PDA

View Full Version : Never thought of our D problems this way


KCChiefsMan
08-04-2005, 05:09 PM
Chiefs | Fast Fact: Defensive Ranking on Decline
Thu, 4 Aug 2005 10:04:52 -0700

Rick Dean, of the Topeka Capital-Journal, reports since the death of former Pro Bowl LB Derrick Thomas in 2000, the Kansas City Chiefs' defense has declined in team rankings - 18 (2000), 23 (2001), 32 (2002), 29 (2003) and 31 (2004).

Rausch
08-04-2005, 05:10 PM
Yeah, he and Hasty were the last leaders and probowl talent we had...

Color Red
08-04-2005, 05:19 PM
Regarding your reference to Hasty and Thomas --and at the risk of seeming to oversimply our defense problems-- it points out how small a number of high performance players can key an entire defense's play.

Hasty and Thomas were key contributors to a modestly effective defense.

Who's to say that Surtain, Bell and a little Johnson can't significantly step up our defensive play this year? Not to mention help from Knight and Hall.

RedThat
08-04-2005, 05:21 PM
Yeah, he and Hasty were the last leaders and probowl talent we had...

Well, well, well....the James Hasty is back in Patrick Surtain. Hopefully, the new coming of Derrick Thomas is here in Derrick Johnson....The Bobby Bell is back in Kendrell Bell....The Neil Smith is back in Jared Allen...Ladies and gentlemen, its time!!! Its time for a change!!! It's time for some defense!!!

Rausch
08-04-2005, 05:22 PM
Regarding your reference to Hasty and Thomas --and at the risk of seeming to oversimply our defense problems-- it points out how small a number of high performance players can key an entire defense's play.

Hasty and Thomas were key contributors to a modestly effective defense.

Who's to say that Surtain, Bell and a little Johnson can't significantly step up our defensive play this year? Not to mention help from Knight and Hall.

As long as they're healthy Surtain and Knight will be huge for us. Knight should be a big help to Kawika in the middle (run stuffing) and Surtain will allow Warfield to cover the no 2 WR like he should be. Surtain is not as physical as Hasty but he's just as solid.

Bell is all about the "Woo-hits."

Rausch
08-04-2005, 05:23 PM
Well, well, well....the James Hasty is back in Patrick Surtain. Hopefully, the new coming of Derrick Thomas is here in Derrick Johnson....The Bobby Bell is back in Kendrell Bell....The Neil Smith is back in Jared Allen...Ladies and gentlemen, its time!!! Its time for a change!!! It's time for some defense!!!

**** Neil Smith...

Baby Lee
08-04-2005, 05:58 PM
The death of DT and the way the media maniacally spun every word out of his mouth to the negative stand at 1 and 2 for me giving Gun slack as HC.
The stooges are the overwhelmingly predominant reason to condemn him.

If in '99 we could have assembled Gun at HC, Gregg Williams at DC, Saunders as OC, and Ganz as STs coach, and if DT had survived. It'd be a much different retrospective on Gun's reign.

Baby Lee
08-04-2005, 05:59 PM
**** Neil Smith...
The first word is asterisked out. I can only assumed because you mumbled it beyond all syntactical recognition. ;)

chefsos
08-04-2005, 06:05 PM
The first word is asterisked out. ;)


Pretty sure that word ain't "Love".

keg in kc
08-04-2005, 06:07 PM
If in '99 we could have assembled Gun at HC, Gregg Williams at DC, Saunders as OC, and Ganz as STs coach, and if DT had survived. It'd be a much different retrospective on Gun's reign.I'm not so sure about that. With all due respect to Gun, Williams and Al, I think we've needed the personnel overhaul we've had since '01. Perhaps with a different staff, we'd have drafted different players and had a stronger core, but that's too far into the realm of "what if" for me to go. I'm of the mind that we'd have had a rough stretch in the early 21st century regardless, looking in retrospect. Now, had Vermeil not been available in 2001, who knows what would have happened with another year under Cunningham. Perhaps continuity would have precluded us from the 6-10 and 8-8 seasons that started the Vermeil era. But, again, that's hard to know.

And I think we'd have needed more than just DT.

