PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs D: 29th overall-31st against the pass.


kcblue555
11-01-2005, 08:59 AM
I'm impressed. I think we have a legitimate shot at the Superbowl and I'm sure the Chiefs will go far in the play-offs.

B_Ambuehl
11-01-2005, 09:15 AM
At this rate of improvement we'll only need to spend 1 billion more dollars to get up in the teens.

Lurch
11-01-2005, 09:18 AM
I'm impressed. I think we have a legitimate shot at the Superbowl and I'm sure the Chiefs will go far in the play-offs.

You don't do sarcasm very well.

Woodrow Call
11-01-2005, 09:25 AM
Think of it this way. If the Chiefs were doing good you would have nothing to post about. This way you can make a thread a day about how the D sucks.

htismaqe
11-01-2005, 09:40 AM
I guess you probably wouldn't care then if someone could name off a half dozen teams that made it to the Super Bowl in the last ten years despite having horrible pass defenses...

Lzen
11-01-2005, 09:56 AM
I guess you probably wouldn't care then if someone could name off a half dozen teams that made it to the Super Bowl in the last ten years despite having horrible pass defenses...

Please do. Seriously, you've piqued my curiosity.

DaWolf
11-01-2005, 10:07 AM
I don't know if I should be happy or sad that a team with LaDanian Tomlinson decided to throw the ball almost 50 times (or so it seemed) on us to beat us, and it worked.

How these guys keep insisting that our defensive line is the strongest part of our team yet miss the simple fact that we cannot generate that much of a pass rush with our front four over the last five years is beyond me. Eric Hicks could not find another bidder when he hit free agency, yet he's supposedly good enough to start for us. That to me is a joke. To me he is the chris Horn of our defense. The fact that either of these guys are looking like key players for our team 5 years into Carl's, what, fourth 5 year plan, is just mind boggling...

ROYC75
11-01-2005, 10:29 AM
At this rate of improvement we'll only need to spend 1 billion more dollars to get up in the teens.
WooWoo

Yep, we gonna go far on that D...................

jspchief
11-01-2005, 10:34 AM
I guess you probably wouldn't care then if someone could name off a half dozen teams that made it to the Super Bowl in the last ten years despite having horrible pass defenses...I definately wouldn't care. What other teams were capable of doing with bad pass defenses is irrelevant because this team doesn't measure up anywhere else to make up for the poor pass D.

It may be possible for a team with bad pass D to go to the Superbowl. But it's not possible for this team to do it.

greg63
11-01-2005, 11:58 AM
I definately wouldn't care. What other teams were capable of doing with bad pass defenses is irrelevant because this team doesn't measure up anywhere else to make up for the poor pass D.

It may be possible for a team with bad pass D to go to the Superbowl. But it's not possible for this team to do it.YUP!!

People make mention of one dimensional offenses, it is just as easy to beat a one dimensional defense. It doesn't matter if we can stop the run if the other team can beat us with the pass.

beavis
11-01-2005, 12:11 PM
I guess you probably wouldn't care then if someone could name off a half dozen teams that made it to the Super Bowl in the last ten years despite having horrible pass defenses...
I'm going to guess and say that there have been fewer than 5 that were not in the top 10 in overall defense. I seriously have no idea, just a guess.

htismaqe
11-01-2005, 01:03 PM
It's been done several times. A couple of them even won the Super Bowl.

The one thing those teams did that we're not currently doing is consistently generating turnovers.

See, context is important. Just stating that our team is going nowhere because they're 29th in defense...well, that's about as meaningless as it gets.

Mr. Laz
11-01-2005, 01:15 PM
It's been done several times. A couple of them even won the Super Bowl.

The one thing those teams did that we're not currently doing is consistently generating turnovers.

See, context is important. Just stating that our team is going nowhere because they're 29th in defense...well, that's about as meaningless as it gets.
How much of that bad "pass defense rating" was because the super bowl bound team was so good that it forced the other team to play catch up?

Their defense had the ball thrown against them an inordinate number of times because they were constantly in the lead and it skews the stat.



pass defense matters ... no matter how hard you try and convince everyone it doesn't.

KChiefsQT
11-01-2005, 01:17 PM
what a bunch of softies.

Johnson&Johnson
11-01-2005, 01:33 PM
I don't know if I should be happy or sad that a team with LaDanian Tomlinson decided to throw the ball almost 50 times (or so it seemed) on us to beat us, and it worked.

