PDA

View Full Version : Worrisome Things...


Gaz
09-13-2005, 07:26 AM
Okay, the euphoric afterglow has subsided somewhat, so it is time to look at the Bad Stuff.

I have read some posts bemoaning the yardage we gave up to the Jets. Feh. Yardage means nothing. Just another playtoy for stat monkeys who have no idea what a standard deviation is or what it means. Fugeddaboutdit.

Offense disappeared in the 2nd half. So what? We were up by 17 and went conservative. Personally, I think that was a mistake. You should always firewall the throttle. However, the O did not disappear; Vermeil and Saunders put on the brakes. Well, maybe they just took their foot of the pedal and coasted. Again, not a concern.

Injuries. Ah, there’s the rub. It was a very costly victory. Four starters out. Yow.

In order of importance:

1. Surtain-
You do not mess with concussions, but I sure hope he is up for playing this weekend. I do not believe anyone is going to shut down the Raiders passing game by CBs smothering the WRs. However, the idea of McCleon, Sapp & Washington as the starting CB package makes my dangly bits shrivel up.

2. Sims-
I feel for this guy. First, the elbow injury. And then just when he seemed to be giving the game we thought we had drafted, another injury. Come to think of it, I feel for the fans more than for him. Stinking holdout bastage! The lack of pressure in the interior is going to hurt us. A lot. Hopefully, the Chiefs are looking for a widebody they can sign for the interim. We are woefully thin at DT already.

3. Roaf-
No one is going to replace Roaf, but at least we have some depth with which we can plug the Roaf-sized hole. The toss sweep play needs to be put aside for this week. It is simply not going to be as effective without Big Willie in there. Musical Linemen, anyone?

4. Richardson-
I love the way Richardson plays the game. I love seeing him pancake those Linebackers. But his loss is not as impactful [is that a word?] as the rest. Cruz is no Richardson. But he will have to do. The loss of Richardson indicates more Johnson and less Holmes to me. What do you think?

xoxo~
Gaz
Putting aside the rose-colored glasses.

Swanman
09-13-2005, 07:40 AM
3. Roaf-
No one is going to replace Roaf, but at least we have some depth with which we can plug the Roaf-sized hole. The toss sweep play needs to be put aside for this week. It is simply not going to be as effective without Big Willie in there. Musical Linemen, anyone?



If we can get the passing game going early, I say the Chiefs should use the draw and screen pass liberally with Priest to get him going in lieu of the sweep plays.

Chiefnj
09-13-2005, 07:41 AM
What I think.

Yards - I agree, who cares. The problem was the wide open receivers who had corners and safeties beat; luckily they dropped the ball. Since it was the second half and the Chiefs D was in a semi-prevent mode it is really inexcusable to let the receiver get past the defender. Everyone should have been kept in front of the defender.

Disappearance of the O - I tend to disagree. Prior to Roaf going down sweep runs to the right weren't going anywhere. They were working like a beauty to the left. After Roaf went down the running game went back a notch as did pass protection. Toward the end of the first half I think the Chiefs got a little lucky that Green didn't get pummelled.

Surtain - I agree. With a concussion it might be best to let him rest this week rather than risk another head injury that will sideline him for more than one game. Let the docs decide.

Sims - His loss hurts a little bit. If the Chiefs had kept a few more DT's and had some rotational depth I wouldn't be as worried, but after keeping only 4 guys (including Siavii who doesn't even get activated) I hope Browning and Dalton don't break down.

Roaf - I think this is the biggest loss. I think we'll see more LJ runs up the middle and more 2 TE sets.

Richardson - Great lead blocker but doesn't offer much in terms of running or catching the ball anymore. The Chiefs could get more production out of Cruz in terms of yardage. Again, you might see more 2 TE sets with Dunn blocking.

Gaz
09-13-2005, 07:46 AM
If we can get the passing game going early, I say the Chiefs should use the draw and screen pass liberally with Priest to get him going in lieu of the sweep plays.

I think we should do that more in every game. We need some trickery with the toss sweep. Fake the toss and throw the other direction or some such. Sure, the toss sweep has been gold for the Chiefs, but predictability is a Bad Thing.

xoxo~
Gaz
A big fan of confused Enemies.

Inspector
09-13-2005, 07:55 AM
Roaf worries me the most..and Surtain.

Heck, it all worries me. I think a lot of Trent's effectiveness is a result of Roaf. He is a huge anchor for the O line.

Prayers for a speedy recovery for all of them. With our starters all healthy, this team could be pretty hard to beat. Seems that way so far anyway.

Mr. Kotter
09-13-2005, 08:00 AM
Injuries suck, but they are part of the game.

