PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else like the fact that the D is underrated?


irishjayhawk
06-21-2005, 10:59 PM
Everyone is going with the "lets wait and see" (as the writer to Peter King) said.

I actually think that this is a good thing as it allows us to sneak up on opponents and the media.

What do you think?

Pants
06-21-2005, 11:00 PM
I'm high on Keyaron Fox. If he can edge out Fujita for a starting spot, we're going to have damn near the fastest linebackers in the NFL.

Chiefaholic
06-21-2005, 11:04 PM
Hopefully some of these articles will make it to the Chiefs bulletin board to motivate their asses to play hard and prove everybody wrong.

keg in kc
06-21-2005, 11:04 PM
I'm high on Keyaron Fox. If he can edge out Fujita for a starting spot, we're going to have damn near the fastest linebackers in the NFL.Edge out Fujita? The starters are probably Johnson and Bell with Mitchell in the middle. The way it looks right now Fujita and Barber may not see the field if and when they are healthy.

And I don't think we'll be sneaking up on anyone if they look good at all in camp. I think the one thing that people are underestimating is improvement by incumbent players who are in their second year with the new system. Hopefully we've flushed all the Robinson out of the system.

irishjayhawk
06-21-2005, 11:05 PM
Edge out Fujita? The starters are probably Johnson and Bell with Mitchell in the middle. The way it looks right now Fujita and Barber may not see the field if and when they are healthy.
Yeah and I don't see Gunther switching Bell to Middle to play Fox. Even though thats probably better.

alanm
06-21-2005, 11:05 PM
Everyone is going with the "lets wait and see" (as the writer to Peter King) said.

I actually think that this is a good thing as it allows us to sneak up on opponents and the media.

What do you think?
How could it be underrated? That would imply that it was rated at some point in time. The last century doesn't count. :banghead: :cuss: :banghead:

irishjayhawk
06-21-2005, 11:06 PM
How could it be underrated? That would imply that it was rated at some point in time. The last century doesn't count. :banghead: :cuss: :banghead:
Haha, yes it does imply that sadly.

Taco John
06-21-2005, 11:08 PM
How could it be underrated? That would imply that it was rated at some point in time. The last century doesn't count. :banghead: :cuss: :banghead:



Beat me too it... I'd rather be overrated than underrated any day of the week. You have to convince someone you did something worth note to make the overrated list. All you have to do to make the underrated list is to give people the impression that you suck.

keg in kc
06-21-2005, 11:08 PM
Yeah and I don't see Gunther switching Bell to Middle to play Fox. Even though thats probably better.Doesn't mean much, but Mitchell looked just fine at MLB this weekend. We'll see how it looks when the pads go on. It wouldn't suprise me at all if something has finally clicked for him. Anyway, I was on the Bell inside bandwagon initially, but I see the logic of playing him on the outside to rush. He's a real weapon doing that, more than anyone else on the roster. I could see him getting back to the 8-10 sack neighborhood.

Pants
06-21-2005, 11:09 PM
Mmmm, good point. At least this way we have MAD linebacker depth...I mean, really quality. It's great to see Fujita as a backup, where he really belongs.

I'd still like to see the Chiefs work him at DE on pass rushing downs...he seems suited for that.

irishjayhawk
06-21-2005, 11:10 PM
Beat me too it... I'd rather be overrated than underrated any day of the week. You have to convince someone you did something worth note to make the overrated list. All you have to do to make the underrated list is to give people the impression that you suck.
Perhaps underrated is a bad word choice on my part. Perhaps "lets wait and see mentality" would be better.

irishjayhawk
06-21-2005, 11:11 PM
Mmmm, good point. At least this way we have MAD linebacker depth...I mean, really quality. It's great to see Fujita as a backup, where he really belongs.