All-in-all, I think of the last four years as the recovery phase from the personnel moves of the early- to mid-90s. We got where we were because we drafted badly for a long, long time, and I think in the end, that's the only thing that could have saved us. Not better coaching; better management. Specifically better drafting.

In any case, and I've been saying this for years, our defense has been on a steady downward spiral since '98. I hoped it had bottomed out in '02, but it hadn't. Hopefully it did in '04, and we can start to rebound.

Baby Lee
08-04-2005, 06:21 PM
I'm not so sure about that. With all due respect to Gun, Williams and Al, I think we've needed the personnel overhaul we've had since '01. Perhaps with a different staff, we'd have drafted different players and had a stronger core, but that's too far into the realm of "what if" for me to go.
The only move that I'd characterize as 'all DV' is the trade for Trent, OK maybe Kennison.
Now I'll more than readily admit that Trent was a great get for us, but talk about 'what if.' Think about all those picks we gave up for Trent and DV. Downing was the first pick we made in 2001. MoF, the only picks from 01 and 02 who are still on the team are; Bober, Harts, Sims and Fujita.
Do you think think Gun would be less receptive to Priest or Larry Johnson than DV was? That's a pretty low bar. You think Gun would've shot down the acquisition of Roaf?
The loss of Morris was another blow to the Gun era.

DaneMcCloud
08-04-2005, 06:31 PM
Bober wasn't a draft choice. He was a free agent who played with the Giants. Which I guess makes those drafts even more pathetic.

Dane

Hydrae
08-04-2005, 06:34 PM
The only move that I'd characterize as 'all DV' is the trade for Trent, OK maybe Kennison.
Now I'll more than readily admit that Trent was a great get for us, but talk about 'what if.' Think about all those picks we gave up for Trent and DV. Downing was the first pick we made in 2001. MoF, the only picks from 01 and 02 who are still on the team are; Bober, Harts, Sims and Fujita.
Do you think think Gun would be less receptive to Priest or Larry Johnson than DV was? That's a pretty low bar. You think Gun would've shot down the acquisition of Roaf?
The loss of Morris was another blow to the Gun era.


I think we got Bober from the Giants. I know we did not draft him.

As to Gun as a head coach, the team gave up on him. Why this is, I don't even want to speculate but I have said before, remember that he was the D-Coord of the defense that had the Monday Night Meltdown. That happened late in the season and when they announced Gun as the new head coach for the next season, this was the only negative I had about it. If he couldn't keep enough control of his D that Monday night in Denver, how was he going to run an entire team? Unfortunately I believe I was proved right in my doubts.

I am so happy to have him back doing what he does best though, coaching defenses.

Baby Lee
08-04-2005, 06:35 PM
Bober wasn't a draft choice. He was a free agent who played with the Giants. Which I guess makes those drafts even more pathetic.

Dane
Typo leading to eff up. Mixed up Bober and Baber, who was drafted but is now a Buc.

htismaqe
08-04-2005, 06:40 PM
The only move that I'd characterize as 'all DV' is the trade for Trent, OK maybe Kennison.
Now I'll more than readily admit that Trent was a great get for us, but talk about 'what if.' Think about all those picks we gave up for Trent and DV. Downing was the first pick we made in 2001. MoF, the only picks from 01 and 02 who are still on the team are; Bober, Harts, Sims and Fujita.
Do you think think Gun would be less receptive to Priest or Larry Johnson than DV was? That's a pretty low bar. You think Gun would've shot down the acquisition of Roaf?
The loss of Morris was another blow to the Gun era.

I don't think Gun would have acquired Priest in the first place, he's about 40 pounds too light.

As for the draft picks, Gun was responsible for some horrible drafts including the one that brought us William Bartee.

I know I've knocked on Gun as hard as anybody, but like Keg said, there was nothing to work with.

Baby Lee
08-04-2005, 06:42 PM
I don't think Gun would have acquired Priest in the first place, he's about 40 pounds too light.
And he was DV's baby? I seem to recall a cold reception from the coaching staff initially.
I'd put Priest on Carl and the FO, same with Roaf.
I have no reason to think that Gun would balk any more forcefully, or even AS forcefully.