I suspect Surtain will play, unless he has a history of concussions. No Sims, means we do need to sign SOMEONE....and play more 3-4. Roaf's injury sucks, and I do think it means more LJ. I also think Green, Gonzo, and the WRs could be in for a busy and good day--considering how that secondary looked against the Patriots. Richardson's loss disturbs me, but we can game plan around that for a week or two in a pinch.

We'll see Sunday night, I guess.

Count Alex's Losses
09-13-2005, 08:05 AM
Without Roaf, I guess we're going to find out if TJ is really right about Stent Green. :hmmm:

Mecca
09-13-2005, 08:09 AM
I think we can get by this game without Roaf, the Raiders have no great pass rushers to worry about. Hopefully they can gameplan around TRich being gone because we're gonna need to run alot unless we plan on winning with 45 points.

Surtain and Sims hurt quite a bit, if Surtain doesn't go this week, we're gonna have to win 45-40. I'm hopeful he can play this week based on all the reports I've heard so far. Khari Long's roster spot should probably be going to a DT that we sign right now. I don't think we can get away without another one when Sims is going to be gone that long.

cdcox
09-13-2005, 08:11 AM
1. Surtain-
You do not mess with concussions, but I sure hope he is up for playing this weekend. I do not believe anyone is going to shut down the Raiders passing game by CBs smothering the WRs. However, the idea of McCleon, Sapp & Washington as the starting CB package makes my dangly bits shrivel up.



I agree that we are not going to blanket the Raiders wide-outs. The way to beat the Radiers is to take away the run, get up to an early lead, then pummel Coillins. However, having Surtain back there is definitely desireable because it is exactly these kinds of situations that he can make the pick, where our other "cough" DB could be leaving someone open enough to serve as a 15-yd safety valve. I'd really like to have Surtain back for this game.

cdcox
09-13-2005, 08:16 AM
I think if Richardson and Roaf are both out, that really affects the running game dramatically. If only one of them were out, you might try your normal run game, but with both I agree you have to make some adjustments, such as the suggestion to run LJ between the tackles more. I also agree with the suggestion of getting Priest involved in the passing game, ala 2002 and 2003.

morphius
09-13-2005, 08:17 AM
Saunders was on 810 this morning saying that they changed up the scheme a little in the second half with the loss of Roaf, went to more of a quick passing game and more running to try to help the tackles out against a couple of "number one picks". Plus they had about 25 packages with Kris Wilson in them they didn't use because they didn't want to put any more pressure on the tackles.

I think I have to disagree with Gaz's rankings however, as I think Roaf is easily the number two in importance, and maybe even 1b to Surtain's 1a status. He is the guy that protects Green's blind side, and in the red zone it is him that we run behind.

SDChief
09-13-2005, 08:19 AM
Injuries suck, but they are part of the game.

I suspect Surtain will play, unless he has a history of concussions. No Sims, means we do need to sign SOMEONE....and play more 3-4. Roaf's injury sucks, and I do think it means more LJ. I also think Green, Gonzo, and the WRs could be in for a busy and good day--considering how that secondary looked against the Patriots. Richardson's loss disturbs me, but we can game plan around that for a week or two in a pinch.

We'll see Sunday night, I guess.

Maybe now is a good time to work that LJ/Priest in the backfield together look that they were talking about this summer. Not really to always use LJ as a lead blocker, but just to have the two headed threat back there. I'm sure LJ could make some yards out of the FB draw that TR gets one or two times a game.

KCTitus
09-13-2005, 08:20 AM
Missing Roaf is the biggest worry. That hammy problem wont go away this season.

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 08:32 AM
Missing Roaf is the biggest worry. That hammy problem wont go away this season.

Thank you, Vlad.

Mr. Kotter
09-13-2005, 08:34 AM
Maybe now is a good time to work that LJ/Priest in the backfield together look that they were talking about this summer. Not really to always use LJ as a lead blocker, but just to have the two headed threat back there. I'm sure LJ could make some yards out of the FB draw that TR gets one or two times a game.

LJ's blocking has improved, and while he's no TRich....he's certainly big enough to play the position.

Imagine the opposing team's OC having to contend with LJ as a capable blocker AND runner, in the SAME backfield as Priest. :drool:

Sam
09-13-2005, 08:34 AM
I'd heard on one of the sports talk shows that one of those dj's spoke with TRich right after the Jets game and he said he would be playing against the Raiders. And the same guy was told by Sampson that he would be playing, and practicing this week.

I also heard this morning on 810 from Mike White that they intend to keep running the sweeps to wear down Sapp's and the rest of the Raiders D-line pass rush.