I'd still like to see the Chiefs work him at DE on pass rushing downs...he seems suited for that.
Fujita at DE? I guess, but I don't see him like a JAred Allen.

alanm
06-21-2005, 11:15 PM
Beat me too it... I'd rather be overrated than underrated any day of the week. You have to convince someone you did something worth note to make the overrated list. All you have to do to make the underrated list is to give people the impression that you suck.
Tell you what though. I'll be estatic if we can hold teams to under 20 PPG. And around 100-110 yrds rushing and under 200 passing.Or better in all phases. We do that and not turn the ball over, we're going to run away with the West.

keg in kc
06-21-2005, 11:19 PM
I think there's a "wait and see" mentality because we've been bad defensively for the last 7 or 8 years, and until that changes we'll be colored in that light.

Although, for the sake of argument, sometimes I do wonder how the press would treat these signings if, say, that instead of trading for Moss and drafting Fabian Washington, Oakland had retained Nap Harris, signed Bell, Knight and Surtain and drafted Derrick Johnson. Something tells me they wouldn't be so...cautious to praise the moves and predict improvement to a defense that's been virtually as bad as ours recently. Because, frankly, all the hype the Raiders have been getting doesn't make much sense to me. The offense was already the stronger unit on their team, and they added to it by taking away from their gaping weakness. Yet we overhaul half our defense but everyone apparently expects little to no improvement. Kind of...strange.

But it doesn't really matter. Nothing anyone says or predicts right now, good or bad, matters a mote. Only the games matter.

Pants
06-21-2005, 11:29 PM
Fujita at DE? I guess, but I don't see him like a JAred Allen.

Fujita rushed quite a bit off the corner last year. I guess it wasn't a 3-point stance but I think he has the frame and the speed to be an effective pass rusher...if only in obvious passing situations.

Either way, having Fooj, Fox, Grigsby and hopefully Scanlon on special teams is going to make for some great coverage units.

keg in kc
06-21-2005, 11:43 PM
I'm under the impression that one of the reasons they brought Bell in was because they didn't think any of our incumbent LBs were capable pass rushers. I'd say if anyone played some nickel end, it would be him. My guess is, though, we'll be seeing Carlos Hall one on side and Allen on the other.

We're going to have a real numbers crunch at LB whatever happens. We know we'll have Bell, Johnson and Mitchell on the roster, and Fox appears to be a lock. That leaves Barber, Caver, Fujita, Grigsby and Scanlon fighting for the remaining 2 or 3 spots, not to mention Gary Stills, who's been working at LB, and an undrafted kid named Kris Griffin they're high on, who'll probably end up on the practice squad.

CoMoChief
06-22-2005, 12:00 AM
I'm high on Keyaron Fox. If he can edge out Fujita for a starting spot, we're going to have damn near the fastest linebackers in the NFL.


Bell and DJ will more than likely start on opening day as OLB's, so where would Fox start and who's place would he take. Fox doesnt play MLB.

KCChiefsMan
06-22-2005, 12:04 AM
The Chiefs D is not underrated.

They have to prove that first.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 07:55 AM
I mentioned this yesterday and nobody bit.

The coaching staff is VERY high on Key Fox. If he's the best LB on the field (and they said he has been for about 3/4 of the offseason) who goes to the bench to accomodate him being on the field?

I heard Teicher on the radio last night say that it's VERY possible that Fox splits time with Bell and Bell is used as a "pure pass rusher".

Anybody want to make fun of me some more for wanting Bell at MLB instead of riding the pine?

the Talking Can
06-22-2005, 08:02 AM
I heard Teicher on the radio last night say that it's VERY possible that Fox splits time with Bell and Bell is used as a "pure pass rusher".


in which case I dust off my sniper rifle.....if we use Bell as an expensive Stills I freaking kill everyone....starting with Gunther

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 08:19 AM
in which case I dust off my sniper rifle.....if we use Bell as an expensive Stills I freaking kill everyone....starting with Gunther

Well, nobody ever ****ing listens to me.