Baby Lee
08-04-2005, 06:44 PM
As for the draft picks, Gun was responsible for some horrible drafts including the one that brought us William Bartee.
Regardless of who drafted him, seems DV loves Bartee more than Gun ever did.
Maybe he just has a way of practicing in a way to show great promise without ever delivering.

htismaqe
08-04-2005, 06:44 PM
And he was DV's baby? I seem to recall a cold reception from the coaching staff initially.
I'd put Priest on Carl and the FO, same with Roaf.
I have no reason to think that Gun would balk any more forcefully, or even AS forcefully.

No, DV didn't really welcome him with open arms, but I also think he thought Priest could help the team.

Priest, in now way, fit Gunther's profile for RB's. I don't think Carl would have ever pursued him with Gunther as HC.

htismaqe
08-04-2005, 06:45 PM
Regardless of who drafted him, seems DV loves Bartee more than Gun ever did.
Maybe he just has a way of practicing in a way to show great promise without ever delivering.

Yep. In the beginning, I railed hard against Gunther. I saw DV as potential for REAL change.

In the end, it's been more of the same. This team has been bad in some way or another since Marty left.

Baby Lee
08-04-2005, 06:51 PM
Priest, in now way, fit Gunther's profile for RB's. I don't think Carl would have ever pursued him with Gunther as HC.
Like how he respected DV's profile when drafting LJ?

htismaqe
08-04-2005, 07:21 PM
Like how he respected DV's profile when drafting LJ?

The rare exception in a veritable sea of picks.

keg in kc
08-04-2005, 07:23 PM
The only move that I'd characterize as 'all DV' is the trade for Trent, OK maybe Kennison.
Now I'll more than readily admit that Trent was a great get for us, but talk about 'what if.' Think about all those picks we gave up for Trent and DV. Downing was the first pick we made in 2001. MoF, the only picks from 01 and 02 who are still on the team are; Bober, Harts, Sims and Fujita.
Do you think think Gun would be less receptive to Priest or Larry Johnson than DV was? That's a pretty low bar. You think Gun would've shot down the acquisition of Roaf?
The loss of Morris was another blow to the Gun era.I'm not sure how any of that relates to anything that I said. I'm not arguing for or against either Cunningham or Vermeil. The point I was making is that the team needed an overhaul in personnel, regardless of who the head coach may or may not have been. That's the reason I believe we have not been successful, as well as the reason I believe we would not have been successful, or, perhaps, much more successful, under a different coaching regime.

Beyond that, I don't believe I said anything about Trent or Priest or Larry Johnson. If you want to take that tack, then we'll really be going off into the realm of speculation. I don't, in fact, believe the odds to be good that we'd have signed Roaf, or Wiegman, or Kennison, or Green, or Holmes if Gunther had remained on as head coach. And, honestly, I don't know that it would matter if we hadn't, because so far, we haven't been a whole lot more successful under Vermeil than we were under Cunningham, at least not in my eyes. But that's entirely tangental to the point I was making: I think the problem here has been (and is, until proven otherwise) more personnel than coaching, although I believe there've been problems with the coaching as well (stooges, Robinson, certain assistants still with us, etc.).

Simply put, all I was saying is that I think it would have taken more than just DT and a couple of different coaches or coordinators to turn the Chiefs of the last six years (and this includes 2001-2004, I'm not singling out gun) into a contender. I don't think we had the roster to contend, regardless of who the coaches were. We didn't draft well, and the free agent additions we made were more token than talent.

I think it would have taken an offseason like this one (at any point in the last six years) to turn things around. Assuming (and hoping) our moves in '05 are enough. Because we've been, for years now, a defense built around roleplayers and, at best, average NFL talent. We had nobody on the field that OC's or QB's had to account for, and while I think the presence of DT would have (obviously) changed that, I don't believe that one single playmaker (much less one in his 30s, with 11 years of wear and tear) would have been nearly enough. That's why I'm so excited to see the possible addition of two playmaking linebackers and two playmaking defensive backs.