Vermeil on his show last night said he expected Surtain to play against the Raiders. Has anyone heard any news on Simms MRI? Vermeil didn't have anything last night.

I'm very concerned about the Raiders 'passing game. We'll need more of pass rush this week to help out the CB's, whoever plays. I watched New England only rush 3 and drop 8, but I don't see that working this week in Oakland.

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 08:38 AM
Here's how I look at it, in order of importance:

1) Ryan Sims - it's quite simple. We didn't keep enough DT's and without him we've not only lost the only guy that was getting any push, but we've also got lesser players playing far too long, making them even less effective. The key to getting past Oakland is pressuring their QB. Period.

2) Roaf - this means more to Priest than it does to LJ. We can survive without Roaf for one game, especially considering the Raiders' struggles with the pass rush. The BIG key here is getting Sampson back -- Jordan Black can play, but having to use Chris Bober to sub for Black is the problem.

3) Patrick Surtain - I honestly don't think anybody can cover Randy Moss, not even Surtain. Like I said before, pressure, pressure, pressure. Having Surtain back would be a big help, but it's not the key.

4) Richardson - he's simply the most expendable of the bunch. We've run the ball without him before, and actually we've done quite well with 1-back sets.

morphius
09-13-2005, 08:42 AM
Here's how I look at it, in order of importance:

1) Ryan Sims - it's quite simple. We didn't keep enough DT's and without him we've not only lost the only guy that was getting any push, but we've also got lesser players playing far too long, making them even less effective. The key to getting past Oakland is pressuring their QB. Period.

2) Roaf - this means more to Priest than it does to LJ. We can survive without Roaf for one game, especially considering the Raiders' struggles with the pass rush. The BIG key here is getting Sampson back -- Jordan Black can play, but having to use Chris Bober to sub for Black is the problem.

3) Patrick Surtain - I honestly don't think anybody can cover Randy Moss, not even Surtain. Like I said before, pressure, pressure, pressure. Having Surtain back would be a big help, but it's not the key.

4) Richardson - he's simply the most expendable of the bunch. We've run the ball without him before, and actually we've done quite well with 1-back sets.
But with Surtain there you at least make the QB pause before just tossing it up to Moss, with McCleon or any of our other nickelbacks out there you don't give the Raiders a reason to not just toss it up and let him go after it. No amount of pressure is going to help if all the QB has to do is take three steps and toss the ball up in the air, at least with Surtain you have to attempt to make a good pass.

Coach
09-13-2005, 08:44 AM
Yes, I also think losing Roaf hurts, becuase since he went out, the Chiefs ouside running game, such as sweeps and counters on the outside of the tackle position, went straight to the crapper. So I agree with the majority of you folks on the see more of LJ running up in the middle, but, keep in mind, that the Chiefs can use Priest for a few runs up in the middle and some quick hitting draws as a change of pace.

There's also a possibility that we could see some 2 TE sets, along with 2 WR's and a TE (Gonzo) and Kris Wilson starting at the FB spot, but going into motion to the oppisite TE area (Away from Gonzo). In other words, 1 back, 2 TE's and 2 WR's could be deployed more often from the Chiefs.

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 08:46 AM
But with Surtain there you at least make the QB pause before just tossing it up to Moss, with McCleon or any of our other nickelbacks out there you don't give the Raiders a reason to not just toss it up and let him go after it. No amount of pressure is going to help if all the QB has to do is take three steps and toss the ball up in the air, at least with Surtain you have to attempt to make a good pass.

I disagree.

The Raiders whole gameplan the other night was to toss it up and see what happened.

They're going to do it regardless of who we have back there. And at that point, Sammy Knight and Greg Wesley are the keys anyway, not a CB.

Don't get me wrong, Surtain being back would be BIG...it's just not KEY.

siberian khatru
09-13-2005, 08:50 AM
The Raiders whole gameplan the other night was to toss it up and see what happened.

They're going to do it regardless of who we have back there.

Absolutely right. And it wouldn't surprise me to see Randy catch a couple of bombs for TDs. But that's still just 14 points. The rest of their O looked like crap. If we can do to Jordan what we did to Martin, and don't let Porter or Curry or Gabriel go nuts (which may be a tall order), just let Randy be Randy, I think we outscore them and win the game.

morphius
09-13-2005, 08:53 AM
I disagree.

The Raiders whole gameplan the other night was to toss it up and see what happened.

They're going to do it regardless of who we have back there. And at that point, Sammy Knight and Greg Wesley are the keys anyway, not a CB.