Gunther is enamored with speed rushers. He's CRAZY. He's always been crazy. I don't know why people think he's gonna change now.

milkman
06-22-2005, 08:28 AM
I'm under the impression that one of the reasons they brought Bell in was because they didn't think any of our incumbent LBs were capable pass rushers. I'd say if anyone played some nickel end, it would be him. My guess is, though, we'll be seeing Carlos Hall one on side and Allen on the other.

We're going to have a real numbers crunch at LB whatever happens. We know we'll have Bell, Johnson and Mitchell on the roster, and Fox appears to be a lock. That leaves Barber, Caver, Fujita, Grigsby and Scanlon fighting for the remaining 2 or 3 spots, not to mention Gary Stills, who's been working at LB, and an undrafted kid named Kris Griffin they're high on, who'll probably end up on the practice squad.

I think Stills is probably done in KC.
He's never fulfilled his potential as a pass rush specialist, and there's a some actual LB talent in KC finally.

Someone in the remaining group of LB, Boomer, Gopher, whoever, is going to have to step in and fill his shoes as a STer.

Brock
06-22-2005, 08:29 AM
When you're one of the absolutely worst defenses in the league, you probably better just wait and see. I won't be impressed by a good first half of the season, either. Step up in December, I'll be impressed. :harumph:

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-22-2005, 08:40 AM
Everyone is going with the "lets wait and see" (as the writer to Peter King) said.

I actually think that this is a good thing as it allows us to sneak up on opponents and the media.

What do you think?
I know what your saying but until we prove it on the field I'm not sure we can call ourselves under-rated.

milkman
06-22-2005, 08:44 AM
I get it that people are waiting to see how the additions shape up.

But like I've said before, what I don't get is why these same people are all slobbering over the Vikings additions.

jspchief
06-22-2005, 08:55 AM
Well, nobody ever ****ing listens to me.

Gunther is enamored with speed rushers. He's CRAZY. He's always been crazy. I don't know why people think he's gonna change now.

The problem is, he's looking for his next #58, and I don't think this era of football is conducive to LBs rushing consistently. For the most part, the only LBs that are effective pass rushers are in 3-4 systems.

QBs are too smart, and schemes are set up to recognize an open man when a LB comes off the edge. It just doesn't work anymore.

Ugly Duck
06-22-2005, 09:09 AM
How could it be underrated? That was my question. It ain't possible to underrate the Chiefs D any more than it is possible to underrate the Raider D. We are both still the dregs of the league, the bottom of the barrel - until we prove otherwise. You cannot underrate something that can't go any lower.

milkman
06-22-2005, 09:11 AM
The problem is, he's looking for his next #58, and I don't think this era of football is conducive to LBs rushing consistently. For the most part, the only LBs that are effective pass rushers are in 3-4 systems.

QBs are too smart, and schemes are set up to recognize an open man when a LB comes off the edge. It just doesn't work anymore.

There are some QBs that are too smart, like Peyton.

But the Jake Plumbers and Kerry Collins of the NFL are guys that Bell will absolutely kill.

I agree with the idea that Bell should be in the middle, with DJ and Fox on either side, but I disagree that an OLB can't be effective as a pass rusher.

And before anyone says it, yes I know that Plumber is misspelled.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 09:42 AM
The problem is, he's looking for his next #58, and I don't think this era of football is conducive to LBs rushing consistently. For the most part, the only LBs that are effective pass rushers are in 3-4 systems.

QBs are too smart, and schemes are set up to recognize an open man when a LB comes off the edge. It just doesn't work anymore.

Yep.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 09:43 AM
There are some QBs that are too smart, like Peyton.

But the Jake Plumbers and Kerry Collins of the NFL are guys that Bell will absolutely kill.

I agree with the idea that Bell should be in the middle, with DJ and Fox on either side, but I disagree that an OLB can't be effective as a pass rusher.

And before anyone says it, yes I know that Plumber is misspelled.