And maybe an offseason like that would have happened under Gun. We'll never know.

whoaskew
08-04-2005, 11:34 PM
well put

Wallcrawler
08-05-2005, 01:16 AM
Gun was 16-16 during his time here, and had neither the powerhouse offense, or a stifling defense. The entire Chiefs team was pretty mediocre at the time.


Vermiel is 34-30 with an insanely powerful offense and an insanely bad defense. Four games over .500 isnt really a whole lot to jump up and down about.

If Vermiel has done anything, he's made the Chiefs exciting to watch at least. With that offense, there is a chance that they could win any contest they enter. But by the same token with as bad as the defense was, they could lose to even the lowliest of teams.


I thought that Vermiel was really behind the Priest Holmes signing. I thought that I saw an interview with him when they had first signed him where he compared Priest's abilities to those of Marshal Faulk with his ability to run the ball and catch the ball equally well, and thats why he wanted him on the team to be the starter. Most of the teams interested in Priest at that time wanted him as a backup.



The main problem I had with Gunther was that he was way too one sided when it came to offense. His first year, it was all about the run and he hardly ever threw the ball, and then the next year it was all passing and very little running. It was like he was unable to have a balance in his offensive schemes.


The problem I have with Vermiel is his being overly loyal to people who really should be let go, and if they were with another NFL franchise, would be let go without hesitation.

Guys like Greg Robinson, Peter Giunta, Eric Hicks, William Bartee, etc...

Then when one of them actually is let go, it turns into this big crying emotional moment and its like the fans should feel bad about the guy having to move on. Like it was our fault he couldnt coordinate a monkey shitfight in a zoo much less an NFL defense. Bob Gretz joined in as well saying that the fans should be ashamed of themselves for wanting the guy fired for not doing his job. It was unbelievable.

Dick crosses the barrier between business relationship and personal relationship, and it has hurt the Chiefs at times during his tenure here. That is really the only major fault I find with Vermiel that just really disturbs me to no end.

Logical
08-05-2005, 02:10 AM
Well, well, well....the James Hasty is back in Patrick Surtain. Hopefully, the new coming of Derrick Thomas is here in Derrick Johnson....The Bobby Bell is back in Kendrell Bell....The Neil Smith is back in Jared Allen...Ladies and gentlemen, its time!!! Its time for a change!!! It's time for some defense!!!I think maybe you are fantasizing. But it is a great fantasy to dream about.

Taco John
08-05-2005, 02:25 AM
I always thought that you guys could have built around Donnie Edwards. I was suprised when you didn't try keeping him around.

jspchief
08-05-2005, 05:56 AM
I always thought that you guys could have built around Donnie Edwards. I was suprised when you didn't try keeping him around.You'll probably get flamed for that comment. There are a lot of Edwards haters around here.

While I don't know if he's a guy that you "build around", I do think the loss of him was the final straw. The defense had slowly been losing it's defensive playmakers and leaders. By the end of '00, we had lost DT and Hasty, and then Edwards in '01, and we replaced them with tired old guys like Patton, Bush, Crockett, and Cadrez.

Not only was it an exodus of playmakers, it was a loss of leaders.

And besides the loss of great players, we had an influx of really sh*tty players. Free agent or draft pick, very few of the guys Gun brought in were worth a sh*t. It was a lot of band-aids and busts. Gun's stint as head coach was a total disaster in terms of personnel moves.

Otter
08-05-2005, 07:48 AM
As to Gun as a head coach, the team gave up on him. Why this is, I don't even want to speculate but I have said before, remember that he was the D-Coord of the defense that had the Monday Night Meltdown. That happened late in the season and when they announced Gun as the new head coach for the next season, this was the only negative I had about it. If he couldn't keep enough control of his D that Monday night in Denver, how was he going to run an entire team? Unfortunately I believe I was proved right in my doubts.

Early in Gun's first season (game 3 or 4 I think) he had a meltdown in the locker room saying that the only reason he didn't retire is because his wife talked him out of it. Don't remember the exact details but it was somthing along those lines.

The media wasn't kind to Gun by any means but that was the only variable that was pretty much out of his control.

He did a pretty good job of digging his own grave in that stint. Remember those press conferences!?!?! Draft picks, those stupid challenges and calls during the games...The press conferences?!?!?