Don't get me wrong, Surtain being back would be BIG...it's just not KEY.
Do you remember last season at all? Seriously? My game plan with Surtain out is keep Moss to the outside where the safeties can't get over in time, add in a little play action to slow them down half a step and just toss it up. The play was gold against our D last year, and on many of those plays we even got some pressure with the blitz. In this case I'm not talking bombs either, just down the line hit the guy running 10-15 yards down the field and watch him fly.

the Talking Can
09-13-2005, 08:53 AM
In order of importance:

1. Surtain-
You do not mess with concussions, but I sure hope he is up for playing this weekend. I do not believe anyone is going to shut down the Raiders passing game by CBs smothering the WRs. However, the idea of McCleon, Sapp & Washington as the starting CB package makes my dangly bits shrivel up.

2. Sims-
I feel for this guy. First, the elbow injury. And then just when he seemed to be giving the game we thought we had drafted, another injury. Come to think of it, I feel for the fans more than for him. Stinking holdout bastage! The lack of pressure in the interior is going to hurt us. A lot. Hopefully, the Chiefs are looking for a widebody they can sign for the interim. We are woefully thin at DT already.

3. Roaf-
No one is going to replace Roaf, but at least we have some depth with which we can plug the Roaf-sized hole. The toss sweep play needs to be put aside for this week. It is simply not going to be as effective without Big Willie in there. Musical Linemen, anyone?

4. Richardson-
I love the way Richardson plays the game. I love seeing him pancake those Linebackers. But his loss is not as impactful [is that a word?] as the rest. Cruz is no Richardson. But he will have to do. The loss of Richardson indicates more Johnson and less Holmes to me. What do you think?

xoxo~
Gaz
Putting aside the rose-colored glasses.


yeah, I agree with order...Surtain is crucial given Warfield's abscence and Moss' presence...Sims is not more important than Roaf, but we have more depth on the OL than the DL, so Sims abscence is more impactful to an already thin defense....Roaf is key, of course, to our long term success but we can survive until the bye without him -imho- if it means getting him close to 100% healthy...I'm convinced we'll be 2-2 then, at the worst, even with the injuries...T-Rich, same as Roaf...I'm confident AS can scheme around their abscences, less so about Gun and Surtain/Sims...

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 08:59 AM
Do you remember last season at all? Seriously? My game plan with Surtain out is keep Moss to the outside where the safeties can't get over in time, add in a little play action to slow them down half a step and just toss it up. The play was gold against our D last year, and on many of those plays we even got some pressure with the blitz. In this case I'm not talking bombs either, just down the line hit the guy running 10-15 yards down the field and watch him fly.

Yes, I remember last season.

This isn't last season, and Sammy Knight isn't Jerome Woods.

Gaz
09-13-2005, 09:01 AM
I worry more about Sims because of the dearth of depth at DT.

Sims becomes less crucial if we bring in a widebody DT to take up space in the middle. I would not anticipate the penetration Sims has been getting, but he could at least clog up the inside running lane and keep Dalton and Browning from getting exhausted. Sorry to say, I have lost faith in Siavii this season. Those knees are scary.

At least until I see who the Chiefs bring in. The Sims/Roaf order may swap at that point.

xoxo~
Gaz
Awaiting further developments.

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 09:02 AM
yeah, I agree with order...Surtain is crucial given Warfield's abscence and Moss' presence...Sims is not more important than Roaf, but we have more depth on the OL than the DL, so Sims abscence is more impactful to an already thin defense....Roaf is key, of course, to our long term success but we can survive until the bye without him -imho- if it means getting him close to 100% healthy...I'm convinced we'll be 2-2 then, at the worst, even with the injuries...T-Rich, same as Roaf...I'm confident AS can scheme around their abscences, less so about Gun and Surtain/Sims...

I pretty much agree with all that, except for Surtain. I think people are overestimating how successful we (or anyone) will be in shutting down Moss. He's gonna score, you can't stop it. The key is to disrupt the rest of their offense, IMO. But that's JMO.

What you said about Sims and Roaf is exactly why I listed Sims where I did. No way am I saying anything about the player, to me it's more the circumstances. Jordan Black is a good fill-in player, Junior Siavii is not.

Count Alex's Losses
09-13-2005, 09:02 AM
Well, at least we still stopped the run without Sims. That is encouraging.

Mecca
09-13-2005, 09:03 AM
Yes, I remember last season.

This isn't last season, and Sammy Knight isn't Jerome Woods.

Thank god for that........... It's really really crucial to stop the run with our front 7 this week so our safeties can give deep help. It's going to be extremely important.

morphius
09-13-2005, 09:05 AM
Yes, I remember last season.

This isn't last season, and Sammy Knight isn't Jerome Woods.
Yes, but Knight isn't going to get from the middle of the field to Moss on the sideline before that toss gets there. Plus who knows if Moss is even going to be lined up on the same side as Knight very often. Plus none of the CB's we have healthy are really going to get much of a meaningful bump on Moss to slow him down, which is what we really need to be able to do.

