-line ain't chopped liver. Probably one of the 3 or 4 best in the league.

IIRC, they gave up a lot of sacks last year. Hence Daunte turning the ball over 30+ times a year.

dirk digler
04-28-2005, 12:55 PM
I gotta disagree on that one.

QB is a wash. Don't get me wrong, Culpepper is the better athlete but Green fits our system perfectly and I can't think of anyone I'd rather have running our offense.
We have one RB that is far better than anything they have and one RB that is as good as all four of theirs.
We win at TE as well. Gonzales makes those guys look like practice squad candidates.
WR is a tie at best for us. Burleson is better than what we have. Marcus Robinson and Travis Taylor = Kennison and Morton. Kelly Campbell < Sammie Parker because Parker has the better upside. Williamson remains to be seen but could end up being stellar.

QB - I love Trent and I agree with your assessment but Culpepper can make plays with both his arms and legs.

RB - No brainer Priest is the best when healthy. But I would say anyone of those guys would do well behind our O-Line.

WR - Vikes not even debatable IMO. Morton sucks, kennison is getting old and Parker is unproven.

OL - Chiefs not even debatable.

This will be the 3rd or 4th year in a row that the Chiefs have the oldest Offense in the League. That scares me a little.

dirk digler
04-28-2005, 12:58 PM
IIRC, they gave up a lot of sacks last year. Hence Daunte turning the ball over 30+ times a year.

They gave up 46 sacks

Chiefs gave up 32

KCTitus
04-28-2005, 12:58 PM
All being said, I just hope that KC's acquisitions do lead to something...like a playoff win.

dirk digler
04-28-2005, 01:00 PM
All being said, I just hope that KC's acquisitions do lead to something...like a playoff win.

HELL YEAH!

Otter
04-28-2005, 01:06 PM
All being said, I just hope that KC's acquisitions do lead to something...like a playoff win.

It's kinda sad that our expectations have been lowered to this level but I must agree, I'd be dancing in the streets with a playoff win.

How cool would a re-match of super bowl I be?

yoswif
04-28-2005, 01:11 PM
On numbers alone, slight edge to the Vikes new additions. However, I think the play of current Chiefs will improve as a result of the Chiefs additions more than the play of current Vikes will improve as a result of their additions.

KChiefs1
04-28-2005, 01:45 PM
I'll try to look at this very realistically & impartially:

Surtain > Smoot
Sharper > Knight
DJ/Bell > Harris/Cowart
James/Williams > Hall

It's pretty much a tossup, but I'd give a slight edge to the Chiefs. I think the Chiefs got the superior draft pick in DJ by a huge margin over James(who I think will be a bust). Surtain was always my #1 choice over Smoot. Sharper is much better than Knight, but it's closer than it appears because Knight is a leader off the field...I'm not sure about Sharper.

Comparing the Chiefs to the Vikings is like comparing apples to oranges. The Vikings are a passing team first & concentrate on the deep ball. I think losing Moss is going to give Culpepper problems because he always knew he had a bailout with Moss. Who is his main man now? I'd be like the Chiefs losing Tony, who would be Trent's bailout?

MOhillbilly
04-28-2005, 01:46 PM
Doesnt matter till week 17.

chiefsfolife
04-28-2005, 01:50 PM
KC WILL BE VERY VERY STRONG THIS YEAR...GOTTA BE THE PROS PICKS FOR SUPERBOWL....WE GONNA BE REAL TOUGH FOLKS

MOhillbilly
04-28-2005, 01:52 PM
KC WILL BE VERY VERY STRONG THIS YEAR...GOTTA BE THE PROS PICKS FOR SUPERBOWL....WE GONNA BE REAL TOUGH FOLKS


S-T-F-U JINXER!!!!!!!

chiefsfolife
04-28-2005, 01:55 PM
S-T-F-U JINXER!!!!!!!

i apologize to the supersticious illogical people

ChiefsCountry
04-28-2005, 01:56 PM
No, ESPN and the national media think we will finish 5th in our 4 team division. Chargers will kick our ass, the Broncos and Raiders both had the greatest drafts in the world since they got Maurice Clarett and Randy Moss. The Chiefs are doomed.

MOhillbilly
04-28-2005, 01:59 PM
i apologize to the supersticious illogical people


JINXER!

JINXER!

JINXER!


BAN HIM NOW BEFORE ALL IS LOST!!!!!

Kyle401
04-28-2005, 02:08 PM
Sharper has experienced a Romie-like fall off and people still think he is better than Knight? :shrug:

Wallcrawler
04-28-2005, 03:14 PM
I disagree that Sharper is flat out better than Sammy Knight.

Knight has made big plays, and forced a helluva lot of turnovers the past few seasons.


Knight is a much bigger threat to make the big play than Darren Sharper is, and in a safety, thats what youre looking for.


At corner, Surtain is worlds better than Smoot. Warfield/Surtain in my opinion is better than Winfield/Smoot.

Not to mention that their chemistry has to go from scratch there in the secondary. Sharper is coming from a poor secondary, and the Vikings werent all that great back there either.

