PDA

View Full Version : MAZ' Return hinges on Rehab!


Kerberos
07-08-2005, 07:59 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/football/nfl/kansas_city_chiefs/12080050.htm

Although I have thought that he may not make it back ... I have not been one of those that have written MAZ off as a roster casualty.


Popular linebacker focused on comeback

Maslowski works it out on his own

Future with the Chiefs hinges on recovery from knee injury

By ELIZABETH MERRILL The Kansas City Star

The compulsion to call Mike Maslowski has hit the old coach a couple of times, especially in the summer in Wisconsin, when the afternoons have a sticky two-a-day feel and the Chiefs are inching closer to training camp.

Roland Christensen stops and puts the phone down.

“I know he’s having trouble,” Christensen says. “I don’t want to impose on him too much.”

These are the times you leave “Maz” alone. In 19 days, the Chiefs leave for training camp, and the popular linebacker’s NFL future will hinge on how his surgically repaired knee holds up in River Falls. Coach Dick Vermeil says Maslowski is running at 100 percent. Maslowski isn’t saying much. He’s politely declined interview requests this summer because he doesn’t want to speak until he knows he’ll be back.

He spent offseason workouts alone, somewhere off to the side, smacking a sled while 80 sets of eyes were fixed somewhere else. When minicamp ended last month, the Chiefs broke for a short summer vacation. Maslowski left town to train at Athletes’ Performance, a high-tech workout facility in Tempe, Ariz.

If Maslowski makes it back, he’ll complete an excruciating journey that started 1˝ seasons ago, when his knee twisted on Oct. 26, 2003, against Buffalo. He played two games after the injury, but was ineffective in both. If he doesn’t, he appears to have options. Christensen, his former defensive coordinator at Wisconsin-LaCrosse, says the Chiefs have told Maslowski they’ll try to find him a place in coaching, presumably in Kansas City.

“I expect him to be back and be competitive to go to work,” Vermeil says. “It’s tough when you lose all that time and all these other people come in. But that’s the National Football League. It’s almost unsympathetic because it doesn’t stand still and wait for you. It keeps going every day.”

The last time Maslowski played in a game, the Chiefs were 9-1, Derrick Johnson was a junior at the University of Texas, and Kansas City was awash with Super Bowl aspirations. Maslowski was the leader of the defense, the hard-hitting middle linebacker who broke the team tackles record in 2002.

With his shaved head and small-town underdog mentality, Maslowski quickly became a fan favorite. Local shops loaded the racks with No. 57 jerseys. Maslowski, who grew up in Thorp, Wis., population 1,600, was a lesson in persistence. He went from Thorp to Division III football to NFL Europe to the Chiefs.

He was never extraordinarily gifted. Maz’s magic came in the weight room, in the 90-degree heat of offseason workouts, running when almost everybody had retreated to the locker room. On an average day this summer, while the other injured players roamed the sidelines and watched, Maslowski stood in the corner, away from the action, running and cutting and drilling on his own.

“He’s always been a very intense, serious, hard-working type of dude,” says linebacker Shawn Barber, who’s also out with a knee injury. “Having been here a couple of years, it’s hard for somebody to see a guy working all these extra hours and out there when everybody’s resting.

“He’s doing all these extra little things to get back. That’s just who he is.”

While Maslowski, Barber and Scott Fujita tried to rehab from injuries, the Chiefs loaded up on defense. Johnson was drafted in the first round and is expected to contend for a starting job at outside linebacker. The Chiefs also picked up linebacker Kendrell Bell from Pittsburgh, and the coaching staff has been encouraged by the progress of middle linebacker Kawika Mitchell.

Time didn’t stand still for Maz. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for him, linebackers coach Fred Pagac says. Pagac says he’s privately rooting for Maslowski because of everything he’s been through and the attitude he’s kept.

He bristles at the notion that fans are already writing him off as roster casualty.

“That’s why you have camp,” Pagac says. “Positions are open. We’ll make decisions as a staff, and we’re going to try to keep the best players, we’re going to try to win games. And if he’s one of the best players, he’ll be one of the guys.”

Christensen doesn’t want to bother his guy, so he keeps up on Maslowski’s progress through the Internet. He had lunch with him last summer during training camp, before Maslowski decided to have season-ending surgery.

He was practicing just once a day. That bothered him.

“I know this is eating at his gut big-time,” Christensen says.

“He will do anything he can to get back to 100 percent. If it can be done, Mike will do it.”





.

Simplex3
07-08-2005, 08:09 AM
Man, this ought to bring the "he's too slow", "he's too old", and "please, anyone but him" crowds out from under their rocks.

I still don't understand why people badmouth the guy. He has more tackles in a season than anyone in Chiefs history. The man may not have looked great at the NFL combine but he was hell on the field. Last I checked they didn't give you any points on the scoreboard for the 40 time of your MLB.

Saulbadguy
07-08-2005, 08:10 AM
Maz's injury = the downfall of the 2003 Defense.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 08:13 AM
Man, this ought to bring the "he's too slow", "he's too old", and "please, anyone but him" crowds out from under their rocks.

I still don't understand why people badmouth the guy. He has more tackles in a season than anyone in Chiefs history. The man may not have looked great at the NFL combine but he was hell on the field. Last I checked they didn't give you any points on the scoreboard for the 40 time of your MLB.

Why would it? The whole article is one big "IF". He won't make it back, so those people (myself included) don't have to worry about it.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 08:13 AM
Maz's injury = the downfall of the 2003 Defense.

Wrong.

Saulbadguy
07-08-2005, 08:14 AM
Wrong.
RIGHT!

Coincidence, maybe. Kawika Mitchell did not help us at all the last half of that season, though.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 08:17 AM
RIGHT!

Coincidence, maybe. Kawika Mitchell did not help us at all the last half of that season, though.

That defense was one of the worst in NFL history against the run and it started with the D-line. The MLB position was irrelevant.

It allowed more than 5 yards per carry in 50% of it's games or 8 games.

Maz played in 10 games and in those 10 games, they allowed 5 yards or more per carry 5 times. Mitchell started 6 games. In those 6 games, they allowed 5 yards or more per carry 3 times.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 08:18 AM
If you really want to cling to coincidence, I should at least point out a RELEVANT coincidence.

In the first 9 games of the season, William Bartee was injured. Jerome Woods played NCB, had 2 INT's returned for TD's (Pitt and GB) and the team was 9-0.

After Bartee returned to the NCB position, the team went 4-3.

donkhater
07-08-2005, 08:19 AM
I guess I just don't understand why some people here are rooting for a slow-footed linebacker to be the starter of this defense and yet seem to have written off a much more talented (and faster) player in Mitchell.

Personally I'm rooting for the light to go on in Mitchell because that will give us the best MLB possible IMHO.

Simplex3
07-08-2005, 08:19 AM
Wrong.
He wasn't just the best tackler on the team, he was also the heart and soul of the D.

Whether he makes it back or not I don't understand why people wouldn't be rooting FOR him. If you go on pure production he had one of the top 5 best years of any Chiefs defender ever. Not wanting that guy back for some secondary statistical reason like his 40 time is absurd IMO.

donkhater
07-08-2005, 08:20 AM
If you really want to cling to coincidence, I should at least point out a RELEVANT coincidence.

In the first 9 games of the season, William Bartee was injured. Jerome Woods played NCB, had 2 INT's returned for TD's (Pitt and GB) and the team was 9-0.

After Bartee returned to the NCB position, the team went 4-3.
Yup :clap:

donkhater
07-08-2005, 08:21 AM
He wasn't just the best tackler on the team, he was also the heart and soul of the D.

Whether he makes it back or not I don't understand why people wouldn't be rooting FOR him. If you go on pure production he had one of the top 5 best years of any Chiefs defender ever. Not wanting that guy back for some secondary statistical reason like his 40 time is absurd IMO.
The heart and sould of the 27th ranked defense at the time?

Simplex3
07-08-2005, 08:21 AM
I guess I just don't understand why some people here are rooting for a slow-footed linebacker to be the starter of this defense and yet seem to have written off a much more talented (and faster) player in Mitchell.

Personally I'm rooting for the light to go on in Mitchell because that will give us the best MLB possible IMHO.
Rooting FOR Mitchel is different than rooting AGAINST Maz.

Again, this isn't a track meet. Maz's 40 time is irrelevent if he's always there and makes the play. Which he is and does, by the way.

donkhater
07-08-2005, 08:22 AM
Wait a second......Yep...

Shannon Sharpe just went by him again for an 80 yard TD.

Saulbadguy
07-08-2005, 08:22 AM
So, was Mitchell an improvement over Maz at that point in the season? I think not.

donkhater
07-08-2005, 08:23 AM
I hope Maz succeeds and becomes a great special teams player for this squad. Anything more and this defense will suffer becuase that means Mitchell, Boomer and Scanlon are really struggling.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 08:25 AM
He wasn't just the best tackler on the team, he was also the heart and soul of the D.

Whether he makes it back or not I don't understand why people wouldn't be rooting FOR him. If you go on pure production he had one of the top 5 best years of any Chiefs defender ever. Not wanting that guy back for some secondary statistical reason like his 40 time is absurd IMO.

The guy is a mediocre LB that excelled because he was surrounded by ABSOLUTE SHIT like Lew Bush.

He was the heart and soul of a defense that was, in it's BEST year, 20th in the league.

It's not that I don't like Maz. It's the simple fact that, when your defense is built around guys like Mike Maslowski, you might as well plan on sucking.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 08:25 AM
So, was Mitchell an improvement over Maz at that point in the season? I think not.

An improvement? No.

A dropoff? No.

donkhater
07-08-2005, 08:29 AM
So, was Mitchell an improvement over Maz at that point in the season? I think not.
No. But Maz is a fringe NFL player. Period.

I'd rather a guy with some better physical attributes would rise up and improve his play (Mitchell) than slide back into mediocrity at the position.

JimNasium
07-08-2005, 08:35 AM
Man, this ought to bring the "he's too slow", "he's too old", and "please, anyone but him" crowds out from under their rocks.

I still don't understand why people badmouth the guy. He has more tackles in a season than anyone in Chiefs history. The man may not have looked great at the NFL combine but he was hell on the field. Last I checked they didn't give you any points on the scoreboard for the 40 time of your MLB.
He is too slow. That will become even more painfully apparent now that we actually have some speed and talent in our linebacking corp.

Rain Man
07-08-2005, 08:35 AM
He wasn't just the best tackler on the team, he was also the heart and soul of the D.

Whether he makes it back or not I don't understand why people wouldn't be rooting FOR him. If you go on pure production he had one of the top 5 best years of any Chiefs defender ever. Not wanting that guy back for some secondary statistical reason like his 40 time is absurd IMO.

Coach on the field. I'm a big Maz fan.

JimNasium
07-08-2005, 08:36 AM
Coach on the field. I'm a big Maz fan.
My hopes for Maz lie in the realm of special teams. That's where he can make his biggest contribution IMO.

1adam1238
07-08-2005, 08:38 AM
I liked Maz's presence on the field...with Bell and Johnson on the outside, we will have the speed with that. It will be interesting if he does make it back to see how this plays out.

cdcox
07-08-2005, 08:47 AM
If you go on pure production he had one of the top 5 best years of any Chiefs defender ever.


Which only proves that the the tackles numbers by themselves don't really mean much.

The bottom line is that he is a liability when he is on the field because opposing teams can get favorable match ups due to his lack of foot speed. This will never get better. We can at least hope that Kawika or one of the two boy wonders will eventually mature into a legitimate NFL MLB.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 08:48 AM
I can't tell you how sad this is.

Our defense has been SO BAD that we hold up marginal players like Scott Fujita and Maz as heroes.

cdcox
07-08-2005, 08:48 AM
I liked Maz's presence on the field...with Bell and Johnson on the outside, we will have the speed with that. It will be interesting if he does make it back to see how this plays out.


You can never have enough speed on defense. Speed at the OLB positions does not prevent the opponent from getting good matchups against your slow MLB. If you try to compensate for the weakness, you leave yourself open somewhere else.

TRR
07-08-2005, 08:52 AM
Maz is one reason I don't see Scanlon making the active roster. They've hung on to him this long. If he can show that he's 100 percent healthy, I think he makes the team.

donkhater
07-08-2005, 08:53 AM
I know it was hard to do, but has anyone actually WATCHED this defense the last 4 years or so?

Other than maybe Eric Warfield, there hasn't been jack squat on that side of the ball to get excited about.

Simplex3
07-08-2005, 08:55 AM
You can never have enough speed on defense. Speed at the OLB positions does not prevent the opponent from getting good matchups against your slow MLB. If you try to compensate for the weakness, you leave yourself open somewhere else.
Don't get me wrong, if one of these young speed guys can figure out the position and stop overrunning the play I'm all for it. That being said, I'll take brains over speed at the MLB position any day. Until one of these young pups takes the field and doesn't look like a deer in headlights I'm still rooting for Maz to be healthy.

FWIW, in my perfect world Grigsby shows his stuff and gets the MLB job. He's as fast as any of those other guys AND his attitude is almost a Maz clone.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 08:58 AM
Don't get me wrong, if one of these young speed guys can figure out the position and stop overrunning the play I'm all for it. That being said, I'll take brains over speed at the MLB position any day. Until one of these young pups takes the field and doesn't look like a deer in headlights I'm still rooting for Maz to be healthy.

FWIW, in my perfect world Grigsby shows his stuff and gets the MLB job. He's as fast as any of those other guys AND his attitude is almost a Maz clone.

In a perfect world, Mitchell continues his improvement from the end of last season.