A 4-3 OLB CAN be an effective pass rusher. No question. The problem is that, by sending them barreling into the backfield full-speed, the ONLY THING they're effective at is rushing the passer. By doing this with Bell, Gun is marginalizing his amount of time on the field IMO.

milkman
06-22-2005, 09:57 AM
A 4-3 OLB CAN be an effective pass rusher. No question. The problem is that, by sending them barreling into the backfield full-speed, the ONLY THING they're effective at is rushing the passer. By doing this with Bell, Gun is marginalizing his amount of time on the field IMO.

I am not arguing against the idea of Bell in the middle, since I am in full agreement with the argument that he should be in the middle.

I just disagree with blanket statements that are so obviously wrong.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 10:13 AM
I am not arguing against the idea of Bell in the middle, since I am in full agreement with the argument that he should be in the middle.

I just disagree with blanket statements that are so obviously wrong.

Well, I'm looking for a 4-3 OLB that has had more than 9 sacks in the last few years and I can't find any. Last year, of all LB's that had 5 sacks or more (there were 13), 3 played for New England, 2 played for Pittsburgh, 2 played for Baltimore, 1 for Houston, and 1 for San Diego -- all of them play 3-4. 1 additional, Brian Urlacher was a MLB. That leaves 3 -- Keith Bulluck, Mike Peterson, and Karlos Dansby -- as OLB's in a 4-3 that had 5 or more sacks, and all 3 had exactly 5.

jspchief
06-22-2005, 10:42 AM
Well, I'm looking for a 4-3 OLB that has had more than 9 sacks in the last few years and I can't find any. Last year, of all LB's that had 5 sacks or more (there were 13), 3 played for New England, 2 played for Pittsburgh, 2 played for Baltimore, 1 for Houston, and 1 for San Diego -- all of them play 3-4. 1 additional, Brian Urlacher was a MLB. That leaves 3 -- Keith Bulluck, Mike Peterson, and Karlos Dansby -- as OLB's in a 4-3 that had 5 or more sacks, and all 3 had exactly 5.

Exactly.

I'm not saying it's impossible for a 4-3 OLB to get sacks. What I am saying is that the recent trends show it doesn't happen often anymore.

The days of a 4-3 OLB coming off the edge an wreaking havoc seem to have passed. I'm sure there will be the occasional season where it happens (Holdman, 10.5, 2002), but it just isn't an effective way to use an OLB on a consistent basis anymore. Offenses have learned to take advantage of that extra second or two that it takes a LB to get there.

Maybe Bell will get 10-12 sacks on the outside (I certainly hope so), but it would be an anomaly in comparison to recent years.

Chiefnj
06-22-2005, 10:51 AM
Gunther Cunningham, August 2004:

"Kawika Mitchell has made a lot of progress. Last week, I watched Scott Fujita play in the game. I almost didn’t recognize his body. He’s transformed it and he’s getting better. He made four or five really outstanding plays. The defensive linemen are all having some good plays and then they’ll tail off again. There’s potential there to do this, we just need to wake them up. Dexter McCleon is into the thing. He knows what he’s doing. He acts like a pro every day. Greg Wesley has worked real hard and he’s kind of transformed his body like Scott has. He’s playing a lot lower. I see players really getting it, now we just need the rest of them to do it.”

milkman
06-22-2005, 10:51 AM
Well, I'm looking for a 4-3 OLB that has had more than 9 sacks in the last few years and I can't find any. Last year, of all LB's that had 5 sacks or more (there were 13), 3 played for New England, 2 played for Pittsburgh, 2 played for Baltimore, 1 for Houston, and 1 for San Diego -- all of them play 3-4. 1 additional, Brian Urlacher was a MLB. That leaves 3 -- Keith Bulluck, Mike Peterson, and Karlos Dansby -- as OLB's in a 4-3 that had 5 or more sacks, and all 3 had exactly 5.

The blanket statement that is so obviously wrong is that QBs are too smart for it to work.

I pointed out 2 prime example in the AFC West that illustrate that.