I saw enough in his tenure as a HC to come to the conclusion that he's not meant to be in that spotlight. Hell, I still can't believe he's back in KC after the way he was let go.

htismaqe
08-05-2005, 08:41 AM
You'll probably get flamed for that comment. There are a lot of Edwards haters around here.

While I don't know if he's a guy that you "build around", I do think the loss of him was the final straw. The defense had slowly been losing it's defensive playmakers and leaders. By the end of '00, we had lost DT and Hasty, and then Edwards in '01, and we replaced them with tired old guys like Patton, Bush, Crockett, and Cadrez.

Not only was it an exodus of playmakers, it was a loss of leaders.

And besides the loss of great players, we had an influx of really sh*tty players. Free agent or draft pick, very few of the guys Gun brought in were worth a sh*t. It was a lot of band-aids and busts. Gun's stint as head coach was a total disaster in terms of personnel moves.

I'm an Edwards "hater". I thought he was overrated, he got drug around alot.

That being said, I would have still kept him on the team at the right price.

He just wanted more money than the team wanted to give him.

htismaqe
08-05-2005, 08:41 AM
Early in Gun's first season (game 3 or 4 I think) he had a meltdown in the locker room saying that the only reason he didn't retire is because his wife talked him out of it. Don't remember the exact details but it was somthing along those lines.

The media wasn't kind to Gun by any means but that was the only variable that was pretty much out of his control.

He did a pretty good job of digging his own grave in that stint. Remember those press conferences!?!?! Draft picks, those stupid challenges and calls during the games...The press conferences?!?!?

I saw enough in his tenure as a HC to come to the conclusion that he's not meant to be in that spotlight. Hell, I still can't believe he's back in KC after the way he was let go.

It was after the FIRST GAME OF THE SEASON against Indy.

KCTitus
08-05-2005, 08:43 AM
...The media wasn't kind to Gun by any means but that was the only variable that was pretty much out of his control...

KK and Whitlock were damn near orgasmic...it was that week that Jason coined the term 'squirt' Gun.

Bob Dole's 'interviews' with Gun were probably the funniest things ever posted on the planet. I hope they're in the hall of classics.

KCTitus
08-05-2005, 08:45 AM
I always thought that you guys could have built around Donnie Edwards. I was suprised when you didn't try keeping him around.

It's been said that it was Robinson that didnt want to retain Edwards. I think DV has since said he regretted the decision to let him go.

htismaqe
08-05-2005, 08:46 AM
It's been said that it was Robinson that didnt want to retain Edwards. I think DV has since said he regretted the decision to let him go.

Yep.

Baby Lee
08-05-2005, 08:49 AM
The media wasn't kind to Gun by any means but that was the only variable that was pretty much out of his control.
Must've missed where Carl slipped 'make sure Derrick fastens his seatbelt' into Gun's contract.

htismaqe
08-05-2005, 08:52 AM
Must've missed where Carl slipped 'make sure Derrick fastens his seatbelt' into Gun's contract.

That's one of the few things that I never figured into the equation at the time. Now that I've had more time to think about it and reflect, I think DT's death was alot bigger than any of us thought at the time. It might have been the one "last straw" that turned Gunther into the babbling over-emotional idiot that people like me couldn't stand.

Lzen
08-05-2005, 09:00 AM
It was after the FIRST GAME OF THE SEASON against Indy.

That was the first game of his second season. After Derrick Thomas died.

KCTitus
08-05-2005, 09:00 AM
...I think DT's death was alot bigger than any of us thought at the time. It might have been the one "last straw" that turned Gunther into the babbling over-emotional idiot that people like me couldn't stand.

Agreed...on a more personal level, it was after his death that I started regularly using my seat belt which I had never done prior.

htismaqe
08-05-2005, 09:06 AM
That was the first game of his second season. After Derrick Thomas died.

Still doesn't excuse it.

If he was so stressed out that he'd contemplate quitting after just one game, he should have hung it up in the offseason...

Otter
08-05-2005, 09:06 AM
Must've missed where Carl slipped 'make sure Derrick fastens his seatbelt' into Gun's contract.