Simplex3
07-08-2005, 09:06 AM
In a perfect world, Mitchell continues his improvement from the end of last season.
I just don't see Kaweaka being a leader. That and that fact that he never seemed to lose that deer in headlights look worries me. With as many years as he's been in the league he should be better than he is. That's not to say he won't get the mental part right this offseason, but I'm not holding out much hope. From what little we've seen of the guy on the field it's pretty obvious he isn't that bright and doesn't have good instincts.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 09:09 AM
I just don't see Kaweaka being a leader. That and that fact that he never seemed to lose that deer in headlights look worries me. With as many years as he's been in the league he should be better than he is. That's not to say he won't get the mental part right this offseason, but I'm not holding out much hope. From what little we've seen of the guy on the field it's pretty obvious he isn't that bright and doesn't have good instincts.

He's been in the league 2 years. Keith Bulluck looked just like Kawika his first 2 seasons. Now he's dominant.

As for Mitchell being a leader, we have leaders now. Sammy Knight, Bell, those guys are leaders. We don't need to sacrifice athleticism for leadership like we did in the past.

picasso
07-08-2005, 09:24 AM
Maz IMO has fantastic tackling skills and runs through the guy but he is to slow and can't jump for crap, never could. Mitchell although I had high hopes for him looks like a total idiot out there most of the time. He doesn't hit his gaps properly and takes on the blocker instead of being athletic enough to slip the blocker and hit the RB in the mouth.
I am hoping for Boomer!
I want Boomer to do some great things this camp. Instead of keeping him on the sidelines and playing him in NFL Europe after the season I want to see this guy take off and win the MLB position.
He has speed, a monster physic, and an attitude that actually similar to what Maz once had on special teams before he moved into the MLB position.
I believe Boomer to be a natural MLB not a project.

PastorMikH
07-08-2005, 09:32 AM
In a perfect world, Mitchell continues his improvement from the end of last season.



No, in a perfect world Rich Scanlon comes out of his stud tour in the NFLE, obliviates the competition at MLB (shouldn't be too hard to do), then takes the field in Sept, leads the league in tackles, forced fumbles, and INTs, leads the team to the SB and wins the SB MVP.



Right Roy?




For the record, I'd love to see Maz back if he can return to pre-injury form. I doubt that is possible though given the nature of the injury and his age. Maz was marginal in his athletic ability, but he made up for it with his heart and work ethic. And for being so slow, I remember seeing him as one of the first players in a lot of piles.

I wish there was some way to put Maz's heart and mentality into Kawika.

Count Zarth
07-08-2005, 09:40 AM
I can't tell you how sad this is.

Our defense has been SO BAD that we hold up marginal players like Scott Fujita and Maz as heroes.

Yeah I finally came to realize that. I think we're all in for a shock when we see the REAL talent at LB we've acquired.

Hopefully all this depth means ST will be good.

Big Chief Homer
07-08-2005, 09:44 AM
One problem I see some are forgeting is maz hasnt been on the field for a season and a half.

While I love the heart maz brings to the team,this worries me.If he can make a special teams impact and be a backup or situational player fine.but id rather have someone like scanlon,fox or griffin get the spot.younger faster more upside.

whoman69
07-08-2005, 09:51 AM
If we could combine the head of Maz with the athletic ability of Mitchell, we would have no problem. Maz knows where he needs to be on the field and he has the guts to play it. What's in question is his athletic ability to be at the location he needs to be. I don't think that MLB needs the speed that the other LB positions do, but it is important.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 10:00 AM
One problem I see some are forgeting is maz hasnt been on the field for a season and a half.

While I love the heart maz brings to the team,this worries me.If he can make a special teams impact and be a backup or situational player fine.but id rather have someone like scanlon,fox or griffin get the spot.younger faster more upside.

That's true.

It's also true that we were talking about Maz being slow BEFORE he suffered a catastrophic knee injury.

Ralphy Boy
07-08-2005, 10:08 AM
An improvement? No.

A dropoff? No.

You can't be serious. Please tell me you aren't serious. It was without a doubt a drop off. As was shown by the Bartee/Woods example, numbers aren't everything. Bartee has the physical numbers to play CB, but he just doesn't get the position as well as a guy who hadn't played the position in a number of years.

Not taking anything away from the then rookie Mitchell who'd been hurt for much of the preseason, but he was without a doubt a drop off from Maz.

I still would prefer Mitchell's light come on and he be the guy because he's a "physically gifted athlete", but I can be objective enough to say that he was a vast drop off from Maz in 2003.

Granted we'd masked the issues our defense had as long as we could, but Maz helped mask those problems. When Mitchell was starting, he was out of position constantly. Other side of the coin is that the rest of the defense had to compensate for him and that was when our turnover ratio started to come back to earth.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 10:10 AM
You can't be serious. Please tell me you aren't serious. It was without a doubt a drop off. As was shown by the Bartee/Woods example, numbers aren't everything. Bartee has the physical numbers to play CB, but he just doesn't get the position as well as a guy who hadn't played the position in a number of years.

Not taking anything away from the then rookie Mitchell who'd been hurt for much of the preseason, but he was without a doubt a drop off from Maz.

I still would prefer Mitchell's light come on and he be the guy because he's a "physically gifted athlete", but I can be objective enough to say that he was a vast drop off from Maz in 2003.

Granted we'd masked the issues our defense had as long as we could, but Maz helped mask those problems. When Mitchell was starting, he was out of position constantly. Other side of the coin is that the rest of the defense had to compensate for him and that was when our turnover ratio started to come back to earth.

It WAS NOT a dropoff.

The results with Maz and without Maz were the same. This idea that the defense was somehow "good" with Maz during the 9-0 start is 100% myth.

The diffence between 9-0 and 4-3 is a couple of Jerome Woods INT's and Dante Hall. Plain and simple.

donkhater
07-08-2005, 10:17 AM
It WAS NOT a dropoff.

The results with Maz and without Maz were the same. This idea that the defense was somehow "good" with Maz during the 9-0 start is 100% myth.

The diffence between 9-0 and 4-3 is a couple of Jerome Woods INT's and Dante Hall. Plain and simple.
I totally agree.

And for those who think Maz was always in the right position and has the 'instincts', I was at that Cinninatti game and on more than one occasion Maz lined up or moved pre-snap leaving a gapping hole in the middle of that defense that the RB ran through. So much so that my buddy kept saying, "Gee it sure was nice of your middle linebacker to move out of the way on that one." You can't see that stuff on TV very often, but it was really apparent live.

donkhater
07-08-2005, 10:19 AM
You can't be serious. Please tell me you aren't serious. It was without a doubt a drop off. As was shown by the Bartee/Woods example, numbers aren't everything. Bartee has the physical numbers to play CB, but he just doesn't get the position as well as a guy who hadn't played the position in a number of years.

How can you say that there was a drop off? they were already like 27th or 28th in the league in total defense when they were 9-0. Face it. That D was already headed toward the basement.

ROYC75
07-08-2005, 11:06 AM
The best thing you can say about Maz is his desire to play the game. He has a passion, a desire that many players lack.

As for talent, he wasn't a gifted player and made up for it thru hard work. Maz is kinda of like a player from the past that has been rejuvenated.

Can it happen again after 2 operations and 1 1/2 years off ? A slow MLB that in all likely hood is even slower now ?

I will be suprised to see him make the roster, Very suprised......

ROYC75
07-08-2005, 11:16 AM
That 13 - 3 season defense was bad, it was just good enough to keep us in the games as long as our offense was kicking ass. That defense really couldn't step it up and win games for us from time to time.

Maz was a better than average player on that team and the previous team, too bad the talent around him wasn't as good.

I'm convinced that an improved Mitchell ( last 5 games performance ) is better than a healthy Maz as far as playing ability. Can Mitchell step up the brain cells to maximize the MLB play ?

Kerberos
07-08-2005, 11:37 AM
That 13 - 3 season defense was bad, it was just good enough to keep us in the games as long as our offense was kicking ass. That defense really couldn't step it up and win games for us from time to time.

Maz was a better than average player on that team and the previous team, too bad the talent around him wasn't as good.

I'm convinced that an improved Mitchell ( last 5 games performance ) is better than a healthy Maz as far as playing ability. Can Mitchell step up the brain cells to maximize the MLB play ?


Good point ... and I hope that working with Gunther this last off season has somehow lit a fire under Michells ASS and help make him a feared MLB. Attitude is what MAZ brought to the table, pure and simple.

Can Mitchell show the same attitude and the same passion as MAZ ??? I guess we will find out in the next couple of months when preseason hits and the starting roster is put on the field against the JETS for the first RS game.... baring injury I predict that Mitchell will be the starting MLB with Scanlon and Boomer getting a few snaps here and there. I would like to see BOOMER get into this mix because he has, according to GC, the killer instinct and passion that is needed at that position.

I have nothing against MAZ and I hope he comes back and makes allot of people eat some well deserved CROW ... but only time and training camp is going to tell us the real story.



:D



.

ct
07-08-2005, 11:51 AM
Maz will make a great D/ST asst coach for KC this year. Mitchell and Boomer/Scanlon is the best MLB corp we're gonna get.

Woodrow Call
07-08-2005, 12:09 PM
I can't tell you how sad this is.

Our defense has been SO BAD that we hold up marginal players like Scott Fujita and Maz as heroes.

:clap: Maz never should have been a starter to begin with. The fact that he was shows how terrible the Chiefs LBs were. He was to slow before and I would guess is even slower now

With all the steps in the right direction on D this offseason, starting Maz would be a huge step in the wrong direction.

I think Kawika started getting it the last few games last year and I have heard nothing but good things over the offseason. I think he will prove a lot of people wrong this year.

Mr. Laz
07-08-2005, 12:33 PM
Maz's injury = the downfall of the 2003 Defense.

ROFL ROFL

can see parker foaming at the mouth right now

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 01:00 PM
ROFL ROFL

can see parker foaming at the mouth right now

I already took care of it. He understands why he's wrong.

Dave Lane
07-08-2005, 01:06 PM
I love Maz but he's done. 1.5 years and still not 100% on a guy that didn't have all that much to begin with = done.

Dave

KC Kings
07-08-2005, 01:48 PM
"MAZ' Return hinges on Rehab!"

No way! I don't believe this. You mean to tell me that we have an injured player, and his return depends on his rehab? I would have never guessed it. This needs to be on the front page of ESPN.com.

keg in kc
07-08-2005, 01:49 PM
I think I'll file this one under "things I don't give a shit about".

Crush
07-08-2005, 01:56 PM
Maz is the best we have. That's sad, but it is the truth.

keg in kc
07-08-2005, 01:59 PM
Maz is the best we have. That's sad, but it is the truth.Kendrell Bell on half a groin is 10x the player maz ever was. And DJ should be even better than he is, in time.

Dave Lane
07-08-2005, 02:01 PM
Maz is the best we have. That's sad, but it is the truth.

Then we are truly dead!

Dave

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 02:03 PM
Maz is the best we have. That's sad, but it is the truth.

I certainly hope you're not serious.

Crush
07-08-2005, 02:06 PM
I certainly hope you're not serious.


Of course not. I'm not THAT crazy.

keg in kc
07-08-2005, 02:07 PM
Well, that's a relief, then. I thought we were going to have to perform an exorcism. Or something. Maybe drink heavily.

Crush
07-08-2005, 02:07 PM
Maz is the best we have. That's sad, but it is the truth.


I'm pretty bad at telling jokes, I apologize.

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 02:08 PM
Well, that's a relief, then. I thought we were going to have to perform an exorcism. Or something. Maybe drink heavily.

I'll drink to that!

go bowe
07-08-2005, 02:41 PM
hmmmmmmm... ugh!

bo, him think palefaces pussy men...

drink like little squaw...

bo think paleface fellas

should drink firewater like REAL injun...

like delta fella in land of apache...

now, HIM real injun!!

ai-EE-yah! firewater heap plenty good!

http://freebmw.net/share/Smilies/NormalSize/388.gif :Peace: :arrow: http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/40s.gif :D http://freebmw.net/share/Smilies/NormalSize/b_woot.gif http://freebmw.net/share/Smilies/NormalSize/b_woot.gif http://freebmw.net/share/Smilies/NormalSize/b_woot.gif http://freebmw.net/share/Smilies/NormalSize/b_woot.gif http://freebmw.net/share/Smilies/NormalSize/b_woot.gif

htismaqe
07-08-2005, 02:46 PM
hmmmmmmm... ugh!

bo, him think palefaces pussy men...

drink like little squaw...

bo think paleface fellas

should drink firewater like REAL injun...

like delta fella in land of apache...

now, HIM real injun!!

ai-EE-yah! firewater heap plenty good!

http://freebmw.net/share/Smilies/NormalSize/388.gif :Peace: :arrow: http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/40s.gif :D http://freebmw.net/share/Smilies/NormalSize/b_woot.gif http://freebmw.net/share/Smilies/NormalSize/b_woot.gif http://freebmw.net/share/Smilies/NormalSize/b_woot.gif http://freebmw.net/share/Smilies/NormalSize/b_woot.gif http://freebmw.net/share/Smilies/NormalSize/b_woot.gif

Oh yes, he's back!

4th and Long
07-08-2005, 06:45 PM
Maz is not the best LB I've ever seen, and that goes without saying. He was however, one of the best special teams players I've ever seen. The guy has a nose for the football and that's rare. It's funny how people forget the important and key contributions the man has added to this team. Anyone remember the Green Bay game a few years back in OT when Ahmad Green fumbled the ball? 5 bonus points if you can name the player that jumped on that ball and helped lead us to an OT victory.