How these guys keep insisting that our defensive line is the strongest part of our team yet miss the simple fact that we cannot generate that much of a pass rush with our front four over the last five years is beyond me. Eric Hicks could not find another bidder when he hit free agency, yet he's supposedly good enough to start for us. That to me is a joke. To me he is the chris Horn of our defense. The fact that either of these guys are looking like key players for our team 5 years into Carl's, what, fourth 5 year plan, is just mind boggling...


It's really come down to $$$$. Carl has always been buying cheap undrafted players, outcast and make over-acheivers out of them. It worked really well for the past 12 years (especially during the Marty years). In the case for Hicks, an undrafted over-achiever in his early years, CP thought why not retain his services for discounted prices, maybe he can continue to over-achieve.

Does anyone here know who are the top 5 KC's players in terms of salary/year?

I know Trent Green is at the top if not one of the top 3.

We over-pay for guys who can't get us over-the-hump and sacrifice for better overall talent. We have such huge contracts on the wrong players therefore, CP goes and get discounted non-drafted players who simply wants to play for change..ie... Chris Horn..Kris Griffin...to name a few.

BigRedChief
11-01-2005, 01:47 PM
Does anyone here know who are the top 5 KC's players in terms of salary/year? I know Trent Green is at the top if not one of the top 3.
Last years salaries:
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?team=16&year=2004

Woods $4.8 Million
Wesley $4.6 Million
Browning $3.9 Million
Hicks $3.5 Million
Morton $2.6 Million
Siavii $ 2.4 million
Bober $2.0 Million
McCleon $1.7 Million

$25 Million Cap dollars well spent there. :rolleyes:

Plus a $5 Million cap hit for Biesel and another $2 Million for Maz

No playmaker production out of $32 million worth of payroll.

tk13
11-01-2005, 01:54 PM
Last years salaries:
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?team=16&year=2004

Woods $4.8 Million
Wesley $4.6 Million
Browning $3.9 Million
Hicks $3.5 Million
Morton $2.6 Million
Siavii $ 2.4 million
Bober $2.0 Million
McCleon $1.7 Million

$25 Million Cap dollars well spent there. :rolleyes:

Plus a $5 Million cap hit for Biesel and another $2 Million for Maz

No playmaker production out of $32 million worth of payroll.
You're looking at the wrong number. Jerome Woods did not count close to $5 million against the cap last year, neither did Wesley.

BigRedChief
11-01-2005, 02:01 PM
You're looking at the wrong number. Jerome Woods did not count close to $5 million against the cap last year, neither did Wesley.

Wesley, Greg $ 535,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 302,400 $ 4,837,400 $ 1,504,066 S
Woods, Jerome $ 660,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 302,600 $ 4,462,600 $ 2,860,871 S

3rd one over is Total Salary. 4th one over is the Cap Hit. What are you looking at?

tk13
11-01-2005, 02:04 PM
"Cap Number".... that "total salary" is how much we actually spent, but the signing bonus is spread out which makes the "cap number" lower.

BigRedChief
11-01-2005, 02:06 PM
"Cap Number".... that "total salary" is how much we actually spent, but the signing bonus is spread out which makes the "cap number" lower.

The KC Chiefs had to count $4.8 million and $4.4 million against last years cap for Wesley and Woods.

Uatu
11-01-2005, 02:10 PM
The only thing that matters is points surrendered. Who cares about yardage?

Points is a murky stat too, because of the offense's role in it, but it's the only one that matters.

I think most of us would agree that the defense is marginally better but not a playoff team's defense.

tk13
11-01-2005, 02:13 PM
The KC Chiefs had to count $4.8 million and $4.4 million against last years cap for Wesley and Woods.
No, they didn't. That's how much money they paid them. That's how much money they got to put in their bank account.

For cap purposes though, that 4+ million bonus we gave both of them is spread out over the length of their contract.

Simple example:

You give somebody a 5 year contract, $5 million signing bonus. You actually give them the full $5 million when you sign the contract, goes right into their bank account...that's why players want big signing bonuses. The "cap number" spreads that signing bonus out over the whole contract. It only counts $1 million against the cap for the next 5 years.

It doesn't usually work out quite that nicely but it's a simple example.

Mr. Laz
11-01-2005, 02:16 PM
The only thing that matters is points surrendered. Who cares about yardage?

Points is a murky stat too, because of the offense's role in it, but it's the only one that matters.