Luckily Surtain is probably going to play, making the point pretty much moo.

beavis
09-13-2005, 09:06 AM
I have read some posts bemoaning the yardage we gave up to the Jets. Feh. Yardage means nothing. Just another playtoy for stat monkeys who have no idea what a standard deviation is or what it means. Fugeddaboutdit.

We kept hearing this after the first couple games of the 2003 season. Sure turned out to be nothing then, didn't it?

The troubling thing about it is, it's probably a sign of things to come. We caught all the breaks on Sunday, and that's not going to continue for the entire season.

the Talking Can
09-13-2005, 09:06 AM
Jordan Black is a good fill-in player, Junior Siavii is not.

no doubt...and if Sampson plays, Black is even less of a liability becuase Bober is on the bench as you pointed out....

I agree Moss will get his, but Collins is going to throw some picks too..and Surtain would increase the likely hood of that happening

but the key, for our D, will be our LBs...if they get to Collins and spook him we'll win...

the Talking Can
09-13-2005, 09:07 AM
Well, at least we still stopped the run without Sims. That is encouraging.

what did we do when he went out?

did Wilkerson play a lot of snaps at DT?

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 09:09 AM
Yes, but Knight isn't going to get from the middle of the field to Moss on the sideline before that toss gets there. Plus who knows if Moss is even going to be lined up on the same side as Knight very often. Plus none of the CB's we have healthy are really going to get much of a meaningful bump on Moss to slow him down, which is what we really need to be able to do.

Luckily Surtain is probably going to play, making the point pretty much moo.

That's just the thing. The Raiders' use of Moss (at least against the Pats) wasn't predicated on exploiting any matchups, they just chucked it up. While Surtain might help some against that, he's not the cure.

After all, your 7'4" center isn't going to block many shots if your opponent is always shooting the ball from half court...

morphius
09-13-2005, 09:10 AM
We kept hearing this after the first couple games of the 2003 season. Sure turned out to be nothing then, didn't it?

The troubling thing about it is, it's probably a sign of things to come. We caught all the breaks on Sunday, and that's not going to continue for the entire season.
Except in 03 we couldn't stop the run or the pass, this year so far we have been able to disrupt at least one part of the game, and a lot of those passing yards came against our number 3-5 corners.

Brock
09-13-2005, 09:11 AM
what did we do when he went out?

did Wilkerson play a lot of snaps at DT?

I thought they put Browning beside Dalton.

BTW, Carlos Hall is a freak.

morphius
09-13-2005, 09:14 AM
That's just the thing. The Raiders' use of Moss (at least against the Pats) wasn't predicated on exploiting any matchups, they just chucked it up. While Surtain might help some against that, he's not the cure.

After all, your 7'4" center isn't going to block many shots if your opponent is always shooting the ball from half court...
It isn't a perfect stratigy, but our corners with Surtain and Warfield out are also not as good as the Pat's either. Plus its not like the same plan wouldn't work on the opposite side going to Porter. I feel a D can make some adjustments to help with 1 bad CB, but with 2, just no.

Count Alex's Losses
09-13-2005, 09:14 AM
what did we do when he went out?

did Wilkerson play a lot of snaps at DT?

Beats me. I'm guessing it was mostly Dalton and Browning.

ChiTown
09-13-2005, 09:15 AM
I thought they put Browning beside Dalton.

BTW, Carlos Hall is a freak.

Yep. That's what I saw as well.

What I love about Hall is that he appears to have some serious wheels turning the corner, and he drives his body straight through the ball carrier. Hall appears to be a great addition.

The thing I really like about this D is the increased speed in the front 7. I think we still have some work to do at the other CB position opposite Surtain, but overall, we really appear to be fast - especially against the run. :clap:

the Talking Can
09-13-2005, 09:16 AM
I thought they put Browning beside Dalton.

BTW, Carlos Hall is a freak.

right, I guess I forget about Browning...but I wonder who will be our #3 DT this week...Siavii I guess, ughh...

Hall does have an amazing bull rush...he/Allen/Wilkerson form a nice group of DEs...good to have some depth there

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 09:17 AM
Wilkerson slid inside for a few plays, yes.

Kyle401
09-13-2005, 09:21 AM
Do you remember last season at all? Seriously? My game plan with Surtain out is keep Moss to the outside where the safeties can't get over in time, add in a little play action to slow them down half a step and just toss it up. The play was gold against our D last year, and on many of those plays we even got some pressure with the blitz. In this case I'm not talking bombs either, just down the line hit the guy running 10-15 yards down the field and watch him fly.