I'd like to see Maz come back after this injury and rub it in the smug little faces of all of you that for some unknown reason, feel the need to drag his name through the dirt.

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/8950/mazmonster0ja.jpg

- 4th
Proud owner of a #57 Maz jersey.

PastorMikH
07-08-2005, 07:24 PM
should drink firewater like REAL injun...




Let me get this straight, you want them to drink Listerine?


:)

htismaqe
07-09-2005, 04:51 AM
I'd like to see Maz come back after this injury and rub it in the smug little faces of all of you that for some unknown reason, feel the need to drag his name through the dirt.

That's so stupid it's almost funny.

I love how people can't separate their feelings from the facts. Somehow, wanting to see improvement in our defense' athleticism and skill equals dragging Maslowski's name through the dirt. :rolleyes:

Sparhawk
07-09-2005, 08:46 AM
Kawika still makes me nervous. He has the athletic ability, but I'm not sure he has a feeling for the game. Maz I really can't see making the team despite his heart and knowledge. He'll make a great coach though, and certainly Grigsby and Scanlon can use his knowledge.

Kerberos
07-09-2005, 09:24 AM
"MAZ' Return hinges on Rehab!"

No way! I don't believe this. You mean to tell me that we have an injured player, and his return depends on his rehab? I would have never guessed it. This needs to be on the front page of ESPN.com.


I am sensing some sarcasm in your tone MR.

facetiousness is not tolerated :shake: please take your sarcastic ass to another thread..

:D




.

Simplex3
07-09-2005, 09:35 AM
That's so stupid it's almost funny.

I love how people can't separate their feelings from the facts. Somehow, wanting to see improvement in our defense' athleticism and skill equals dragging Maslowski's name through the dirt. :rolleyes:
Yet somehow you guys can see your way clear to determine that the guy who holds the Chiefs' single season tackle record isn't athletic enough to play.

Count Zarth
07-09-2005, 09:37 AM
Yet somehow you guys can see your way clear to determine that the guy who holds the Chiefs' single season tackle record isn't athletic enough to play.

That was in 2002! He's aged three years and f*cked up his knee since.

htismaqe
07-09-2005, 09:39 AM
Yet somehow you guys can see your way clear to determine that the guy who holds the Chiefs' single season tackle record isn't athletic enough to play.

Who said he wasn't good enough to play?

Some of us would like to see our defense ranked better than 25th at some point.

KCFalcon59
07-09-2005, 09:49 AM
Maz can make the team. I'd like to see it happen. He has a great attitude. Honestly, the only place I want to see him is on special teams. That is probably the best he can hope to accomplish at this point considering his past injuries.

Saul Good
07-09-2005, 01:34 PM
I don't see Maz as our savior at MLB, but for anyone to say that Kawika wasn't a dropoff in 2003 is ridiculous. Mitchell started in place of Maz the last 6 games of the season. He had 17 tackles...total...for the season. That's less than 3 per game. Maz had 60 tackles in 10 games, more than double Kawika's per game average. In Maz's last full season, he had 126 tackles. That's about double what Mitchell has in 3 years. I wouldn't call Maz a game-changing impact type player, as he doesn't have a lot of sacks, FFs, etc, but Mitchell only has 1 sack and 1 FF in his career. Kawika Mitchell is to football what Darko Milicic is to basketball. Maybe he has the talent to be a good player someday, but mostly he just wanders around the field looking lost.

HC_Chief
07-09-2005, 02:05 PM
I just saw Maz at Price Chopper. Big dude... looked to be in good shape (no fat). I did not notice a limp and he wasn't wearing a brace, which is a good thing I suppose.

I also saw Boomer Grigsby today at Oak Park Mall (Nordstrom, to be precise). Big dude... head and neck are freakishly wide. He just plain looks the part of MLB.

Weird sighting today was Derrick Alexander & his family at Blockbuster. It's obvious he isn't playing now... looked to be in no better shape than I am. Nice looking family tho... and sweet ride: dark blue SUV(Michigan Blue); nice wheels - don't think they were spinners, but definitely high-end 'dubs'; Michgan U plates. I wonder what they're doing in town?

CoMoChief
07-09-2005, 02:15 PM
Ahhh screw it, CP and DV need to call up Lew Bush. lol

CoMoChief
07-09-2005, 02:20 PM
That was in 2002! He's aged three years and f*cked up his knee since.


I guess you prob. said the same thing about Priest Holmes after the 2002 season right?

CoMoChief
07-09-2005, 02:28 PM
In a perfect world, Mitchell continues his improvement from the end of last season.


you dont really need that much speed for the MLB position. I think the change in direction is more important. Speed is more for the OLB positions for covering TE's and slot WR's and stuff like that.

Rudy lost the toss
07-09-2005, 02:42 PM
IMO if Mitchell stays healthy throughout camp, I think he will have a breakout season. I don't buy that he doesn't have the mentality to play MLB. The truth is, I saw mitchell make plays in the second half of the season coming off of an injury. IIRC he had his fair share of tackles for loss. Not every player can make an impact as a rookie, sometimes it takes a couple of years for a player to get going, especially when battling injuries. The fact is that Maz was 25 when he made the team in 1999, the age Mitchell is right now, and Maz didn't start for a couple of years. Put Maz out there in 1999 as the starter and I bet he would have been lost, but I could be wrong.

htismaqe
07-09-2005, 03:04 PM
I don't see Maz as our savior at MLB, but for anyone to say that Kawika wasn't a dropoff in 2003 is ridiculous. Mitchell started in place of Maz the last 6 games of the season. He had 17 tackles...total...for the season. That's less than 3 per game. Maz had 60 tackles in 10 games, more than double Kawika's per game average. In Maz's last full season, he had 126 tackles. That's about double what Mitchell has in 3 years. I wouldn't call Maz a game-changing impact type player, as he doesn't have a lot of sacks, FFs, etc, but Mitchell only has 1 sack and 1 FF in his career. Kawika Mitchell is to football what Darko Milicic is to basketball. Maybe he has the talent to be a good player someday, but mostly he just wanders around the field looking lost.

All of those tackles sure made a difference, didn't they? After all, we were near last in the league against the run (over 5 ypc) with Maz and near last in the league against the run (over 5 ypc) without him.

It wasn't a dropoff. You can count fugging tackles all you want, the only thing that matters is the end result and with EITHER of them the end result was SHIT.

Logical
07-10-2005, 01:42 AM
I guess I just don't understand why some people here are rooting for a slow-footed linebacker to be the starter of this defense and yet seem to have written off a much more talented (and faster) player in Mitchell.

Personally I'm rooting for the light to go on in Mitchell because that will give us the best MLB possible IMHO.I am not, repeat not, rooting for Maz's return. However, I would guess it is because most of us have seen no talent with Mitchell at all, zero, zip, nada, and though he may be fast he is pretty unimpressive physically for a MLB. Watching him run over by a host of blockers when he seemingly ran straight for them instead of towards the ball carrier certainly did nothing to help. I would say we are desperate and see not much hope.

Logical
07-10-2005, 01:48 AM
...


I wish there was some way to put Maz's heart and mentality into Kawika.If you add his toughness and preparation effort I am totally with Mike.

Logical
07-10-2005, 01:59 AM
Yet somehow you guys can see your way clear to determine that the guy who holds the Chiefs' single season tackle record isn't athletic enough to play.Okay I now realize that you really believe this, all that shows is how really pathetic our defensive line and other two linebackers really were. I know others have tried to explain this to you so let me try a different approach. Are you suggesting Maz was better than Willie Lanier, Bobby Bell, and Jim Lynch, how about was he better than Sherrill Headrick or EJ Holub (during his time at linebacker). Come on guy that is one of the most misleading stats of all time.

Saul Good
07-10-2005, 05:33 PM
All of those tackles sure made a difference, didn't they? After all, we were near last in the league against the run (over 5 ypc) with Maz and near last in the league against the run (over 5 ypc) without him.

It wasn't a dropoff. You can count fugging tackles all you want, the only thing that matters is the end result and with EITHER of them the end result was SHIT.

Well the Colts defense stunk last year. I guess they should cut Dwight Freeney and try to replace him. If he had gotten hurt after the tenth game of the season, their defense wouldn't have been that much worse. The fact that one player isn't enough to turn a terrible defense into a great one doesn't mean that the player is worthless. It's a ridiculous argument to make. Maybe you think that having a MLB average fewer than 3 tackles per game is just as good as having a MLB set a team record for tackles. If so, more power to you. I don't know how to refute a point that far off the mark. Otherwise, your only point seems to be that, if the defense is lousy whether or not he played, he must suck. That's like saying that Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Kevin Garnett all stink because their teams would have been in the draft lottery with or without them. I, on the other hand, believe that respectable players can play on bad teams.

htismaqe
07-10-2005, 06:49 PM
Well the Colts defense stunk last year. I guess they should cut Dwight Freeney and try to replace him. If he had gotten hurt after the tenth game of the season, their defense wouldn't have been that much worse. The fact that one player isn't enough to turn a terrible defense into a great one doesn't mean that the player is worthless. It's a ridiculous argument to make. Maybe you think that having a MLB average fewer than 3 tackles per game is just as good as having a MLB set a team record for tackles. If so, more power to you. I don't know how to refute a point that far off the mark. Otherwise, your only point seems to be that, if the defense is lousy whether or not he played, he must suck. That's like saying that Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Kevin Garnett all stink because their teams would have been in the draft lottery with or without them. I, on the other hand, believe that respectable players can play on bad teams.


The refutation was that our defense fell off DRAMATICALLY when Maz went down. It didn't. Everything you just said there means nothing, because you DIDN'T ADDRESS THE POINT.

Inspector
07-10-2005, 06:49 PM
Maz is so easy to like as a player. He has great heart.

I'd really like to see him as a ST or LB coach. Maybe he could instill his fire into the younger guys.

I believe that would be the best contribution he could make to this team.

It's time for Kawika to step up, finish what he started last year, and become a dominate MLB. I think he will and I think the huge upgrade around him will expedite that.

Saul Good
07-10-2005, 08:59 PM
"The refutation was that our defense fell off DRAMATICALLY when Maz went down. It didn't. Everything you just said there means nothing, because you DIDN'T ADDRESS THE POINT."

What point? Our defense sucked before he got hurt. It sucked after. The POINT is that we got far less production from the MLB position after Maz went down than before. The last time I checked, this discussion was based on the MLB position, not Dante Hall's kick returns, Jerome Woods's interceptions, or attendance at WNBA games. The only thing that is relavent to the debate comes down to production at the MLB spot. I submit that Maz was been far more productive based on every statistical category I can find. That's not to say that he will make a full recovery and record 126 tackles. I will say that if the Chiefs could get 126 tackles out of Maz in '05 or roll the dice and take whatever Mitchell can bring, the choice would seem pretty obvious to me. Maybe you don't like numbers and prefer intangibles. Who is more of a team leader? Who has a stronger work ethic? Who has a higher football IQ? The MLB is the quarterback of the defense. I can't imagine anyone saying with a straight face that Mitchell is the guy they want calling the shots on defense.

"It wasn't a dropoff. You can count fugging tackles all you want, the only thing that matters is the end result and with EITHER of them the end result was SHIT."

If you don't want to judge Maz solely on production from the MLB spot and make the illogical argument that the "end result" is the only thing that matters, I can play that stupid game too.
2003 Chiefs with a healthy Maz 9-0
2003 Chiefs after Maz's injury 4-4
Does that mean that if Maz didn't get hurt that we wouldn't have lost those 4 games? Of course not. However, since the "end result" is the only thing that matters, I'm sure you'll agree that 9-0 with is better than 4-4 without.

Mr. Laz
07-10-2005, 09:06 PM
i still say i could see the difference after Maz went down.

say all the stats you want ... but the defense "felt" weaker.

mitchell sucked gerbil nuts and the flow of the defense showed it when he was in.

Hog Rider
07-10-2005, 09:37 PM
That was in 2002! He's aged three years and f*cked up his knee since.

Are we talking about an old injured guy named Holmes, or an old injured guy named Maz? I can't keep my old and f*cked up body parts guys straight.

Sorry, but I'm old and f*cked up myself!

I personally don't care who starts, as long as they are the best at that position. Not the fastest, not the strongest, not the prettiest, not the most popular at prom, but the one who makes the team better by playing at the position!

Does that make any sense to anyone else?

JP

Saul Good
07-10-2005, 09:45 PM
I personally don't care who starts, as long as they are the best at that position. Not the fastest, not the strongest, not the prettiest, not the most popular at prom, but the one who makes the team better by playing at the position!

Does that make any sense to anyone else?

JP

No, that makes no sense whatsoever. What we need is potential, not productivity. We need to go out and sign Ryan Leaf to replace Trent Green, Tony Mandarich and Trezelle Jenkinsto replace Will Shields and Willie Roaf, James Jett to replace Eddie Kennison, Rickey Dudley to replace Tony G. You know, it's really too bad the Broncos beat us to Gerard Warren and Courtney Brown. They, along with Kawika Mitchell and Junior Siavii would have looked really strong, fast, and athletic while making absolutely no plays whatsoever. I've learned on this thread that combine numbers are far more important than stupid things like tackles, sacks, wins, etc.

Count Zarth
07-11-2005, 12:10 AM
Are we talking about an old injured guy named Holmes, or an old injured guy named Maz? I can't keep my old and f*cked up body parts guys straight.

Sorry, but I'm old and f*cked up myself!

I personally don't care who starts, as long as they are the best at that position. Not the fastest, not the strongest, not the prettiest, not the most popular at prom, but the one who makes the team better by playing at the position!