There's more, like Brien Greise, Aaron Brooks, A.J. Feely just to name a few off the top of my head.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 11:16 AM
The blanket statement that is so obviously wrong is that QBs are too smart for it to work.

I pointed out 2 prime example in the AFC West that illustrate that.

There's more, like Brien Greise, Aaron Brooks, A.J. Feely just to name a few off the top of my head.

Ah, my bad.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 11:16 AM
Gunther Cunningham, August 2004:

"Kawika Mitchell has made a lot of progress. Last week, I watched Scott Fujita play in the game. I almost didn’t recognize his body. He’s transformed it and he’s getting better. He made four or five really outstanding plays. The defensive linemen are all having some good plays and then they’ll tail off again. There’s potential there to do this, we just need to wake them up. Dexter McCleon is into the thing. He knows what he’s doing. He acts like a pro every day. Greg Wesley has worked real hard and he’s kind of transformed his body like Scott has. He’s playing a lot lower. I see players really getting it, now we just need the rest of them to do it.”

:bravo:

Chiefnj
06-22-2005, 11:28 AM
I just posted that to show that paper roster changes and coaches comments in the offseason amount to a hill of beans.

For a real painful trip down memory lane you could pull up Vermeil's praise for Sims and how he sent Whitlock a tape of his outstanding ability.

keg in kc
06-22-2005, 11:41 AM
I could see them using Bell in more of a pass rushing role. His coverage skills aren't exactly the best. His strength is his initial burst, disrupting plays behind the line. As for playing him in the middle, who's to say he'd outperform the middle linebackers on the roster. They've taken the offseason to bring him up to speed on the OLB spots, now we're going to move him? I wouldn't. If the plan was to play him in the middle, should've been done two months ago, not now.

As for Fox, I'd say he and Johnson would make a pretty fair pair of nickel linebackers. Then you could use Bell as the situational rushbacker in those situations, take advantage of his skills.

Speaking of sacks, weren't the Bears still 4-3 when Roosevelt Colvin had his back-to-back 10.5 sack seasons in '01 and '02? As I recall, the LBs then were Colvin, Holdman and Urlacher, and they had Keith Traylor and Ted Washington playing DT. Don't remember the ends off the top of my head, think Phillip Daniels was one. Either way, they were 4-3.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 11:56 AM
I could see them using Bell in more of a pass rushing role. His coverage skills aren't exactly the best. His strength is his initial burst, disrupting plays behind the line. As for playing him in the middle, who's to say he'd outperform the middle linebackers on the roster. They've taken the offseason to bring him up to speed on the OLB spots, now we're going to move him? I wouldn't. If the plan was to play him in the middle, should've been done two months ago, not now.

I agree with everything you're saying. And that's why it's got me up in arms.

1) I'm afraid that Gunther, who is notorious for being stubborn, is going to make Bell a situational pass rusher. No, he won't be Gary Stills, his talent will prevent that. But all the talent in the world doesn't help from the BENCH. The guy is one of the most athletic LB's in football. He should be playing every down.

2) Yes, they should have been bringing up to speed months ago. More reason I don't have much faith in our coaching staff.

keg in kc
06-22-2005, 12:14 PM
Pittsburgh had difficulting figuring out how to use him every down, I don't see why we wouldn't have the same problem. He's not good in coverage. But I think you have it backwards, I don't think he's going to be a situational pass rusher, I think he's going to be on the field on 1st and 2nd down, and replaced with coverage guys (Fox) in the nickel. I don't think Gunther would take him out of the starting lineup, in any case, not after asking for the guy and drooling over how disruptive a player he is.

And I don't a guy "should be playing" every down based solely on his althletic ability. If someone like Fox or Johnson is better suited for playing in our nickel package than Bell is, then I have absolutely no problem with them being on the field. I think, ultimately, though, we need to find a way to utilize all 3 of them as much as possible. Although, frankly, I still see Fox as another Donnie Edward$ type, an undersized speed guy, so I'm not that excited about him yet. Hopefully he looks good in pads and doesn't get dragged and carried around. But Gun's harped more than once about how disruptive a player Bell is, and not just as a pass rusher, so I don't know that I'd worry about him getting turned into the next Gary Stills.