The Chiefs start out with Knight and Surtain, both former dolphins, and formed up half of one of the best secondaries in the league. They are already familiar with what the other can do, and all they have to do is get used to playing with Warfield and whoever wins the FS spot.


The linebackers for the vikings were horrendous. And their pickups really werent anything great. Cowart is an aging veteran who has lost more than a step, and Napoleon Harris is an average linebacker at best.

The Chiefs added a former def rookie of the year and 2 time pro bowler in Kendrell Bell, and drafted the best Linebacker in the draft, Derrick Johnson. The linebacker positions arent even close between the two teams.

The D-line for the Vikings improved, and is better than the Chiefs. Pat Williams and Erasmus James will be good additions to Kenechi Udeze and Kevin Williams.

We have a mediocre defensive line but with improved linebackers, the Vikings have mediocre linebackers with an improved defensive line.

Overall I think the Chiefs will have a better defense than the Vikings will. Of course, that is a biased opinion also, because I could really give a rats ass about the Minnesota Vikings.

BigRock
04-28-2005, 03:18 PM
I think the Vikes' offseason moves tend to be overrated a bit because they were more newsworthy than the Chiefs' were. KC's dealings have been a little more under the radar, because at the beginning of free agency the Chiefs were more in the spot of a team that kept missing out, be it with Trotter or Rolle or whoever. Even our biggest move, the trade for Surtain, almost got lost in all the draft coverage. The Randy Moss trade was big news for several days.

So I think there's a tendency to think the Vikes have done more than KC, which is probably why writers and analyists keep going on and on about their great offseason. But looking at the moves each team has made, it's pretty close to call on who's improved the most defensively, and KC didn't give up any offense. Unless Moss really was a huge cancer on the team, I really think the Chiefs have improved the most.

Count Alex's Losses
04-28-2005, 03:19 PM
I disagree that Sharper is flat out better than Sammy Knight.

Knight has made big plays, and forced a helluva lot of turnovers the past few seasons.

Here's the breakdown...my best post EVAR:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=112037

Sharper has more turnovers but Knight's better in run support.

Wallcrawler
04-28-2005, 03:22 PM
Theres no question.

Id take Knight's 78 more tackles over Darren Sharper's 2 more interceptions any day.

carlos3652
04-28-2005, 03:40 PM
This will be the 3rd or 4th year in a row that the Chiefs have the oldest Offense in the League. That scares me a little.

And this offense has been the best offense in the league for the past 3 seasons and it doesnt seem like they are going to let up...

Offense will still be number #1 this year even if we cut Morton.... Just think of how many games our offense sucked last year (3-4 games). If they were not flat they would have made the playoffs with the old _efense.

If they can have 8-12 great games which they usually do (score over 24 points) and our defense improves 7-14 points per game... (allow 10-20 points) we will see another 12-4, 14-2 season... (no 13-3, never again)

philfree
04-28-2005, 04:10 PM
This will be the 3rd or 4th year in a row that the Chiefs have the oldest Offense in the League. That scares me a little.

I'm not worried in the age of our offense. Because of the health of our line we've been able to bring in young prospects to develope every year and we also have a young stud RB, pro bowl LG, a all world TE in his prime, some young WRs and a young TE. Along with that our QB has a good three years left before he starts to show his age. IMO because of the way DV and Carl have done things we have the chance to move from window to the next. If we lose a couple of key players on O at the same time it will hurt but it's that way for every team. Or if Trent goes down for an extended period but if that happens it won't be from age.


PhilFree:arrow:

Tuckdaddy
04-28-2005, 09:15 PM
KC WILL BE VERY VERY STRONG THIS YEAR...GOTTA BE THE PROS PICKS FOR SUPERBOWL....WE GONNA BE REAL TOUGH FOLKS


YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

KICK SOME AZZ!

Dave Lane
04-28-2005, 09:32 PM
KC, Erasmus James was my worst nightmare. Definately kicked their ass in LB

Dave

Dunit35
04-29-2005, 12:08 AM
It's close...Id go with Vikings because Bell has an injury past.

TRR
04-29-2005, 12:33 AM
The big difference between our offseason and the Vikes offseason is that they had to give up possibly the best player ever to wear a Vikings jersey to turn around their D.

KC gave up nobody on offense, and still improved their D just as much IMO.

philfree
04-29-2005, 12:44 AM
The big difference between our offseason and the Vikes offseason is that they had to give up possibly the best player ever to wear a Vikings jersey to turn around their D.

KC gave up nobody on offense, and still improved their D just as much IMO.


We let a few guys walk but we still haven't cut or traded a player. That's saying alot considering all of our player acquisitions. June 1st will be very interesting when it rolls around.

PhilFree:arrow:

tk13
04-29-2005, 01:02 AM
I'm not worried in the age of our offense. Because of the health of our line we've been able to bring in young prospects to develope every year and we also have a young stud RB, pro bowl LG, a all world TE in his prime, some young WRs and a young TE. Along with that our QB has a good three years left before he starts to show his age. IMO because of the way DV and Carl have done things we have the chance to move from window to the next. If we lose a couple of key players on O at the same time it will hurt but it's that way for every team. Or if Trent goes down for an extended period but if that happens it won't be from age.