Does that make any sense to anyone else?

JP

OK now we are comparing Mike Maslowski to PRIEST HOLMES? :shake:

melbar
07-11-2005, 01:52 AM
If you really want to cling to coincidence, I should at least point out a RELEVANT coincidence.

In the first 9 games of the season, William Bartee was injured. Jerome Woods played NCB, had 2 INT's returned for TD's (Pitt and GB) and the team was 9-0.

After Bartee returned to the NCB position, the team went 4-3.
Maybe they have planned on moving Woods back to NCB all along. 3 WR sets are becoming more prevalent with the new rules and so many zone schemes being employed.

J Diddy
07-11-2005, 02:56 AM
OK now we are comparing Mike Maslowski to PRIEST HOLMES? :shake:

we ----no
the not smart ones----yes

Rausch
07-11-2005, 03:13 AM
Maybe they have planned on moving Woods back to NCB all along. 3 WR sets are becoming more prevalent with the new rules and so many zone schemes being employed.

Or perhaps (and by far more preferable) they have decided to beat Bartee to death and bury him somewhere up north during training camp....

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 05:33 AM
"The refutation was that our defense fell off DRAMATICALLY when Maz went down. It didn't. Everything you just said there means nothing, because you DIDN'T ADDRESS THE POINT."

What point? Our defense sucked before he got hurt. It sucked after. The POINT is that we got far less production from the MLB position after Maz went down than before. The last time I checked, this discussion was based on the MLB position, not Dante Hall's kick returns, Jerome Woods's interceptions, or attendance at WNBA games. The only thing that is relavent to the debate comes down to production at the MLB spot. I submit that Maz was been far more productive based on every statistical category I can find. That's not to say that he will make a full recovery and record 126 tackles. I will say that if the Chiefs could get 126 tackles out of Maz in '05 or roll the dice and take whatever Mitchell can bring, the choice would seem pretty obvious to me. Maybe you don't like numbers and prefer intangibles. Who is more of a team leader? Who has a stronger work ethic? Who has a higher football IQ? The MLB is the quarterback of the defense. I can't imagine anyone saying with a straight face that Mitchell is the guy they want calling the shots on defense.

"It wasn't a dropoff. You can count fugging tackles all you want, the only thing that matters is the end result and with EITHER of them the end result was SHIT."

If you don't want to judge Maz solely on production from the MLB spot and make the illogical argument that the "end result" is the only thing that matters, I can play that stupid game too.
2003 Chiefs with a healthy Maz 9-0
2003 Chiefs after Maz's injury 4-4
Does that mean that if Maz didn't get hurt that we wouldn't have lost those 4 games? Of course not. However, since the "end result" is the only thing that matters, I'm sure you'll agree that 9-0 with is better than 4-4 without.

5+ ypc WITH Maz, 5+ ypc without Maz. Jerome Woods had 2 INT returns for TD's with Maz, 0 without. Dante Hall had 4 K/P returns for TD's with Maz, 0 without.

The Chiefs defense SUCKS with Maz, it always has. It's easy to see that it's systemic when the guy racking up all your tackles wouldn't start for anybody else in the league.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 05:35 AM
i still say i could see the difference after Maz went down.

say all the stats you want ... but the defense "felt" weaker.

mitchell sucked gerbil nuts and the flow of the defense showed it when he was in.

> BAD ≠ GOOD

If we want a championship defense...if we want a CHAMPIONSHIP...we'll stop depending on mediocre players like Mike Maslowski.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 09:28 AM
5+ ypc WITH Maz, 5+ ypc without Maz. Jerome Woods had 2 INT returns for TD's with Maz, 0 without. Dante Hall had 4 K/P returns for TD's with Maz, 0 without.

The Chiefs defense SUCKS with Maz, it always has. It's easy to see that it's systemic when the guy racking up all your tackles wouldn't start for anybody else in the league.

You seem to hate stats when they relate to the subject at hand, MLB production but love to quote stats about Dante Hall and Jerome Woods but disregard the stats that have anything to do with the MLB position.

Did we have a better record before or after Maz was injured?
9-0 before 100%
4-4 after 50% (50% decrease)

Did we give up more points before or after Maz was injured?
16.7 ppg before
28.0 ppg after (68% increase)

Given that the team's winning percentage dropped by 50% after the injury and points allowed increased by 68%, it really seems that the numbers favor Maz.

The team has had a historically great offense over the last 3 years. If we could have fielded 11 defensive players with Maz's attributes, average at best physical ability and incredible intangibles, and high production (single season leader in tackles in Chiefs history) we would have 3 rings by now.

If you were a Dolphins fan you'd probably have hated Zach Thomas for being too slow and small.

I for one would be perfectly happy giving up 16.7 ppg in 2005 as opposed to the 27.2 we gave up last year without Maz or the 28.0 we gave up in 2003 without him.

Saulbadguy
07-11-2005, 09:29 AM
wtf

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 09:34 AM
wtf

Are you talking about my name?

I've had it for years on other sites. Kind of a wierd coincidence.

Chiefnj
07-11-2005, 09:40 AM
The decline in the Chiefs D after Maz went down, IMO, was due primarily to the fact that Maz was calling the plays and was one of the few players who understood Robinson's scheme. Robinson focussed on a BBDB chess match that attempted to create turnovers. It wasn't a great D by any means, but it was good enough to let the offense win games. When Maz went down, nobody else was able to direct players and call plays accurately on the field. Production and turnovers went down and the losses piled up.

Saulbadguy
07-11-2005, 09:43 AM
Are you talking about my name?

I've had it for years on other sites. Kind of a wierd coincidence.
Yeah. Quite odd. Is your real name Saul?

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 09:46 AM
You seem to hate stats when they relate to the subject at hand, MLB production but love to quote stats about Dante Hall and Jerome Woods but disregard the stats that have anything to do with the MLB position.

Did we have a better record before or after Maz was injured?
9-0 before 100%
4-4 after 50% (50% decrease)

Did we give up more points before or after Maz was injured?
16.7 ppg before
28.0 ppg after (68% increase)

Given that the team's winning percentage dropped by 50% after the injury and points allowed increased by 68%, it really seems that the numbers favor Maz.

The team has had a historically great offense over the last 3 years. If we could have fielded 11 defensive players with Maz's attributes, average at best physical ability and incredible intangibles, and high production (single season leader in tackles in Chiefs history) we would have 3 rings by now.

If you were a Dolphins fan you'd probably have hated Zach Thomas for being too slow and small.

I for one would be perfectly happy giving up 16.7 ppg in 2005 as opposed to the 27.2 we gave up last year without Maz or the 28.0 we gave up in 2003 without him.

I disregard the stats that relate directly to the MLB position (ie. tackles) because I watched the games. They're not relevant.

Are you taking into account the quality of the teams we played, particularly their offenses, and when we played them? Of course not. Are you taking into account where we played them (home or away0? Nope.

As for the 3 Super Bowl rings, PUH-LEASE. We've got John Browning, Eric Hicks, Fujita, Woods...we've had a defense FILLED with guys like Maz, and we've been no better than 20th since Marty left.

I wouldn't hate Zach Thomas because I don't recall watching him get BURNED REPEATEDLY by over-the-hill tight ends.

It all boils down to this. We have several SHITTY options at MLB.

1) Mitchell has athletic ability and speed. It remains to be seen if he has the brains.

2) Boomer and Scanlon have potential, but that's about it.

3) Maz was too slow before he got hurt. Now he's old and coming off a very serious injury.

We've spent the offseason adding ATHLETICISM to this defense. Mitchell may not get smarter - on the other hand, he may. But Maz will not every get any faster. Period.

Some people love to bitch about how bad our defense is, but when you suggest getting rid of guys like Maz to make it better, they go apeshit.

I guess some people are happy with being bad.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 09:48 AM
The decline in the Chiefs D after Maz went down, IMO, was due primarily to the fact that Maz was calling the plays and was one of the few players who understood Robinson's scheme. Robinson focussed on a BBDB chess match that attempted to create turnovers. It wasn't a great D by any means, but it was good enough to let the offense win games. When Maz went down, nobody else was able to direct players and call plays accurately on the field. Production and turnovers went down and the losses piled up.

That is something that might have some validity.

Of course, that means that any one of the new guys (Mitchell, Boomer, Scanlon) could learn to take his place.

Maz will never get any more athletic.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 09:53 AM
I don't know why I'm arguing this anyway.

I've said all along that I would prefer to see Bell at MLB over any of these other bullshit options.

Count Zarth
07-11-2005, 09:54 AM
I don't know why I'm arguing this anyway.

I've said all along that I would prefer to see Bell at MLB over any of these other bullshit options.

Is it really worth it to have three new players out there at LB? I think we need some continuity. Remember how difficult it is for the LBers to learn Gunther's system?

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 09:59 AM
Is it really worth it to have three new players out there at LB? I think we need some continuity. Remember how difficult it is for the LBers to learn Gunther's system?

IF, and that's a huge if, Mitchell can pull his head out, then I'd go for Bell, Mitchell, and Johnson.

I would argue, however, that Fox has experience in Gunther's scheme, and if Mitchell just can't get it, I'd go with Fox, Bell, Johnson.

My concern is that Gunther is so enamored with Bell's pass rushing ability that he's going to marginalize him.

This team's BIGGEST weakness for the last almost 10 years is stopping the run. Everybody remembers the big plays in the passing game last year because they're big plays. But giving up routine 10 yard gains on defense is what ultimately kills you.

I think putting Bell in the middle is the best chance we have of having a superb run defense.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 10:23 AM
I disregard the stats that relate directly to the MLB position (ie. tackles) because I watched the games. They're not relevant.

Are you taking into account the quality of the teams we played, particularly their offenses, and when we played them? Of course not. Are you taking into account where we played them (home or away0? Nope.

As for the 3 Super Bowl rings, PUH-LEASE. We've got John Browning, Eric Hicks, Fujita, Woods...we've had a defense FILLED with guys like Maz, and we've been no better than 20th since Marty left.

I wouldn't hate Zach Thomas because I don't recall watching him get BURNED REPEATEDLY by over-the-hill tight ends.

It all boils down to this. We have several SHITTY options at MLB.

1) Mitchell has athletic ability and speed. It remains to be seen if he has the brains.

2) Boomer and Scanlon have potential, but that's about it.

3) Maz was too slow before he got hurt. Now he's old and coming off a very serious injury.

We've spent the offseason adding ATHLETICISM to this defense. Mitchell may not get smarter - on the other hand, he may. But Maz will not every get any faster. Period.

Some people love to bitch about how bad our defense is, but when you suggest getting rid of guys like Maz to make it better, they go apeshit.

I guess some people are happy with being bad.

You're really grasping at straws here. Do you really think we played wildly better offenses after his injury?
We played SD, DEN, and Oak both before and after the injury. The remaining regular season teams we played were Detroit, Minnesota, and Chicago. The NFC North isn't exactly a high scoring division. We had 3 games at home and 3 on the road plus 1 playoff game at home. We played 2 high scoring teams and 2 low scoring teams.
We played these games in November and December. Games in those weather conditions favor the DEFENSE, not the offense.
If you're worried about the coverage skills of a MLB, you don't really understand football. Gunther could talk for an hour about the keys to defense without ever mentioning a MLB with good coverage skills. He's probably not a good punter either. Lucky for him, that's not what MLBs do. They earn their paychecks by calling defenses and making tackles. There are a few elite MLBs who rush the passer on occasion, but that's not the key to their success.
I'm all for making the team better, and I never said that Maz was a Ray Lewis or Brian Urlacher. What Maz has been is one of the very few consistent defensive players for the Chiefs. There is no denying that our defense has given up far fewer ppg with him than without him. Am I ready to write him off for Mitchell, Grigsby, or Scanlan? Hell no.
Finally, you compare Hicks, Fujita, Woods, and Browing to Maz. When was the last time you heard a coach rave about the intangibles of any of those players? Are they leaders on defense? Are they the first to enter and last to leave the weight room? No. If they had the dedication to make the most of their natural ability like Maz, we would be just fine.
In terms of being able to win rings with a team of players like Maz, just look at ppg with versus without. How many games in the last 3 years have we scored fewer than 17 points in a game? We have averaged allowing 16.7ppg with him and 28 without him.

Chiefnj
07-11-2005, 10:31 AM
Finally, you compare Hicks, Fujita, Woods, and Browing to Maz. When was the last time you heard a coach rave about the intangibles of any of those players? Are they leaders on defense? Are they the first to enter and last to leave the weight room? No. If they had the dedication to make the most of their natural ability like Maz, we would be just fine.
.

I agree with you about the team being better with Maz than without him, but you lost me on this point:

Hicks is ALWAYS praised by the coaches as being a team leader. Every year the coaching staff heaps accolades on the guy. Despite what we fans see on Sunday, the coaching staff loves Hicks. They claim he is a great leader. Browning also gets a fair amount of praise, which IMO is deserved.

Hog Rider
07-11-2005, 10:37 AM
OK now we are comparing Mike Maslowski to PRIEST HOLMES? :shake:

I was not equating the talent of the two players, merely pointing out that old players that get hurt can play well again if they have the desire (and are 100%).

I am quite pleased with the competition for linebacker positions at training camp this year. When was the last time? I hope the younger guys step up and are selected as being the best. I just wish good luck for Maz, and if he happens to be one of the best after camp so be it. If not, so be it. The game waits for noone.