The key is our front 7. If they are able to stop the run effectively, the safeties can play back and closer to the sideline to take away the outside pass. If we can limit L. Jordan to a 3-4 ypc average with the front 7, Turner will abandon the run and go pass-wacky like he did against NE. I think at that point rushing 5 and dropping 6 will be enough to limit Collins' effectiveness and our O can do the rest.

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 09:22 AM
It isn't a perfect stratigy, but our corners with Surtain and Warfield out are also not as good as the Pat's either. Plus its not like the same plan wouldn't work on the opposite side going to Porter. I feel a D can make some adjustments to help with 1 bad CB, but with 2, just no.

Put Collins on his back early and often, force him to get rid of the ball quickly with underneath passes, and let the speed of the LB's take over.

Doesn't matter who our CB's are...

morphius
09-13-2005, 09:34 AM
Put Collins on his back early and often, force him to get rid of the ball quickly with underneath passes, and let the speed of the LB's take over.

Doesn't matter who our CB's are...
Of course if your making 20+ yard plays the knocking you on your butt doesn't bother you as much..

Mecca
09-13-2005, 09:36 AM
We'll probably some more of the 3-4 this week.... and yes stopping the run with the front 7 is a huge deal this week. Collins is alot like Pennington that if you get constant pressure and smack him around he will wilt.

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 09:51 AM
Of course if your making 20+ yard plays the knocking you on your butt doesn't bother you as much..

How many are they going to make chucking it up like that?

It's the equivalent of shooting skeet with a .22 rifle. Yeah, they're gonna hit a few, but they're going to miss a whole lot.

RedThat
09-13-2005, 09:54 AM
If the Raiders game planning is going to evolve around chucking the ball up in the air several times a game, if Im the Chiefs, Im going to seriously consider playing a lot of prevent defense. This game should involve plenty of DB play.

Mecca
09-13-2005, 09:56 AM
Well the problem with that prevent idea is well. You don't exactly know when they are going to chuck it up. I don't want to be giving up easy 15 yard chunks as they go right down the field cause we're scared of them bombing it out to Moss.

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 10:00 AM
Well the problem with that prevent idea is well. You don't exactly know when they are going to chuck it up. I don't want to be giving up easy 15 yard chunks as they go right down the field cause we're scared of them bombing it out to Moss.

Moss is going to get his, you can't really stop him.

Concentrate on stopping Jordan, Porter, etc.

Going prevent would be super-dumb IMO...

RedThat
09-13-2005, 10:05 AM
Moss is going to get his, you can't really stop him.

Concentrate on stopping Jordan, Porter, etc.

Going prevent would be super-dumb IMO...

What if we were up 21-0? Let's say mid-way through the 3rd quarter? It all depends on the situation, I dont think it would be wise to play it the whole game though. Im scared of Lamont Jordan, he can run. And, if we go prevent all the time, I'll place my bets, and wouldnt doubt that the Raiders will be running draw plays up the middle.

Mecca
09-13-2005, 10:08 AM
Jordan looked gassed and unimpressive in the Pats game. I'm not exactly sure he's use to being the feature back after being a backup for 4 years.

We just played a very good game against a good running team and the leading rusher from last year. Jordan needs to be stopped with our front 7 this week.

RedThat
09-13-2005, 10:13 AM
Jordan looked gassed and unimpressive in the Pats game. I'm not exactly sure he's use to being the feature back after being a backup for 4 years.

We just played a very good game against a good running team and the leading rusher from last year. Jordan needs to be stopped with our front 7 this week.

We'll see what happens this week when he plays against the Chiefs. I agree we played a very good game against a good running team. Chiefs defense usually plays well at home, and against the run. It'll be interesting to see how this defense plays on the road, thats where our problems are, always on the road.
We sucked year after year playing defense on the road, Im hoping to see a change this week.

ROYC75
09-13-2005, 10:22 AM
I have read some posts bemoaning the yardage we gave up to the Jets. Feh. Yardage means nothing. Just another playtoy for stat monkeys who have no idea what a standard deviation is or what it means. Fugeddaboutdit.




That's fine and dandy as long as the Defense comes up with a BIG play or the opponet fumbles in the RED ZONE , as was the case on Sunday.
But it won't always be this way.

But lets's keep in mind that with Sims ,Surtain out for a half and Warfield the entire game, we did well.

The question on the Raiders will be wether Collins can P/U the blitz quick enough to beat us.

IMHO, ( barring more injuries ) this defense will only get better as the season goes on.

Big Slick
09-13-2005, 12:10 PM
How about some non-injury related concerns?