RedThat
06-22-2005, 12:22 PM
Pittsburgh had difficulting figuring out how to use him every down, I don't see why we wouldn't have the same problem. He's not good in coverage. But I think you have it backwards, I don't think he's going to be a situational pass rusher, I think he's going to be on the field on 1st and 2nd down, and replaced with coverage guys (Fox) in the nickel. I don't think Gunther would take him out of the starting lineup, in any case, not after asking for the guy and drooling over how disruptive a player he is.

see what your saying here makes sense. However, I thought I'd add a little here. It all depends on how the offenses line-up in order for us for us to get the right match out there. Bell is not a coverage LBer, i agree with you there. we probably will use him on the blitz on 3rd down depending on how the offenses set. If opposing offenses use 2 WR sets on 3rd down, you can sure bet that Bell will be in there rushing the QB. If they use 3 or 4 WR, I don't see Bell in there. We gotta go with our best coverage LBer's, if that means fox or johnson, great.
Just don't forget how the offenses set up, I'm sure from time to time Bell will be in there when the Chiefs see they have a chance to use him, they will.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 12:25 PM
Pittsburgh had difficulting figuring out how to use him every down, I don't see why we wouldn't have the same problem. He's not good in coverage. But I think you have it backwards, I don't think he's going to be a situational pass rusher, I think he's going to be on the field on 1st and 2nd down, and replaced with coverage guys (Fox) in the nickel. I don't think Gunther would take him out of the starting lineup, in any case, not after asking for the guy and drooling over how disruptive a player he is.

And I don't a guy "should be playing" every down based solely on his althletic ability. If someone like Fox or Johnson is better suited for playing in our nickel package than Bell is, then I have absolutely no problem with them being on the field. I think, ultimately, though, we need to find a way to utilize all 3 of them as much as possible. Although, frankly, I still see Fox as another Donnie Edward$ type, an undersized speed guy, so I'm not that excited about him yet. Hopefully he looks good in pads and doesn't get dragged and carried around. But Gun's harped more than once about how disruptive a player Bell is, and not just as a pass rusher, so I don't know that I'd worry about him getting turned into the next Gary Stills.

FYI, Edwards is 6'2" 227#. Fox is 6'3" 235#.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 12:27 PM
Pittsburgh had difficulting figuring out how to use him every down, I don't see why we wouldn't have the same problem. He's not good in coverage. But I think you have it backwards, I don't think he's going to be a situational pass rusher, I think he's going to be on the field on 1st and 2nd down, and replaced with coverage guys (Fox) in the nickel. I don't think Gunther would take him out of the starting lineup, in any case, not after asking for the guy and drooling over how disruptive a player he is.

And I don't a guy "should be playing" every down based solely on his althletic ability. If someone like Fox or Johnson is better suited for playing in our nickel package than Bell is, then I have absolutely no problem with them being on the field. I think, ultimately, though, we need to find a way to utilize all 3 of them as much as possible. Although, frankly, I still see Fox as another Donnie Edward$ type, an undersized speed guy, so I'm not that excited about him yet. Hopefully he looks good in pads and doesn't get dragged and carried around. But Gun's harped more than once about how disruptive a player Bell is, and not just as a pass rusher, so I don't know that I'd worry about him getting turned into the next Gary Stills.

I don't necessarily disagree. It just bothers me that everybody is talking about QB pressures, pass coverage, 3rd down.