JP

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 10:53 AM
You're really grasping at straws here. Do you really think we played wildly better offenses after his injury?
We played SD, DEN, and Oak both before and after the injury. The remaining regular season teams we played were Detroit, Minnesota, and Chicago. The NFC North isn't exactly a high scoring division. We had 3 games at home and 3 on the road plus 1 playoff game at home. We played 2 high scoring teams and 2 low scoring teams.
We played these games in November and December. Games in those weather conditions favor the DEFENSE, not the offense.

You wanna rethink that? Minnesota IS a high-scoring team and that game was in a DOME.

If you're worried about the coverage skills of a MLB, you don't really understand football. Gunther could talk for an hour about the keys to defense without ever mentioning a MLB with good coverage skills. He's probably not a good punter either. Lucky for him, that's not what MLBs do. They earn their paychecks by calling defenses and making tackles. There are a few elite MLBs who rush the passer on occasion, but that's not the key to their success.

Nothing like taking one tiny example and making it the cornerstone of your argument. I guess you decided to ignore the 4 million times I mentioned that stopping the run is paramount to having a good defense? Oh yeah, make sure to tell me a few more times that I don't know anything about football, I'm sure that will work.

I'm all for making the team better, and I never said that Maz was a Ray Lewis or Brian Urlacher. What Maz has been is one of the very few consistent defensive players for the Chiefs. There is no denying that our defense has given up far fewer ppg with him than without him. Am I ready to write him off for Mitchell, Grigsby, or Scanlan? Hell no.

Of course he's consistent. The team, with Maz as it's "heart and soul" has been consistent as well. Consistently BAD. And it's ok that you're not ready to write him off for Mitchell, Grigsby, or Scanlon. But what about writing him off because, BEFORE his injury he was slow and until recently, HE COULDN'T WALK without a noticeable limp? At some point, you have to TRY to improve.

Finally, you compare Hicks, Fujita, Woods, and Browing to Maz. When was the last time you heard a coach rave about the intangibles of any of those players? Are they leaders on defense? Are they the first to enter and last to leave the weight room? No. If they had the dedication to make the most of their natural ability like Maz, we would be just fine.

Oh jesus, do you really want me to embarrass you that bad? Vermeil has raved about Hicks HUNDREDS of times in the last 3 years about how great of a leader and locker room presense he is. Gunther talks about Browning being our best defensive linemen all the time. Seriously, do you really just NOT READ the countless interviews with our coaches?

Mr. Laz
07-11-2005, 10:53 AM
> BAD ≠ GOOD

If we want a championship defense...if we want a CHAMPIONSHIP...we'll stop depending on mediocre players like Mike Maslowski.

agree ... but mitchell still sucks worse




at least up until this point (willing to give the lad a chance)

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 10:55 AM
agree ... but mitchell still sucks worse




at least up until this point (willing to give the lad a chance)

Precisely why I think we should be looking at Bell to man that spot. The MLB should be your lynchpin against the run and Bell is the best run-stopper we have.

Mr. Laz
07-11-2005, 11:02 AM
Precisely why I think we should be looking at Bell to man that spot. The MLB should be your lynchpin against the run and Bell is the best run-stopper we have.
and why i think we should of gone after 2 linebackers instead of Knight at safety.

we have so many safeties on the roster it's was crime to make a move on another one ... especially when linebacker is such a disaster.


hartwell > Knight

go bowe
07-11-2005, 11:09 AM
I don't know why I'm arguing this anyway.

I've said all along that I would prefer to see Bell at MLB over any of these other bullshit options.besides the fact that bell at mlb might not generate the same disruptive pass rush that he can produce from the olb position (or so gun says, iirc)...

there's the fact that at present, we don't have anybody else to play the rolb spot who would be better than mitchell is at mlb...

mitchell at least has some playing time under his belt...

key fox is untested and barber is hurt (and might not even come back, who knows?)...

given the realities of our situation at lb, i'd say it's better to leave bell outside where he can do the most damage...

Chiefnj
07-11-2005, 11:09 AM
and why i think we should of gone after 2 linebackers instead of Knight at safety.

we have so many safeties on the roster it's was crime to make a move on another one ... especially when linebacker is such a disaster.


hartwell > Knight

I see the Knight signing to be a replacement of sorts for Maslowski. To me, Maz was the team defensive leader. Ever since he went down and out with the knee injury the defense has really lacked a spark plug and an on field general.

The fact that Knight was taking the role of a leader a week or two after he signed is remarkable. Usually, new signees (except for the Owens' of the world) play it relatively low key. Knight appears to have stepped up right away.

A Hartwell or a Dyson may look better on paper, but team veteran leadership is also important and doesn't get the recognition it deserves.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 11:09 AM
and why i think we should of gone after 2 linebackers instead of Knight at safety.

we have so many safeties on the roster it's was crime to make a move on another one ... especially when linebacker is such a disaster.


hartwell > Knight

I don't know about that - you're probably right.

I've been harping on Jerome Woods since 2000. I think he's a joke. We've disagreed on this all offseason, but I really thought we needed a new safety.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 11:10 AM
I see the Knight signing to be a replacement of sorts for Maslowski. To me, Maz was the team defensive leader. Ever since he went down and out with the knee injury the defense has really lacked a spark plug and an on field general.

The fact that Knight was taking the role of a leader a week or two after he signed is remarkable. Usually, new signees (except for the Owens' of the world) play it relatively low key. Knight appears to have stepped up right away.

A Hartwell or a Dyson may look better on paper, but team veteran leadership is also important and doesn't get the recognition it deserves.

Good point.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 11:16 AM
besides the fact that bell at mlb might not generate the same disruptive pass rush that he can produce from the olb position (or so gun says, iirc)...

there's the fact that at present, we don't have anybody else to play the rolb spot who would be better than mitchell is at mlb...

mitchell at least has some playing time under his belt...

key fox is untested and barber is hurt (and might not even come back, who knows?)...

given the realities of our situation at lb, i'd say it's better to leave bell outside where he can do the most damage...

How do we know he can do the most damage from outside? He's never played 4-3 OLB before. Gunther has compared him to Anthony Davis, who NEVER had more the 4.5 sacks in a season and 12.5 in his entire 8-year career.

I think Gunther is looking for a shot-in-the-dark at another Derrick Thomas instead of trying to build around what the players here are good at.

RedThat
07-11-2005, 11:16 AM
agree ... but mitchell still sucks worse




at least up until this point (willing to give the lad a chance)

I like Maslowski. I hope the best for him, and hope he can make a comeback. Maz is solid. When he played for us, he was dependable. He's good enough to win with.

Mitchell does suck worse. However, what I saw from Mitchell the last 3 games of the year, I was real impressed. He showed tremendous improvement in his game in the latter part of the year. There is no comparison in my mind, from the Kawika Mitchell I saw in the last 3 games of the year to the Kawika Mitchell I saw from the beginning of last season.

I think Mitchell has more talent then Maslowski no question. There is no doubt in my mind the kid has potential. Mitchell needs to work on several things. He needs to do a better job containing himself at the point of attack. At times, he'll over pursue plays. Mitchell has speed, however, he doesn't utilize his speed well enough at times to work his way around blockers. Another thing, he doesn't play with a real mean streak like we are used to seeing from several middle linebackers around the league. Although, I really think he has potential to do all these things because I saw it from him in the last 3 games of the year. If he takes care of himseld real well in these aspects of his game, I think he'll be a stud at the middle linebacker position.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 11:17 AM
I gotta step away for a while guys.

These morons that I work with are really starting to get under my skin, and it's spilling over to my posts here...

RedThat
07-11-2005, 11:28 AM
besides the fact that bell at mlb might not generate the same disruptive pass rush that he can produce from the olb position (or so gun says, iirc)...

there's the fact that at present, we don't have anybody else to play the rolb spot who would be better than mitchell is at mlb...

mitchell at least has some playing time under his belt...

key fox is untested and barber is hurt (and might not even come back, who knows?)...

given the realities of our situation at lb, i'd say it's better to leave bell outside where he can do the most damage...

I agree because we need to generate more of a pass rush. We ain't getting enough of that from our D-line. I like Kawika at MLB, he is improving his game so it's best if the Chiefs leave him there. If he happens to decline, we have other options likr Maslowski, and Grigsby.

go bowe
07-11-2005, 11:33 AM
How do we know he can do the most damage from outside? He's never played 4-3 OLB before. Gunther has compared him to Anthony Davis, who NEVER had more the 4.5 sacks in a season and 12.5 in his entire 8-year career.

I think Gunther is looking for a shot-in-the-dark at another Derrick Thomas instead of trying to build around what the players here are good at.anthony davis was not too impressive...

but, iirc, gunther didn't exactly compare bell to davis, he said that bell would play the spot that anthony davis did...

maybe he said bell reminds him of anthony davis, too, but i was pretty sure gun's comments were in the context of using bell to disrupt the opponents passing game coming from the outside position...

and think of it, jared and bell, both rushing from the same side?

yummmmy...


and regarding gun, i think he did plug in the players he had into his scheme and they didn't do well...

now, carl's gotten him some players that do fit his scheme, so i guess you could say that this year he's trying to use his scheme with players who are good at what he wants to do...

i guess you could say i'm stoked about the d this year...

middle of the pack is a definite possibility, realistically speaking... :D :D :D

Mr. Laz
07-11-2005, 11:41 AM
I like Kawika at MLB


:titus:

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 11:45 AM
anthony davis was not too impressive...

but, iirc, gunther didn't exactly compare bell to davis, he said that bell would play the spot that anthony davis did...

maybe he said bell reminds him of anthony davis, too, but i was pretty sure gun's comments were in the context of using bell to disrupt the opponents passing game coming from the outside position...

and think of it, jared and bell, both rushing from the same side?

yummmmy...


and regarding gun, i think he did plug in the players he had into his scheme and they didn't do well...

now, carl's gotten him some players that do fit his scheme, so i guess you could say that this year he's trying to use his scheme with players who are good at what he wants to do...

i guess you could say i'm stoked about the d this year...

middle of the pack is a definite possibility, realistically speaking... :D :D :D

Well, position has alot to do with what a player can or can't accomplish on the field. I actually like Anthony Davis. He wasn't impressive, but he always seemed to come up with a big play when we needed it.

The problem is that his position on that side was to be a utility man. He could blitz, he could drop back in coverage, he could do everything well instead of trying to do just one thing great.

Bell is not that guy.

RedThat
07-11-2005, 11:51 AM
:titus:

Ok Laz. What's with the Titus smiley? Care to elaborate?

Kerberos
07-11-2005, 11:55 AM
Well, position has alot to do with what a player can or can't accomplish on the field. I actually like Anthony Davis. He wasn't impressive, but he always seemed to come up with a big play when we needed it.

The problem is that his position on that side was to be a utility man. He could blitz, he could drop back in coverage, he could do everything well instead of trying to do just one thing great.

Bell is not that guy.


Sounds more like DJ in a season or two. He has all those traits you just mentioned and I think he will be a GREAT addition to our defense!

The thing about MAZ that can't be found in a scouting report or in his statistics was his passion for the game and his leadership on the field. Not that he didn't have more than that ... but those seem to be his best attributes and I think that was sorely missed in those last 8 games in 2003. Record and points scored tell us that it might have some merit.

That is NOT so much different than what the Patriots do is it?

They get A BUNCH (not all) of average athletic ability, good leadership type players and coach them the way they want them work on the field and seem to be doing a good enough job to win super bowls.

I think THE CONCEPT is a good one ... but you better have ALL the right players for it to be productive. We did NOT have all the right supporting cast to make something like that work.

Do we have that ability NOW ???? I have my doubts but at least they are TRYING to get better talent and leadership for our D.



my.02


.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 11:58 AM
Sounds more like DJ in a season or two. He has all those traits you just mentioned and I think he will be a GREAT addition to our defense!

The thing about MAZ that can't be found in a scouting report or in his statistics was his passion for the game and his leadership on the field. Not that he didn't have more than that ... but those seem to be his best attributes and I think that was sorely missed in those last 8 games in 2003. Record and points scored tell us that it might have some merit.

That is NOT so much different than what the Patriots do is it?

They get A BUNCH (not all) of average athletic ability, good leadership type players and coach them the way they want them work on the field and seem to be doing a good enough job to win super bowls.

I think THE CONCEPT is a good one ... but you better have ALL the right players for it to be productive. We did NOT have all the right supporting cast to make something like that work.

Do we have that ability NOW ???? I have my doubts but at least they are TRYING to get better talent and leadership for our D.



my.02


.

I'm excited to see DJ on the field.

Mr. Laz
07-11-2005, 12:58 PM
Ok Laz. What's with the Titus smiley? Care to elaborate?

i means "i'll remember you said that" :p

Simplex3
07-11-2005, 01:03 PM
Precisely why I think we should be looking at Bell to man that spot. The MLB should be your lynchpin against the run and Bell is the best run-stopper we have.
That's like saying Tampa should move Brooks to the MLB. He's the best backer they have, after all.

Next thing you know you'll be advocating drafting safties to play corner. ;)

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 01:34 PM
That's like saying Tampa should move Brooks to the MLB. He's the best backer they have, after all.

Next thing you know you'll be advocating drafting safties to play corner. ;)

It's not about being the best LB. It's about the best-SUITED LB.

And Bell is best-suited for the middle, IMO. He's not good in pass coverage, some Pitt fans would actually say he's BAD in pass coverage. Yes, he can rush the passer, but that's not all he can do.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 02:05 PM
I agree with you about the team being better with Maz than without him, but you lost me on this point:

Hicks is ALWAYS praised by the coaches as being a team leader. Every year the coaching staff heaps accolades on the guy. Despite what we fans see on Sunday, the coaching staff loves Hicks. They claim he is a great leader. Browning also gets a fair amount of praise, which IMO is deserved.