That's a variable Gun couldn't control so I didn't take it into account. I was referring only to what he contributed to his own demise as head coach.

Baby Lee
08-05-2005, 09:11 AM
Maybe my reading comprehension skills have eroded completely, but WTF???

The media wasn't kind to Gun by any means but that was the only variable that was pretty much out of his control.
what about DT?
That's a variable Gun couldn't control so I didn't take it into account.

Lzen
08-05-2005, 09:13 AM
Still doesn't excuse it.

If he was so stressed out that he'd contemplate quitting after just one game, he should have hung it up in the offseason...

I'm talking about when Otter said:
"early in Gun's first season (game 3 or 4 I think) he had a meltdown in the locker room saying that the only reason he didn't retire is because his wife talked him out of it."

I wasn't trying to excuse it. Just adding to the facts and/or correcting them. I thought Gun did okay his first season.

Chief Faithful
08-05-2005, 09:25 AM
It's been said that it was Robinson that didnt want to retain Edwards. I think DV has since said he regretted the decision to let him go.

I still fault Robinson more than any other for the lack of talent and lack of aggression on defense. Gun only gave his defense one year to wake up and when it didn't he decided to shake the defense down to its foundation. With Robinson the defense only declined with each successive year.

Otter
08-05-2005, 09:42 AM
Maybe my reading comprehension skills have eroded completely, but WTF???
STF.U Baby Lee, quit analyzing every detail and let us fluckign talk!!! :cuss:



:D

Thig Lyfe
08-05-2005, 09:52 AM
The D now has (IMO) four potential Pro Bowlers: Bell, Surtain, Johnson, and Allen. I'm not saying that they'll return us to the glory days of the 90's, but it should be pretty darn close.

Lzen
08-05-2005, 09:52 AM
I still fault Robinson more than any other for the lack of talent and lack of aggression on defense. Gun only gave his defense one year to wake up and when it didn't he decided to shake the defense down to its foundation. With Robinson the defense only declined with each successive year.

I also think this to be true. Add to that the fact that defensive players drafted during Knobinson's tenure were the type to fit his read and react scheme and not necessarily Gun's aggressive attacking scheme. All of these factors have played a part.

Lzen
08-05-2005, 09:53 AM
The D now has (IMO) four potential Pro Bowlers: Bell, Surtain, Johnson, and Allen. I'm not saying that they'll return us to the glory days of the 90's, but it should be pretty darn close.

You forgot about Hicks.




:p

htismaqe
08-05-2005, 10:00 AM
I also think this to be true. Add to that the fact that defensive players drafted during Knobinson's tenure were the type to fit his read and react scheme and not necessarily Gun's aggressive attacking scheme. All of these factors have played a part.

Actually, it's worse than that. Gunther has said several times that, for instance, Ryan Sims is a 1-gap DT. Greg Robinson and Dick Vermeil drafted guys for Robinson's 2-gap scheme that DID NOT FIT a 2-gap scheme.

Lzen
08-05-2005, 10:23 AM
Actually, it's worse than that. Gunther has said several times that, for instance, Ryan Sims is a 1-gap DT. Greg Robinson and Dick Vermeil drafted guys for Robinson's 2-gap scheme that DID NOT FIT a 2-gap scheme.

All the more reason that the nickname Knobinson fits him to a "T". He's the 4th stooge.

:shake: How in the Hell did we ever end up with such and inept DC?

Chief Faithful
08-05-2005, 10:31 AM
I also think this to be true. Add to that the fact that defensive players drafted during Knobinson's tenure were the type to fit his read and react scheme and not necessarily Gun's aggressive attacking scheme. All of these factors have played a part.

That is the way it looked to me.

Even though the defense had a bad year under Gun I was much more pleased than I was with Knobinson's last year. Last year I could see things getting more aggressive inspiring hope for the future. With Knobinson things just kept going from bad to worse.

buddha
08-05-2005, 11:58 AM
Yes, it's a given that losing two good players will hurt the defense, but there is no reason why the Chiefs couldn't have drafted smarter, made a few trades, and been astute in free agency in the meantime. Pittsburgh has lost many more impact defenders during that period and always maintains at least a credible defense.