Going in to the game, my biggest concerns by unit were:

Offense - Would it be clicking? No longer a concern.

Defense - Pass D. I know yardage isn't what matters, points are. But pass D is still very much a concern. Pressuring the QB and overall coverage concerns are still there, injuries or not.

Special Teams - PK performance and coverage units. Both were disappointing, stilll a concern.

All that being said, still very optimistic overall, soon to be 2-0!

Gaz
09-13-2005, 12:18 PM
“Pressuring the QB?”

Good heavens, man, what more do you want? We bashed Pennington brutally. I am the original CRUSH the QB homer and I was pleased with Sunday’s performance.

Yes, ST coverage is still a concern.

xoxo~
Gaz
Afraid any more pressure might have burst Chad like a water balloon.

Big Slick
09-13-2005, 12:24 PM
Pressure wasn't bad, for sure. But there were plenty of times he had all day back there. And a few of the pressures were due to his inability to take a snap without dropping it... ROFL Saw some good in there, but like you said in an earlier thread (I think it was you!), it's going to take a larger sample size than 1 to allieviate my primary concern - pass rush.

Gaz
09-13-2005, 12:45 PM
One good outing is not sufficient to change your long-term concerns. Fair enough.

However, I maintain that the QB pressure Sunday was more than adequate. Pennington was clearly rattled. Perhaps I give too much credit to our Defense, but I blame them for ruining Chad’s day.

xoxo~
Gaz
Would be truly satisfied to see that level of Red & Gold presence in the Enemy backfield this season.

Logical
09-13-2005, 01:18 PM
For the Raiders game I would consider the following

If Surtain is out I would actually go with 3 safeties and Sapp as our defensive backfield. Knight, Wesley, Bartee and Sapp using Woods as a nickel back.

Sims, they really as everyone else has pointed out need to bring in another middle clogging d-lineman or maybe use one of those extra widebodies from the o-line as a DT (being creative wasn't one of them a DT in college?)

Roaf, we just suffer, but I do think that if Sampson comes back we get by better with him and Black than with Black and Bober.

TRich, more one back sets period, more runs with LJ and more swing passes with Priest (even though he has a preference now against being in the passing game).

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 01:32 PM
For the Raiders game I would consider the following

If Surtain is out I would actually go with 3 safeties and Sapp as our defensive backfield. Knight, Wesley, Bartee and Sapp using Woods as a nickel back.

Sims, they really as everyone else has pointed out need to bring in another middle clogging d-lineman or maybe use one of those extra widebodies from the o-line as a DT (being creative wasn't one of them a DT in college?)

Roaf, we just suffer, but I do think that if Sampson comes back we get by better with him and Black than with Black and Bober.

TRich, more one back sets period, more runs with LJ and more swing passes with Priest (even though he has a preference now against being in the passing game).

All of those scenarios are not only plausible, but we've done them before to varying degrees.

All of them save your Sims scenario. I really hope we can get Sims back or somehow manage to sign someone...

Count Alex's Losses
09-13-2005, 01:41 PM
WTF?

Why would you throw Bartee and freaking WOODS out there at corner?

Logical
09-13-2005, 01:46 PM
WTF?

Why would you throw Bartee and freaking WOODS out there at corner?I am talking about playing only 1 CB and 3 safeties Bartee would be out there as a Safety. When we go to the nickel Woods would play it, Woods did a good job of playing nickel last year early on when Gun tried some different things out.

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 01:47 PM
WTF?

Why would you throw Bartee and freaking WOODS out there at corner?

The last time Woods played corner, we won 5 and lost zero.

Kyle401
09-13-2005, 01:48 PM
Jordan looked gassed and unimpressive in the Pats game. I'm not exactly sure he's use to being the feature back after being a backup for 4 years.

We just played a very good game against a good running team and the leading rusher from last year. Jordan needs to be stopped with our front 7 this week.

I saw this headline on ESPN today:
Pro Football Weekly is hearing whispers about Lamont Jordan's comfort level as a featured back.
But, I don't have In and couldn't read the article. FWIW I also thought Jordan looked unimpressive in the second half, but figured it was just conditioning and he would work it out.

greg63
09-13-2005, 02:12 PM
I think we should do that more in every game. We need some trickery with the toss sweep. Fake the toss and throw the other direction or some such. Sure, the toss sweep has been gold for the Chiefs, but predictability is a Bad Thing.

xoxo~
Gaz
A big fan of confused Enemies.

I agree with your analysis, but will the Raider "D" bite on the sweep fake without Roaf on the field? I had originally thought that Surtain would be the least of worries, but now that you mention it - once you have sustained a concussion you do become more susceptible to consequent concussions. Those who play CB are, many times, involved in some major collusion's. Good analysis. :thumb:

Warrior5
09-13-2005, 02:15 PM
Anyone have a good analysis of the Raiduhs O-line in terms of strengths/weaknesses?