I'll concede that point. Hicks has gotten more praise for leadership than he deserves. However, at least he has proven that he can be productive. He may not often play up to that level, but he has shown something. Mitchell hasn't shown that he could line up on the right side of the ball if both teams were wearing the same color.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 02:11 PM
I'll concede that point. Hicks has gotten more praise for leadership than he deserves. However, at least he has proven that he can be productive. He may not often play up to that level, but he has shown something. Mitchell hasn't shown that he could line up on the right side of the ball if both teams were wearing the same color.

That's not true at all. Mitchell is bad, but he's not THAT bad. :D

I guess my whole thing is that I appreciate what Maz has done for this team, and his story is interesting.

But I'm not at all "impressed" by the fact that he came out of Wisconsin LaCrosse to become an NFL starter.

The infatuation with Maz is much like the infatuation with Kimble Anders and the RBbC. Over those years, we ranked near the tops in the league in rushing yards year after year.

But if you watched those games, you could tell that our running game wasn't one that could win when we needed it most.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 02:11 PM
"You wanna rethink that? Minnesota IS a high-scoring team and that game was in a DOME."

I sure thought I said that we played 2 high scoring teams and 2 low scoring teams. Minnesota and Indianapolis would be the (let's say it together) HIGH SCORING TEAMS. Detroit and Chicago would be the LOW SCORING TEAMS. I'll try to type slower in the future.

"Nothing like taking one tiny example and making it the cornerstone of your argument. I guess you decided to ignore the 4 million times I mentioned that stopping the run is paramount to having a good defense? Oh yeah, make sure to tell me a few more times that I don't know anything about football, I'm sure that will work."

I guess stopping the run is more important than winning all nine games and giving up fewer points. Check out what the Broncos run defense gave up in terms of ypc when they won 2 Superbowls. When a team scores as many points as the Chiefs have the last few years, teams tend to throw the ball against you. You give up more yards per carry because you have to gear up against the pass because teams are trying to play catch-up. This was absolutely the case during the Chiefs 9-0 start.


"Oh jesus, do you really want me to embarrass you that bad? Vermeil has raved about Hicks HUNDREDS of times in the last 3 years about how great of a leader and locker room presense he is. Gunther talks about Browning being our best defensive linemen all the time. Seriously, do you really just NOT READ the countless interviews with our coaches?"

See my last post.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 02:18 PM
I sure thought I said that we played 2 high scoring teams and 2 low scoring teams. Minnesota and Indianapolis would be the (let's say it together) HIGH SCORING TEAMS. Detroit and Chicago would be the LOW SCORING TEAMS. I'll try to type slower in the future.

What did they give up vs. those "high scoring teams"? How about what they gave up against Green Bay, another high scoring team, WITH Maz? Yep, 3rd worst defensive performance of the year. You also said that those late-season games favor the defense because of the weather. Minny plays in a dome.

I guess stopping the run is more important than winning all nine games and giving up fewer points. Check out what the Broncos run defense gave up in terms of ypc when they won 2 Superbowls. When a team scores as many points as the Chiefs have the last few years, teams tend to throw the ball against you. You give up more yards per carry because you have to gear up against the pass because teams are trying to play catch-up. This was absolutely the case during the Chiefs 9-0 start.

So you're saying that the Denver SB defenses were actually poor against the run, but they're overall ranking was low because of lack of attempts? Well in 1998, they were 7th in the NFL in the only rushing stat that matters -- yards per attempt.

This claim about 1997-98 Denver is as equally mythical as the 1999 Rams and their "horrible" defense.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 02:22 PM
That's not true at all. Mitchell is bad, but he's not THAT bad. :D

I guess my whole thing is that I appreciate what Maz has done for this team, and his story is interesting.

But I'm not at all "impressed" by the fact that he came out of Wisconsin LaCrosse to become an NFL starter.

The infatuation with Maz is much like the infatuation with Kimble Anders and the RBbC. Over those years, we ranked near the tops in the league in rushing yards year after year.

But if you watched those games, you could tell that our running game wasn't one that could win when we needed it most.

I can't disagree with anything you said here. (That kind of disappoints me.) My point is that, on a defense that bad, worrying about the speed and coverage ability of our MLB who set the team record for tackles in a season seems misguided. I can live with 126 tackles from my MLB. It's the rest of the bums out there I'd focus my attention on.

"And Bell is best-suited for the middle, IMO. He's not good in pass coverage, some Pitt fans would actually say he's BAD in pass coverage. Yes, he can rush the passer, but that's not all he can do."

I thought you were worried about our MLB getting "torched" in pass coverage. Are you willing to concede that pass coverage is not a large necessity from a MLB. Granted that a MLB can drop into zone occasionally, but its hard to get "torched" when you're dropping back into a 5-yard deep soft zone.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 02:29 PM
I can't disagree with anything you said here. (That kind of disappoints me.) My point is that, on a defense that bad, worrying about the speed and coverage ability of our MLB who set the team record for tackles in a season seems misguided. I can live with 126 tackles from my MLB. It's the rest of the bums out there I'd focus my attention on.

"And Bell is best-suited for the middle, IMO. He's not good in pass coverage, some Pitt fans would actually say he's BAD in pass coverage. Yes, he can rush the passer, but that's not all he can do."

I thought you were worried about our MLB getting "torched" in pass coverage. Are you willing to concede that pass coverage is not a large necessity from a MLB. Granted that a MLB can drop into zone occasionally, but its hard to get "torched" when you're dropping back into a 5-yard deep soft zone.

I think the problem is systemic. It's not Maz specifically. It's that until now, our defense has been made up of nothing but guys like Maz. I would prefer to get rid of ALL OF THEM and start over.

The pass coverage thing was an example of Maz' lack of speed. Pass coverage is not what I'm worried about. Lack of athleticism, especially considering he's now had a very serious injury, is what I'm worried about. Even the year that Maz had 126 tackles, how many times did you see him blow up a play at the point of attack? How many times was he the first guy there? Maz is a "cleanup" LB and we need more than that now.

FYI, the year Maz had 126 tackles and set the team record, he started at OUTSIDE linebacker.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 02:35 PM
"What did they give up vs. those "high scoring teams"? How about what they gave up against Green Bay, another high scoring team, WITH Maz? Yep, 3rd worst defensive performance of the year. You also said that those late-season games favor the defense because of the weather. Minny plays in a dome."

First of all, Maz played in 10 games and missed 7. The 3 highest point totals allowed by the Chiefs all year were in the 7 games he missed. The Broncos, Vikings, and Colts all scored more points than Green Bay. Plus our defense forced 2 turnovers and scored a touchdown that game. As far as the late season games go, you're right, Minnesota plays in a dome. Congratulations. You're the one who commented about WHEN we played the teams. I'm saying that, if anything, teams score more points in optimal weather conditions. We played 4 games at Arrowhead from late November to mid January. We played another one at Denver in December. Defenses weren't at an advantage playing during the first 9 weeks of the season because of WHEN the games were played didn't. It doesn't make a huge difference, but that's why I didn't bring it up. You did.


"So you're saying that the Denver SB defenses were actually poor against the run, but they're overall ranking was low because of lack of attempts? Well in 1998, they were 7th in the NFL in the only rushing stat that matters -- yards per attempt.

This claim about 1997-98 Denver is as equally mythical as the 1999 Rams and their "horrible" defense."

You conveniently left out the 1999 Broncos. Remember them? The 1998 Broncos didn't even win the division. They made a nice run in the playoffs. Most would agree that the 1999 team was the better of the two teams. The Rams were a top 10 defense in their SB season.

vailpass
07-11-2005, 02:36 PM
FWIW here is some outside perspective:
Mike Mazlowski does not make the scout team on 90-something percient of NFL squads. Kawika Mitchell is close to the same category.
You are KC fans, you remember what stud LB's look like. The '90's weren't that long ago.
From the outside lookin in to see a SERIOUS 10 page thread on Midget Maz is just plain funny.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 02:46 PM
FWIW here is some outside perspective:
Mike Mazlowski does not make the scout team on 90-something percient of NFL squads. Kawika Mitchell is close to the same category.
You are KC fans, you remember what stud LB's look like. The '90's weren't that long ago.
From the outside lookin in to see a SERIOUS 10 page thread on Midget Maz is just plain funny.

Nobody's saying he's a stud LB. He was a solid contributor before his injury. If he can play at his pre-injury level, he's better than Kawika Mitchell, Rich Scanlon, or Boomer Grigsby. We don't have a wealth of talent at MLB. It's pretty obvious. To say he couldn't have made most NFL rosters before his injury is ignorant. He might not have started for more than 10-12 teams, but you could say the same thing for just about every defensive player we've had for the last 3 years.

vailpass
07-11-2005, 02:54 PM
Nobody's saying he's a stud LB. He was a solid contributor before his injury. If he can play at his pre-injury level, he's better than Kawika Mitchell, Rich Scanlon, or Boomer Grigsby. We don't have a wealth of talent at MLB. It's pretty obvious. To say he couldn't have made most NFL rosters before his injury is ignorant. He might not have started for more than 10-12 teams, but you could say the same thing for just about every defensive player we've had for the last 3 years.

Name me 10-12 teams for whom Maz would have started last year.
I see your point but from an objective standpoint you are way, way overating Mazlowski.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 02:58 PM
First of all, Maz played in 10 games and missed 7. The 3 highest point totals allowed by the Chiefs all year were in the 7 games he missed. The Broncos, Vikings, and Colts all scored more points than Green Bay.

You're counting the playoff game. It's really not a valid data set when you use 16 regular-season games and 1 playoff game. Maz didn't play in a playoff game, with the associated pressure, etc., so you have nothing to compare to. The Green Bay game was the 3rd-highest point total given up in a regular season game.

Plus our defense forced 2 turnovers and scored a touchdown that game.

Did Maz score that touchdown? If he didn't, then you can't prove or disprove that his presence on the field had anything to do with it. Sorry.

As far as the late season games go, you're right, Minnesota plays in a dome. Congratulations. You're the one who commented about WHEN we played the teams. I'm saying that, if anything, teams score more points in optimal weather conditions. We played 4 games at Arrowhead from late November to mid January. We played another one at Denver in December. Defenses weren't at an advantage playing during the first 9 weeks of the season because of WHEN the games were played didn't. It doesn't make a huge difference, but that's why I didn't bring it up. You did.

I brought up WHEN we played those teams because it's significant who was playing MLB at the time. It has nothing to do with chronology. You're the one that brought up the weather. Perhaps I should have explained myself better, so let me put it this way:

All things being equal, we played BETTER teams when Maz was out, which contributed more to the overall result than Maz being out. Throw out the division games (because both Maz and Mitchell faced them) and here's what you get:

Maz faced the following ranked offenses: #9, #31, #20, #4, #28, #27, and #12.

Mitchell faced #32, #29, and #1.

Now look at the points given up. Look at how we did against top 5 offenses, and against bottom 5 offenses. The results were exactly the same, regardless of who was playing MLB.

You conveniently left out the 1999 Broncos. Remember them? The 1998 Broncos didn't even win the division. They made a nice run in the playoffs. Most would agree that the 1999 team was the better of the two teams. The Rams were a top 10 defense in their SB season.

Seriously, do you even know what you're talking about. You said and I quote Check out what the Broncos run defense gave up in terms of ypc when they won 2 Superbowls. I did just that, and now you're wanting to talk about the 1999 Broncos?

And I know the Rams were a top-10 defense. So were the 1997 and 1998 Broncos. I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at with I guess stopping the run is more important than winning all nine games and giving up fewer points. Check out what the Broncos run defense gave up in terms of ypc when they won 2 Superbowls. When a team scores as many points as the Chiefs have the last few years, teams tend to throw the ball against you. You give up more yards per carry because you have to gear up against the pass because teams are trying to play catch-up. This was absolutely the case during the Chiefs 9-0 start.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 02:59 PM
And I must say again.

Maz' best year was at OUTSIDE LB. The year the Pats were looking at him, he was at OUTSIDE LB.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 03:05 PM
Name me 10-12 teams for whom Maz would have started last year.
I see your point but from an objective standpoint you are way, way overating Mazlowski.

I'm saying that, his last full season, he recorded 126 tackles. There are plenty of teams that would gladly taken that production from a LB. I'm not going to take the time to analyze 32 NFL rosters and figure out where he could or could not have made a contribution, but 126 tackles does not constitute a glaring weakness on any team's defense. It might be a downgrade for teams with outstanding linebackers, but it's not a liability.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 03:15 PM
And I must say again.

Maz' best year was at OUTSIDE LB. The year the Pats were looking at him, he was at OUTSIDE LB.

So you're saying that he's better suited to play OLB? Generally OLBs require more speed/coverage ability than MLBs. That's why guys like Ray Lewis and Brian Urlacher are such freaks. 126 tackles is an unusually high number for a ROLB, which Maz was in his last full season. Generally you want your fastest, most athletic guys on the perimeter. I don't really follow your logic in that he was able to make 126 tackles at a position which emphasizes speed and athleticism over tackling, fundamentals, and the ability to organize the defense, but he isn't fast or athletic enough to play MLB, a position that emphasizes tackling, fundamentals, and the ability to call defenses. He's clearly not cut out to be an OLB. MLB is his natural position. Why would it be so bad to have a guy like him at MLB when our alternatives are either longshots to make the roster or a guy who has proven absolutely nothing in 3 years.

vailpass
07-11-2005, 03:18 PM
I'm saying that, his last full season, he recorded 126 tackles. There are plenty of teams that would gladly taken that production from a LB. I'm not going to take the time to analyze 32 NFL rosters and figure out where he could or could not have made a contribution, but 126 tackles does not constitute a glaring weakness on any team's defense. It might be a downgrade for teams with outstanding linebackers, but it's not a liability.