Did everybody, INCLUDING GUNTHER, forget that our run defense has been giving up 5 yards or more per carry for the last 4 years?!?!

keg in kc
06-22-2005, 12:27 PM
Just don't forget how the offenses set up, I'm sure from time to time Bell will be in there when the Chiefs see they have a chance to use him, they will.I didn't say they wouldn't. Having the nickel defense out there would infer that there was a reason for that. If the offense runs a package where a base 4-3 makes more sense, then I'd expect our package to match that. Although, at the same time, it wouldn't necessarily be unusual for the nickel to stay in for long yardage, either, even if they ran, say, an I or a base pro set.

keg in kc
06-22-2005, 12:28 PM
Did everybody, INCLUDING GUNTHER, forget that our run defense has been giving up 5 yards or more per carry for the last 4 years?!?!Something tells me that even if we're not hearing it as much as a year ago, Gunther's still going to focus on stopping the run first. And he has mentioned that Bell's disruptive in the run game.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 12:31 PM
Something tells me that even if we're not hearing it as much as a year ago, Gunther's still going to focus on stopping the run first. And he has mentioned that Bell's disruptive in the run game.

If you've got a guy like Kendrell Bell on your team and you're talking about going into the season at MLB with Kawika, the NFLE MVP, a 5th-round rookie, or a guy with one leg, you're not concerned about the rush defense IMO.

keg in kc
06-22-2005, 12:33 PM
FYI, Edwards is 6'2" 227#. Fox is 6'3" 235#.I know. And Johnson's only 242.

Fox is just one of those guys I didn't like (for no reason at all) the day of the draft. So I will continue to not like him (for no reason at all) until I wake up one morning and decide to stop (also likely for no reason).

keg in kc
06-22-2005, 12:37 PM
If you've got a guy like Kendrell Bell on your team and you're talking about going into the season at MLB with Kawika, the NFLE MVP, a 5th-round rookie, or a guy with one leg, you're not concerned about the rush defense IMO.Either that, or you believe it takes time for LBs to develop in the NFL and you think that Mitchell is going to be something more than he's been so far. I'm not saying that's what's happened, but you know Gunther's history and philosophy as well as I do...

Either way, I'm not sure there's a point to argue here. The fact is that Bell is playing RLB. Either it will work or it won't, and we aren't going to know the answer to that in June.

ptlyon
06-22-2005, 12:38 PM
Fox is just one of those guys I didn't like (for no reason at all) the day of the draft. So I will continue to not like him (for no reason at all) until I wake up one morning and decide to stop (also likely for no reason).

Sounds like a lot of reasons to me

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 12:39 PM
Either that, or you believe it takes time for LBs to develop in the NFL and you think that Mitchell is going to be something more than he's been so far. I'm not saying that's what's happened, but you know Gunther's history and philosophy as well as I do...

Either way, I'm not sure there's a point to argue here. The fact is that Bell is playing RLB. Either it will work or it won't, and we aren't going to know the answer to that in June.

You're absolutely right.

I just don't want to be back here in January talking about this and how it cost us a shot at winning it all.

Calcountry
06-22-2005, 12:44 PM
Beat me too it... I'd rather be overrated than underrated any day of the week. You have to convince someone you did something worth note to make the overrated list. All you have to do to make the underrated list is to give people the impression that you suck.Denver is definitely underrated as is their QB.

keg in kc
06-22-2005, 12:47 PM
I just don't want to be back here in January talking about this and how it cost us a shot at winning it all.Well, if we don't win it all, there'll be something that we'll find to talk about as the reason why. Whether it's this, or Ryan Sims, or FredEx, or no backup QB, or Larry Johnson's big toe or the ugly polo shirts the NFL makes our coaches wear, I don't know how constructive it is to start harping on something now. Unless you're falling into that popular mode of of "look! look! I pointed this out back in April! I'm a GENIOUS!"

Something will go wrong this season. That's a fact. Lots of things probably. Whether we make it to the Superbowl or not isn't going to be determined as much on choices right now as it will be on adjusting to those problems during the season. Say, for instance, Mitchell does turn out sucking. The problem isn't going to be that we started him there, the problem would be staying with him for too long after seeing that he does suck (this includes TC and the preseason).