Wallcrawler
09-13-2005, 02:37 PM
Collins is going to be getting hit early and often. The Raiders offensive line didnt do a good job of protecting him in the opener, and he got a bad case of tunnel vision really quick.

Numerous plays Jerry Porter, and Alvis Whitted were open with Moss drawing 2-3 defenders, but Collins threw it up for Moss anyway because of the pressure.

The Raiders O-line let defenders through, and if they didnt sack Collins, they were hitting him and making him force the throw. On a few big plays for first downs, the plays were called back due to penalties on the Raiders offensive line.

Oakland has never been a disciplined team. They were penalized for around 130 yards in the opener, so it doesnt look like they have improved much in the discipline department.

The Raiders defense will not be able to stop the KC offense, even without big Willie Roaf in there.


Sims' loss will be tough to deal with, but I really see Gun employing more of that 3-4 defense he was utilizing against the jets. It shut down Curtis Martin, and Lamont Jordan is by no means on par with him. We have pretty good depth at DE with Allen, Hicks, Hall, and Wilkerson so going with the one DT out there seems to be the best choice if the Chiefs are unable to sign an adequate replacement. John Browning and Lional Dalton rotating in at the NT position would take the sting out of Sims' loss.

Having Keyaron Fox on the field over Junior Siavii is a no-brainer.


I think Surtain will play. From what Vermiel is saying, he has to have some idea from the team doctors that he Surtain can go sunday. Surtain doesnt have a history of injuries, and concussions are nothing to mess with, so you know the Chiefs' staff will be careful with him. If they say he can go, Im confident that he wont be risking further injury.


Not having Tony Richardson stings, but it isnt all bad. It will open up more opportunities for the 2 TE sets, and possibly 3 TE sets getting Kris Wilson in the game. Dunn, Wilson, and Gonzalez presents big problems for the opposing offense, especially with Priest Holmes or Larry Johnson behind them. Ronnie Cruz wasnt all bad in his replacement of Richardson either.

Overall, I think the Chiefs handle Oakland in pretty convincing fashion, despite having some injured players on the sideline.

htismaqe
09-13-2005, 03:05 PM
Collins is going to be getting hit early and often. The Raiders offensive line didnt do a good job of protecting him in the opener, and he got a bad case of tunnel vision really quick.

Numerous plays Jerry Porter, and Alvis Whitted were open with Moss drawing 2-3 defenders, but Collins threw it up for Moss anyway because of the pressure.

The Raiders O-line let defenders through, and if they didnt sack Collins, they were hitting him and making him force the throw. On a few big plays for first downs, the plays were called back due to penalties on the Raiders offensive line.

Oakland has never been a disciplined team. They were penalized for around 130 yards in the opener, so it doesnt look like they have improved much in the discipline department.

The Raiders defense will not be able to stop the KC offense, even without big Willie Roaf in there.


Sims' loss will be tough to deal with, but I really see Gun employing more of that 3-4 defense he was utilizing against the jets. It shut down Curtis Martin, and Lamont Jordan is by no means on par with him. We have pretty good depth at DE with Allen, Hicks, Hall, and Wilkerson so going with the one DT out there seems to be the best choice if the Chiefs are unable to sign an adequate replacement. John Browning and Lional Dalton rotating in at the NT position would take the sting out of Sims' loss.

Having Keyaron Fox on the field over Junior Siavii is a no-brainer.


I think Surtain will play. From what Vermiel is saying, he has to have some idea from the team doctors that he Surtain can go sunday. Surtain doesnt have a history of injuries, and concussions are nothing to mess with, so you know the Chiefs' staff will be careful with him. If they say he can go, Im confident that he wont be risking further injury.


Not having Tony Richardson stings, but it isnt all bad. It will open up more opportunities for the 2 TE sets, and possibly 3 TE sets getting Kris Wilson in the game. Dunn, Wilson, and Gonzalez presents big problems for the opposing offense, especially with Priest Holmes or Larry Johnson behind them. Ronnie Cruz wasnt all bad in his replacement of Richardson either.

Overall, I think the Chiefs handle Oakland in pretty convincing fashion, despite having some injured players on the sideline.

I was right with you until the last sentence.

These games are never "convincing". I don't see any reason this one will be different yet...

KCTitus
09-13-2005, 03:06 PM
These games are never "convincing". I don't see any reason this one will be different yet...

Division/Rival games are allways 50/50, IMO. I'd like to think that KC can do it, but when it comes to KC v. Oak/Den you just never know.