You make a good case for your point of view; your reasoning is clear and to the point.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one though as I just don't think a slow, undersized LB who is a major liability on pass coverage could start for more than 1 or 2 desperate teams in the NFL. Everyone likes a "Rudy" story as long as it's not on their team.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 03:24 PM
You make a good case for your point of view. We'll have to agree to disagree though as our beliefs as to whether a slow, undersized LB who is a major liability on pass coverage could start for more than 1 or 2 desperate teams in the NFL. Everyone likes a "Rudy" story as long as it's not on their team.

I don't understand the continuous references on this thread to pass coverage when discussing a MLB. 90% of a MLB's job is to make tackles and call defenses. Maz can't punt, pass, kick, run, or jump well enough to win a trophy, but he can tackle and call defenses. I certainly don't see any other MLBs on our team that can tackle or call defenses. Mitchell may have won a lot of praise at the combines, but he looks like a lost little boy on the field. Our other 2 MLBs are longshots to make the roster. Vermeil seems to have a love affair with Mitchell, so he may well start, but I shudder at the possibility of another year of watching him stumble around.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 03:24 PM
So you're saying that he's better suited to play OLB? Generally OLBs require more speed/coverage ability than MLBs. That's why guys like Ray Lewis and Brian Urlacher are such freaks. 126 tackles is an unusually high number for a ROLB, which Maz was in his last full season. Generally you want your fastest, most athletic guys on the perimeter. I don't really follow your logic in that he was able to make 126 tackles at a position which emphasizes speed and athleticism over tackling, fundamentals, and the ability to organize the defense, but he isn't fast or athletic enough to play MLB, a position that emphasizes tackling, fundamentals, and the ability to call defenses. He's clearly not cut out to be an OLB. MLB is his natural position. Why would it be so bad to have a guy like him at MLB when our alternatives are either longshots to make the roster or a guy who has proven absolutely nothing in 3 years.

I'm not inferring anything. Just pointing out that his best season wasn't at MLB.

And again, you're using the sheer number of tackles as evidence that he's good. Mitchell had 47 solo tackles last season, putting him in the top half of a league with just about 100 starting LB's (and that doesn't account for the teams running a 3-4) despite the fact that he started only 12 games. He had more solo tackles than Johnathon Vilma.

Tackles as a statistic are extremely overrated.

Mr. Laz
07-11-2005, 03:24 PM
a slow, undersized LB who is a major liability on pass coverage
thats unfair

he's slow(we don't know how slow now) but he's not undersized

Maz LB 6-2 243lbs

he's liability in coverage is only because of the speed issue ... he's smart and has a nose for the ball.



with maz the problem has always been speed ... if he can get back to being fast enough, he's a solid MLB.

go bowe
07-11-2005, 03:27 PM
Well, position has alot to do with what a player can or can't accomplish on the field. I actually like Anthony Davis. He wasn't impressive, but he always seemed to come up with a big play when we needed it.

The problem is that his position on that side was to be a utility man. He could blitz, he could drop back in coverage, he could do everything well instead of trying to do just one thing great.

Bell is not that guy.no, but he has a few good attributes too...

i'll take bell over davis (sorry, it was just too easy)...

seriously, you may be totally right about using bell in the middle instead of rolb...

but i think from what i've read about gun, he plans on giving it a shot because he thinks bell can be more disruptive on the outside...

i'm actually looking forward to seeing what bell can do out there...

and, fwiw, i agree with those that think mitchell will be better with bell and dj beside him, together with an improved secondary (if warfield is playing) behind him...

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 03:40 PM
I don't understand the continuous references on this thread to pass coverage when discussing a MLB. 90% of a MLB's job is to make tackles and call defenses. Maz can't punt, pass, kick, run, or jump well enough to win a trophy, but he can tackle and call defenses. I certainly don't see any other MLBs on our team that can tackle or call defenses. Mitchell may have won a lot of praise at the combines, but he looks like a lost little boy on the field. Our other 2 MLBs are longshots to make the roster. Vermeil seems to have a love affair with Mitchell, so he may well start, but I shudder at the possibility of another year of watching him stumble around.

Right there you said it.

Mitchell "looks" lost. Yet you use stats to talk about Maz. Which is it?

If you just look at the raw stats, Mitchell's numbers for last year compare favorably with many starting NFL MLB's. Watching him on the field, we know that's not exactly true.

And by watching Maz on the field, we know what his shortcomings are too. He gets alot of cleanup tackles rather than blowing up plays on his own.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 03:47 PM
I'm not inferring anything. Just pointing out that his best season wasn't at MLB.

And again, you're using the sheer number of tackles as evidence that he's good. Mitchell had 47 solo tackles last season, putting him in the top half of a league with just about 100 starting LB's (and that doesn't account for the teams running a 3-4) despite the fact that he started only 12 games. He had more solo tackles than Johnathon Vilma.

Tackles as a statistic are extremely overrated.

Mitchell was near the bottom for starting MLBs. OLBs generally don't make as many tackles because they focus more on rushing the passer and occasionally covering receivers. 47 tackles for a MLB who played 15 games and got 12 starts is a pitiful number. If tackles are overrated, where is his value hidden? Sacks? INTs? The ability to not trip over his own two feet? Mitchell has never contributed in any of those categories either. Comparing him to Vilma is crazy. Vilma had 35 more total tackles, 3 more INTs, 1 more sack, and 47 fewer TOOTFs. (Tripped over own two feet) Plus, it was Vilma's first year of playing in the NFL.

There were 56 DBs in the NFL with more tackles than our starting MLB. If that isn't a telling stat, I don't know what is.

The top seven tacklers in the NFL last year were:
Keith Bulluck, Donnie Edwards, Ray Lewis, Zach Thomas, London Fletcher, Rodney Harrison, and Derrick Brooks. I would say that there is a correlation between great linebackers and number of tackles recorded.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 03:48 PM
thats unfair

he's slow(we don't know how slow now) but he's not undersized

Maz LB 6-2 243lbs

he's liability in coverage is only because of the speed issue ... he's smart and has a nose for the ball.

with maz the problem has always been speed ... if he can get back to being fast enough, he's a solid MLB.

Yeah, I don't know where the "undersized" thing came from.

philfree
07-11-2005, 03:55 PM
Mitchell was near the bottom for starting MLBs. OLBs generally don't make as many tackles because they focus more on rushing the passer and occasionally covering receivers. 47 tackles for a MLB who played 15 games and got 12 starts is a pitiful number. If tackles are overrated, where is his value hidden? Sacks? INTs? The ability to not trip over his own two feet? Mitchell has never contributed in any of those categories either. Comparing him to Vilma is crazy. Vilma had 35 more total tackles, 3 more INTs, 1 more sack, and 47 fewer TOOTFs. (Tripped over own two feet) Plus, it was Vilma's first year of playing in the NFL.

There were 56 DBs in the NFL with more tackles than our starting MLB. If that isn't a telling stat, I don't know what is.

The top seven tacklers in the NFL last year were:
Keith Bulluck, Donnie Edwards, Ray Lewis, Zach Thomas, London Fletcher, Rodney Harrison, and Derrick Brooks. I would say that there is a correlation between great linebackers and number of tackles recorded.

I've always liked Maz but I'd like to point out that Mitchell was injured and wasn't at all healthy till he started the last 9 games of the season. Operating in a new scheme in just his 2nd year in the NFL might have slowed Mitchells progess just a tad as well. He did lead the Chiefs in tackles for the last 9 games of the season though. If Maz makes it back great but the odds are more against that then they are Mitchell improving his game this year. I'm pulling for all of them at this point.

PhilFree:arrow:

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 03:58 PM
Mitchell was near the bottom for starting MLBs.

You might want to check again.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/playersort/NFL/LB-TACKLES/2004/regular?&_3:col_1=16

More than Carlos Emmons and Johnathon Vilma. More than Takeo Spikes, Jay Foreman, and Andra Davis.

If tackles are overrated, where is his value hidden? Sacks? INTs? The ability to not trip over his own two feet? Mitchell has never contributed in any of those categories either. Comparing him to Vilma is crazy. Vilma had 35 more total tackles, 3 more INTs, 1 more sack, and 47 fewer TOOTFs. (Tripped over own two feet) Plus, it was Vilma's first year of playing in the NFL.

Wait a second. You've NEVER said anything about sacks, INT's, or anything. You're waffling, plain and simple.

Your defense of Maz is "126 tackles" but now you know that it obviously doesn't hold up.

You want to include INT's and sacks? Maz has FOUR sacks and 3 interceptions in EIGHT YEARS.

At any rate, I'm not defending Mitchell. He stinks.

But your evaluation of Maz is flawed, and it's evident.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 04:16 PM
You might want to check again.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/playersort/NFL/LB-TACKLES/2004/regular?&_3:col_1=16

More than Carlos Emmons and Johnathon Vilma. More than Takeo Spikes, Jay Foreman, and Andra Davis.



Wait a second. You've NEVER said anything about sacks, INT's, or anything. You're waffling, plain and simple.

Your defense of Maz is "126 tackles" but now you know that it obviously doesn't hold up.

You want to include INT's and sacks? Maz has FOUR sacks and 3 interceptions in EIGHT YEARS.

At any rate, I'm not defending Mitchell. He stinks.

But your evaluation of Maz is flawed, and it's evident.


My stats were 100% correct. You made the argument that tackles were the most misleading stat. I then added other defensive stats. That's now at least the second time you've made a flawed argument, I've responded to your argument, then you've accused me of making a stupid point.

Earlier you chastised me for not noting WHEN the Chiefs played each team. I then addressed your point by noting WHEN the games were played. You then tried to make me look dumb by pointing out the obvious fact that one of those games was played indoors. It was YOUR POINT to begin with.

Now you gripe that tackles are misleading stats. I give you additional stats and you accuse me of waffling. I never touted Maz's INTs or sacks for the same reason I didn't list his Field Goal Accuracy. They just aren't important stats for MLBs. It should be clear by now that I value tackles more than any other stat in judging the productivity of MLBs.

Finally, you're saying that Mitchell stinks. You've been saying that he should start. Earlier you said there wasn't any dropoff from Maz's production to Mitchell's when there was in every single measurable (and intangible) statistic except for ypc. Winning percentage and points allowed took huge hits after Maz's injury.

I haven't waffled once. I'll stand behind my numbers. You've managed to sort a column by solo tackles and name 5 solid players he finished ahead of. Great. I can name over 50 DBs he finished behind in total tackles.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 06:19 PM
My stats were 100% correct.

You said Mitchell was "near the bottom" amonst MLB's, which is wrong.

You made the argument that tackles were the most misleading stat. I then added other defensive stats. That's now at least the second time you've made a flawed argument, I've responded to your argument, then you've accused me of making a stupid point.

I made the argument that tackles are a misleading stat. You responded by citing Mitchell's sacks and INT's. Yet it's ME that's making a flawed argument? You need to go back to Philosophy 101, friend. You addressed my argument that tackles are a misleading stat by trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Earlier you chastised me for not noting WHEN the Chiefs played each team. I then addressed your point by noting WHEN the games were played. You then tried to make me look dumb by pointing out the obvious fact that one of those games was played indoors. It was YOUR POINT to begin with.

As I mentioned earlier that I should have worded it better. My point was not to identify the POINT IN TIME at which the game occured but rather who happened to be playing MLB at the time the game was played. My bad. The point stands and all you can do to refute it is complain.

Now you gripe that tackles are misleading stats. I give you additional stats and you accuse me of waffling.

Since when are additional stats considered "tackles"? If they're not, how could they be used to refute my idea that tackles are overrated? They can't. Sorry.

I never touted Maz's INTs or sacks for the same reason I didn't list his Field Goal Accuracy. They just aren't important stats for MLBs. It should be clear by now that I value tackles more than any other stat in judging the productivity of MLBs.

Then why did you bring it up when bashing Mitchell? I know why, because you hold an OBVIOUS double-standard when comparing Maz to anyone else.

Finally, you're saying that Mitchell stinks. You've been saying that he should start. Earlier you said there wasn't any dropoff from Maz's production to Mitchell's when there was in every single measurable (and intangible) statistic except for ypc. Winning percentage and points allowed took huge hits after Maz's injury.

2 of the defense's worst PA (45 vs. Den and 45 vs. Min) happened when Maz was out. The defense's BEST PA (3) also happened while Maz was out. You're taking a single statistic and isolating it. Of course, PPG is in NO WAY an indication of the efficacy of one individual player, since football is a team game.

I haven't waffled once. I'll stand behind my numbers. You've managed to sort a column by solo tackles and name 5 solid players he finished ahead of. Great. I can name over 50 DBs he finished behind in total tackles.

And I can do the same for Maz. The simple fact is tackles are a virtually meaningless stat.

This defense has sucked the entire time Maz has been here. That's a FACT.

htismaqe
07-11-2005, 06:32 PM
You know what, dude? We're not gonna agree on this.

You're new here, and I don't want you to think that this is the way it always with me, or with any of our regulars.

I'm done arguing this. I'm just looking forward to seeing the re-vamped defense this year and hopefully we'll all get to watch a Super Bowl!

go bowe
07-11-2005, 06:44 PM
You know what, dude? We're not gonna agree on this.