And, really, camp is still a month off. We don't really know who the starters are. Mitchell's no lock. He's got to make it through camp healthy, much less play well. I doubt jobs are set in stone right now.

jspchief
06-22-2005, 12:50 PM
I don't necessarily disagree. It just bothers me that everybody is talking about QB pressures, pass coverage, 3rd down.

Did everybody, INCLUDING GUNTHER, forget that our run defense has been giving up 5 yards or more per carry for the last 4 years?!?!

It's easy to forget when you give up over 8 yards per pass attempt.

But overall, I agree with what you're getting at. A great pass rusher only gets a sack 1-2% of all defensive plays in a year. Sacks only made up 5% of the defensive plays of the team with the most sacks in 2004.

Hell, Kansas City was tied for 4th in the league last year in sacks. What the f*ck good did it do us?

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 12:52 PM
Well, if we don't win it all, there'll be something that we'll find to talk about as the reason why. Whether it's this, or Ryan Sims, or FredEx, or no backup QB, or Larry Johnson's big toe or the ugly polo shirts the NFL makes our coaches wear, I don't know how constructive it is to start harping on something now. Unless you're falling into that popular mode of of "look! look! I pointed this out back in April! I'm a GENIOUS!"

Something will go wrong this season. That's a fact. Lots of things probably. Whether we make it to the Superbowl or not isn't going to be determined as much on choices right now as it will be on adjusting to those problems during the season. Say, for instance, Mitchell does turn out sucking. The problem isn't going to be that we started him there, the problem would be staying with him for too long after seeing that he does suck (this includes TC and the preseason).

And, really, camp is still a month off. We don't really know who the starters are. Mitchell's no lock. He's got to make it through camp healthy, much less play well. I doubt jobs are set in stone right now.

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm just getting tired of being burned by this team.

htismaqe
06-22-2005, 12:56 PM
Hell, Kansas City was tied for 4th in the league last year in sacks. What the f*ck good did it do us?

That's basically what it boils down to for me.

We have to stop the run.

milkman
06-22-2005, 01:06 PM
That's basically what it boils down to for me.

We have to stop the run.

We have to stop the run, first.

We also have to get consistent pressure on QBs, forcing them into mistakes, not just sacks.

And no, being 4th in sacks doesn't imply that we got consistent pressure.
Our pass rush was very inconsistent.

keg in kc
06-22-2005, 01:07 PM
Hell, Kansas City was tied for 4th in the league last year in sacks. What the f*ck good did it do us?Sacks are every bit as misleading a stat as individual tackles. For instance:

We had 41 sacks, tied for 7th in the league (not 4th). We tied with Pittsburgh. Now, the difference is that Pittsburgh got the same number of sacks, but in 38 fewer pass attempts. So while we got a sack every 12.7 attempts, they got a sack every 11.8. They were clearly better at it than we were, even though we finished tied. In the end, they were the league's 4th rated team in passing yardage allowed while we were dead last.

Because the idea isn't just to get sacks, the idea is to get sacks while allowing fewer attempts and completions. And to get sacks at key points in drives and in games (game changing plays). This is the problem with stats, really, they're selfish numbers that don't take anything else into account. Like an individual player who gets 10 million tackles because his team can't get the other team off the field, we were a defense that got a few sacks simply because we had more opportunities to get sacks. That doesn't mean, however, we were a team that put consistent pressure on the quarterback or that made big plays at key junctures.

Back to Pittsburgh and KC, they were tied for 5th in passing attempts allowed, we were 22nd. And you can take it further, into completion %, yards per attempt and yards per completion. Anyway, the moral of the story is that a high sacks total does not necessarily represent good pass defense.

But, at the same time, that doesn't mean they're not important...

And while nobody would I'm sure argue that we don't need to focus on improving the run defense, I also don't think that anyone would argue against improving our pass defense. We weren't good at either one.