PhilFree:arrow:
I think we're set up fairly well. We have a back in LJ to replace Priest, and when Roaf and Shields retire, hopefully we'll be able to go something like Sampson-Waters-Wiegmann-Welbourn-Black on the O-line. It'd be a dropoff but we have guys ready. If we could get a couple WR's like Thorpe and Parker to step up, all we'd need is a QB.

ChiefsCountry
04-29-2005, 01:14 AM
I think we're set up fairly well. We have a back in LJ to replace Priest, and when Roaf and Shields retire, hopefully we'll be able to go something like Sampson-Waters-Wiegmann-Welbourn-Black on the O-line. It'd be a dropoff but we have guys ready. If we could get a couple WR's like Thorpe and Parker to step up, all we'd need is a QB.

Replace Sampson with a first round draft pick, yeah our O-Line is set up for the future pretty good, how many teams have a top 5 guard that is the backup.

Wallcrawler
04-29-2005, 01:18 AM
all we'd need is a QB.



Heh...... :(


That has been quite a problem area for the Chiefs in the past. Theyve never been good at finding good QBs. We had a good QB, and kept the crap QB (Grbac) and sent the good one (Gannon) to the Raiders.

Dawson and Green have been pretty much the only two guys that have been great quarterbacks for this team.

Montana was good, dont get me wrong, but he was way past his prime as far as durability was concerned. Every time he got hit, you wondered if he would get up again. In the AFC Title game, he didnt get up again after that last hit by Bruce Smith.

The Chiefs better find one helluva talent before Green retires, or else I have a feeling it will be back to the days of Kreig, Bono, Grbac....and these are just a few of the shit guys who actually got to start for the team. We still have to factor in guys like Todd Blackledge, Matt Blundin...etc...

Unless the Chiefs can find some way to work out another trade type deal for a Quarterback, the way they did with Green, I see some frustrating seasons in the future of Chiefs fans after Green retires.

Finding/evaluating QBs has not been one of the strong points of this organization. Id like to see a drafted rookie QB at some point actually work out for the Chiefs. But im not holding my breath. Id say if we find an adequate replacement, it will be in another trade type situation and probably involving our first round pick.

ChiefsCountry
04-29-2005, 01:21 AM
Heh...... :(


That has been quite a problem area for the Chiefs in the past. Theyve never been good at finding good QBs. We had a good QB, and kept the crap QB (Grbac) and sent the good one (Gannon) to the Raiders.

Dawson and Green have been pretty much the only two guys that have been great quarterbacks for this team.

Montana was good, dont get me wrong, but he was way past his prime as far as durability was concerned. Every time he got hit, you wondered if he would get up again. In the AFC Title game, he didnt get up again after that last hit by Bruce Smith.

The Chiefs better find one helluva talent before Green retires, or else I have a feeling it will be back to the days of Kreig, Bono, Grbac....and these are just a few of the shit guys who actually got to start for the team. We still have to factor in guys like Todd Blackledge, Matt Blundin...etc...

Unless the Chiefs can find some way to work out another trade type deal for a Quarterback, the way they did with Green, I see some frustrating seasons in the future of Chiefs fans after Green retires.

Finding/evaluating QBs has not been one of the strong points of this organization. Id like to see a drafted rookie QB at some point actually work out for the Chiefs. But im not holding my breath. Id say if we find an adequate replacement, it will be in another trade type situation and probably involving our first round pick.

No, the Chiefs let the 49ers develop their quarterbacks for them. Actually every single Chiefs QB that has been good, came from another team - Dawson, Kenney, DeBreg, Krieg, Montana, Green. Pretty sad.

MOhillbilly
04-29-2005, 08:37 AM
Theres no question.

Id take Knight's 78 more tackles over Darren Sharper's 2 more interceptions any day.

youd have to track every tackle to be sure.

stevieray
04-29-2005, 08:40 AM
Since 98, I think Sammy "Nasty" Knight has more takeaways than anyone in the league.

Chiefnj
04-29-2005, 09:10 AM
Both teams improved a lot on paper the last year.

DT: Edge- Vikings. Kevin Williams is one of the better DT's in the NFL and Pat Williams can still plug the middle with the best of them. A much better starting duo than Sims/Dalton or Sim/Browning or Browning/Dalton.

DE: Edge - KC. But Minny has more potential. Minny has two first round picks - Kenichi and now James. KC has Allen who played better than Kenici last year, and Hicks who the coaches insist is great. Allen gives KC the edge.

CB: Even. Surtain is the best of the group, but I give I think Smoot and Winfield are a tad better than Warfield.

SLB: Edge - Minn. For now I have to give the nod to Nap over Johnson since Johnson hasn't played a down in the NFL. KC has greater potential.

MLB: Edge - Minn. Cowart and EJ Henderson are better than Mitchell and Grigsby/Maslowski?

WLB: Edge - KC. Bell is an impact player and is better than Dontarrius.

Safety: Edge- Even. Knight is the best of the group, but Wesley and Woods have been faltering a lot lately. Even with Sharper and Chavous (who also has struggled).