You're new here, and I don't want you to think that this is the way it always with me, or with any of our regulars.

I'm done arguing this. I'm just looking forward to seeing the re-vamped defense this year and hopefully we'll all get to watch a Super Bowl!i dunno...

he could be another incarnation of tom cash (ok, ok, i'm only kidding about that, since this one doesn't act like an asshole and seems to actually be a somewhat knowledgeable football poster)...

has kotter been around lately?

maby this is skinbra in a new form...

or somebody else using a fictious name...

well, it could be...

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 07:11 PM
"You said Mitchell was "near the bottom" amonst MLB's, which is wrong."

I can name 20 MLBs with more tackles than Mitchell last year. It's easy to find.

"I made the argument that tackles are a misleading stat. You responded by citing Mitchell's sacks and INT's. Yet it's ME that's making a flawed argument? You need to go back to Philosophy 101, friend. You addressed my argument that tackles are a misleading stat by trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Since when are additional stats considered "tackles"? If they're not, how could they be used to refute my idea that tackles are overrated? They can't. Sorry."

You have just made the biggest contradiction I have ever seen in a single post. In a single post you criticize me for citing sacks and INTs. You follow that up by implying that I didn't include any stats but tackles. If I didn't include "additional stats" then what the hell are the INTs and sacks you were just griping about.

I've given you every possible measure I can think of to prove that Maz is superior to Mitchell and you simultaneously complain that I give too many stats and not enough. Let me lay out just the important ones and dumb it down just a little.

With Maz we had:
More wins
Fewer losses
Fewer points allowed on defense
More points scored by our defense
More tackles from the LB position
Better leadership/intangibles

With Mitchell we had:
Fewer wins
More losses
More points allowed on defense
Fewer points scored by our defense
Fewer tackles from the LB position
Little or no leadership/intangibles

Exactly what stat are you looking for? What possible measure can you use to say that Mitchell has been as productive as a healthy Maz?

I know that its difficult for you to get your mind around the concept, but I hope you won't, yet again, tell me that tackles are a misleading stat while simultaneously accuse me of changing the subject when I include other stats.

Maybe I'll clear up the confusion on you end by explaining to you just what a tackle is and why it is important for a good defense to do it.

Tackle (n): The act of stopping an opposing player carrying the ball, especially by forcing the opponent to the ground, as in football or Rugby.

(It's when you knock the guy with the ball down.)

You see, the guy with the ball tries to run as far as he can before getting knocked down or "tackled." If you don't "tackle" the guy with the ball, he will score what is known as a "touchdown."

"As I mentioned earlier that I should have worded it better. My point was not to identify the POINT IN TIME at which the game occured but rather who happened to be playing MLB at the time the game was played. My bad. The point stands and all you can do to refute it is complain."

Then it was a dumb point then, and its a dumb point now. Games 1-10 were Maz. That's when we got all of those wins, gave up fewer points, and our LB made "tackles."

The rest of the games were when we had Mitchell instead of Maz. That's when we had all of those losses, gave up more points, and our LB didn't make "tackles" thus resulting in giving up "touchdowns."



"Then why did you bring it up when bashing Mitchell? I know why, because you hold an OBVIOUS double-standard when comparing Maz to anyone else. "

No, I couldn't care less about Mitchell's sacks or INTs. I just wanted to establish the fact that, while you may find "tackles" an unimportant stat, Mitchell didn't exactly fill up other columns of the stat sheet.

"2 of the defense's worst PA (45 vs. Den and 45 vs. Min) happened when Maz was out. The defense's BEST PA (3) also happened while Maz was out. You're taking a single statistic and isolating it."

I didn't just isolate a single statistic. Before I gave you the stats that way, I showed you that we gave up 11 PPG more with Mitchell than we did Maz. I call that "averaging" the numbers. It is the mathematical opposite of isolating the numbers. You have been consistent in complaining when I give you every possible vantage point of the numbers. I don't expect you to stop now.

Me: Here's the way the numbers look on average.
You: That's stupid, you have to look at each specific game, team, etc.

Me: Here's the way the numbers look on a game by game basis.
You: That's stupid, you're isolating the numbers.

And I can do the same for Maz. The simple fact is tackles are a virtually meaningless stat.

"This defense has sucked the entire time Maz has been here. That's a FACT."

"Of course, PPG is in NO WAY an indication of the efficacy of one individual player, since football is a team game."

So which is it? Does Maz suck because he plays on a bad defense or is the quality of the defense "in NO WAY an indication of the efficacy of one individual player, since football is a team game."

I submit that you can only determine which of two players at the same position are better by comparing their individual stats and evaluating them in conjunction with their team's success. If you feel that it's unfair to compare all of the games because they played different teams, just compare the three games they each played against the Raiders, Broncos, and Chargers. The results are the same. I'm not being inconsistent or waffling, I'm simply showing you that, by any measure, the Chiefs were a better team, a more effective defense, and got more production out of the LB position when Maz was the starter.

If its a FACT that the defense has sucked the entire time Maz has been here, then you must have a pretty rigorous standard. The 2003 Chiefs gave up 16.7 PPG before Maz's injury. That's not the 1985 Bears, but it doesn't suck. If you can find a better measure of a defense's effectiveness than PPG allowed, you're a better man than I.

Saul Good
07-11-2005, 07:13 PM
i dunno...

he could be another incarnation of tom cash (ok, ok, i'm only kidding about that, since this one doesn't act like an asshole and seems to actually be a somewhat knowledgeable football poster)...

has kotter been around lately?

maby this is skinbra in a new form...

or somebody else using a fictious name...

well, it could be...

I'm new here, not an old member using a new name. He's not taking cheap shots. Neither am I. Sarcasm aside, we all just want to see the best team possible. I don't take it personally, and he's got 39,000 posts, so I'm sure he's seen a lot worse than me.

htismaqe
07-12-2005, 05:29 AM
I can name 20 MLBs with more tackles than Mitchell last year. It's easy to find.

I'm gonna have to concede this point simply because I don't have time to do it. NFL doesn't break down by OLB and MLB. They lump them all together. If every team in the NLF played a 4-3, there would be 96 starting LB's in the league. Mitchell ranks 58th in tackles. That would be "near the middle" not "near the bottom".

You have just made the biggest contradiction I have ever seen in a single post. In a single post you criticize me for citing sacks and INTs. You follow that up by implying that I didn't include any stats but tackles. If I didn't include "additional stats" then what the hell are the INTs and sacks you were just griping about.

Obviously, you've lost yourself in the argument. Let me put it this way:

1) You said Maz was a GOOD LB because he had 126 tackles in a season.

2) I said tackles are overrated.

3) You said that Mitchell didn't have any INT's or sacks either.

4) I said what does that have to do with tackles?

See, you changed the subject.

Exactly what stat are you looking for? What possible measure can you use to say that Mitchell has been as productive as a healthy Maz?

I'm not looking for a stat. I've seen it with my own 2 eyes. Mike Maslowski is a MEDIOCRE MLB.

definition of tackle deleted

You can drop the facetiousness. I know what a tackle is. Defining it does nothing to change the fact that you can't get your argument straight.

Then it was a dumb point then, and its a dumb point now. Games 1-10 were Maz. That's when we got all of those wins, gave up fewer points, and our LB made "tackles."

The rest of the games were when we had Mitchell instead of Maz. That's when we had all of those losses, gave up more points, and our LB didn't make "tackles" thus resulting in giving up "touchdowns."

I see you still can't refute the point. When we played high-powered offenses we gave up points, regardless of who was playing MLB. You obviously have no way to disagree so instead you obfuscate and call it "dumb".

No, I couldn't care less about Mitchell's sacks or INTs. I just wanted to establish the fact that, while you may find "tackles" an unimportant stat, Mitchell didn't exactly fill up other columns of the stat sheet.

If you don't care, why did you bring it up? Again, I'm not the one that tried to change the subject, you are.

I didn't just isolate a single statistic. Before I gave you the stats that way, I showed you that we gave up 11 PPG more with Mitchell than we did Maz. I call that "averaging" the numbers. It is the mathematical opposite of isolating the numbers. You have been consistent in complaining when I give you every possible vantage point of the numbers. I don't expect you to stop now.

You're kidding right? Do you even know what you're talking about? You've given every possible statistic you can to point out that Maz is the reason we went 9-0. That IS isolating the numbers. It doesn't matter how many perspectives you use when you only have one conclusion. I've given you SEVERAL other possibilities for why we might have gone 9-0, all of which are plausible. You just don't want to acknowledge it.

So which is it? Does Maz suck because he plays on a bad defense or is the quality of the defense "in NO WAY an indication of the efficacy of one individual player, since football is a team game."

I've already said that the problem is systemic. The problem is Maz AND the players LIKE Maz.

If its a FACT that the defense has sucked the entire time Maz has been here, then you must have a pretty rigorous standard. The 2003 Chiefs gave up 16.7 PPG before Maz's injury. That's not the 1985 Bears, but it doesn't suck. If you can find a better measure of a defense's effectiveness than PPG allowed, you're a better man than I.

I can find a better measure. Watching the games. Maz is a mediocre MLB at best. I can see that by watching him. So can MANY other people here.

Gaz
07-12-2005, 05:38 AM
We have seen the best of Maslowski already. He is a monster on Special Teams, but that is just not enough.

Mitchell has more upside than Maslowski. His play was improving at the end of last season and he is not coming off an injury.

Of the players on the roster, gimme Mitchell.

xoxo~
Gaz
Picking the lesser of two evils.

htismaqe
07-12-2005, 05:42 AM
Hey Saul

1) This could go on forever like this. I REALLY need to stop. I'd like to drop it now. Please. :D

2) Did you know you can use tags to quote, bold, or italicize other people's words, so that they're easier to read?

htismaqe
07-12-2005, 05:55 AM
I should clarify.

My use of Mitchell in this argument should not be considered an endorsement of him as MLB, but rather as my attempt to show how misleading tackle stats can be.

If you look, you'll see that he did have more solo tackles that Vilma, Spikes, and the rest of those people that I listed. There's more -- MANY more.

But we all know by WATCHING HIM that he's not the 58th-best (in solo tackles he was on the FIRST PAGE, around 40th!) overall LB in the league by any stretch of the imagination.

jspchief
07-12-2005, 06:27 AM
Personally, I believe we did miss Maz in the later half of 2003. It may not have changed the end result, but we were a worse defense with Maz out. I think it had more to do with the intangibles.

Even so, I hope we reach an injury settlement with Maz. He may have been better than a rookie Mitchell in a complex scheme, but that doesn't make him a great NFL player. As htismaqe said, Mitchell can could get better at his weaknesses, while I doubt Maz is going to come back more athletic than he was a year and a half ago.

Maz is the captain of the old guard. Best of a bad lot. It's time for this team to get better on D, and IMO we won't do that with "heart".

the Talking Can
07-12-2005, 06:36 AM
Maz will never play in the NFL again.


next question

Kerberos
07-12-2005, 06:52 AM
Maz will never play in the NFL again.


next question


Not that I don't want what is BEST for the Chiefs as a whole, but I really think we should wait to see what the JURY has to say before we write MAZ off.

Will he come back and more effective or better than he was before the knee injury/surgery?

Possible but not probable.

But I will not be eating shitburgers with the rest of you if he proves us all wrong.

I refuse to write off the man that defied all odds to make the roster by being resiliant to talk/posts such as this.

I have my doubts ... but I will wait to see what the man brings to the table before I kick him to the curb.

:)



.

the Talking Can
07-12-2005, 06:59 AM
Not that I don't want what is BEST for the Chiefs as a whole, but I really think we should wait to see what the JURY has to say before we write MAZ off.

Will he come back and more effective or better than he was before the knee injury/surgery?

Possible but not probable.


no, it's not possible...his knee is wrecked, his career is over

god speed, Maz...

htismaqe
07-12-2005, 07:14 AM
I guess one of the reasons I'm still arguing this (besides the fact that I have ZERO willpower when it comes to debating like this :banghead:...) is that this is the SAME ARGUMENT I had with KCJohnny back in 2000.

He produced mounds and mounds of stats that he said proved that RBbC was effective and that the "Ramifization" of the Chiefs was unnecessary.

We heard that Kimble Anders and Tony Richardson were better RB's than Priest Holmes. We heard that the Chiefs rushing offense under Marty finished in the top 5 every year. Stat after stat after stat.

And of course, we all know how that turned out...

Chiefnj
07-12-2005, 07:32 AM
I guess one of the reasons I'm still arguing this (besides the fact that I have ZERO willpower when it comes to debating like this :banghead:...) is that this is the SAME ARGUMENT I had with KCJohnny back in 2000.

He produced mounds and mounds of stats that he said proved that RBbC was effective and that the "Ramifization" of the Chiefs was unnecessary.

We heard that Kimble Anders and Tony Richardson were better RB's than Priest Holmes. We heard that the Chiefs rushing offense under Marty finished in the top 5 every year. Stat after stat after stat.

And of course, we all know how that turned out...


We made it to the playoffs once in a while??

htismaqe
07-12-2005, 07:37 AM
We made it to the playoffs once in a while??

I don't think anybody anticipated that the defense was going to tank like it did. That also wasn't the argument.

The argument then centered around the offense.

Coogs
07-12-2005, 07:47 AM
Not that I don't want what is BEST for the Chiefs as a whole, but I really think we should wait to see what the JURY has to say...

Here.... on the Planet... wait? ROFL




BTW, my take on Maz is that I am going to be awfully disappointed if we have not aquired enough talent at LB to keep him off of the roster. Thanks Maz! You gave us hope once. But now I want to see a real defense in KC.