I think most of us would agree that the defense is marginally better but not a playoff team's defense.
who cares about yardage?


yardage is a good indicator about who solid your defense is


if our defense is letting teams move up and down the field at will so or later they will start converting yrds into points.


we all should care about yardage

Woodrow Call
11-01-2005, 02:19 PM
I do believe the pieces are in place for a good D next year. All the Chiefs need to add is a DT and a DE. I like the LBs, the secondary is decent despite the passing D rank which I blame on the DL.

Allen and a healthy Sims should be enough to build around on the line. Once DV is gone maybe Hicks will be shown the door.

Mitchell, Bell, DJ, and a healthy Fox should be a good enough LB corp in either a 4-3 or a 3-4.

Surtain, Knight, and Warfield(I still think he is a good #2) is a good start in the secondary. I am not sure on Wesley.

Of course it will be a year too late but I like what I see.

Johnson&Johnson
11-01-2005, 02:42 PM
I do believe the pieces are in place for a good D next year. All the Chiefs need to add is a DT and a DE. I like the LBs, the secondary is decent despite the passing D rank which I blame on the DL.

Allen and a healthy Sims should be enough to build around on the line. Once DV is gone maybe Hicks will be shown the door.

Mitchell, Bell, DJ, and a healthy Fox should be a good enough LB corp in either a 4-3 or a 3-4.

Surtain, Knight, and Warfield(I still think he is a good #2) is a good start in the secondary. I am not sure on Wesley.

Of course it will be a year too late but I like what I see.

Forget next year. Assuming the team wins just enough to sneak into the playoffs and start Over-Achieving at the right time in the post-season , i'm thinking SUPERBOWL!!!!! :)

Remember fellas, timing and staying healthy is extremely important. Who knows when we get Simms back in Dec. he'd be playing like a real No.1 pick! and by then, the defense would've played together close to 13-16 games as a unit. We had no Warfield til game 7. No Simms after week 1. DJ is great but still a rookie. We have a 2-headed monster in our backfield that's going to be fresh for the post-season!

jspchief
11-01-2005, 03:29 PM
How much of that bad "pass defense rating" was because the super bowl bound team was so good that it forced the other team to play catch up?

Their defense had the ball thrown against them an inordinate number of times because they were constantly in the lead and it skews the stat.



pass defense matters ... no matter how hard you try and convince everyone it doesn't.How much of our bad pass defense ranking is due to forcing other teams to play catch-up?

I can think of at least 3-4 games where that was the case.

How much of it is due to a run defense that plays really well?

It doesn't really matter. What other teams have accomplished in spite of statistical ranking has no bearing on this team or it's chances for success.

Mr. Laz
11-01-2005, 04:03 PM
How much of our bad pass defense ranking is due to forcing other teams to play catch-up?

I can think of at least 3-4 games where that was the case.

How much of it is due to a run defense that plays really well?

It doesn't really matter. What other teams have accomplished in spite of statistical ranking has no bearing on this team or it's chances for success.
where did i say "our defense"?


some of us were talking about the importance of pass defense in general


focus ... read ... try again

jspchief
11-01-2005, 04:13 PM
where did i say "our defense"?


some of us were talking about the importance of pass defense in general


focus ... read ... try againFocus... read... try again.

I never claimed you said "our" pass defense. And I wasn't trying to argue or disagree with you. I was simply making a statement that came to mind after reading your post. Don't get so defensive.

There can be a lot of reasons why a particular team is statistically ranked in a particular spot. Looking at individual stats like that, while ignoring the bigger picture is a waste of time. I'm sure we can find a ton of ways that this team is statistically comparable to Superbowl winners. The one place we don't compare is the overall product on the field. Regardless of what yards we allow or gain, this team is not playing like a team that is capable of winning the Superbowl, or any other big or challenging game.

Mr. Laz
11-01-2005, 04:20 PM
Focus... read... try again.

I never claimed you said "our" pass defense. And I wasn't trying to argue or disagree with you. I was simply making a statement that came to mind after reading your post. Don't get so defensive

ok ... my bad


i guess i figured that since you quoted my post that your comments were in some way a response to it. :shrug:

jspchief
11-01-2005, 04:23 PM
ok ... my bad


i guess i figured that since you quoted my post that your comments were in some way a response to it. :shrug:They were... Just not in a "I agree" or "I disagree" way. More in a "while we're on the subject" way.