PDA

View Full Version : Teicher: Next year's Chiefs may look familiar


tk13
12-30-2005, 01:17 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/13512161.htm

Next year’s Chiefs may look familiar
By ADAM TEICHER
The Kansas City Star

Really want to see these Chiefs one last time as they’re currently assembled but afraid you won’t be able to answer the noon call for the New Year’s Day game against Cincinnati?

Don’t fret. You might be able to see most of the current players at Arrowhead Stadium next season regardless of whether it’s Dick Vermeil or someone else coaching the Chiefs.

The Chiefs have plenty of flexibility when they get around to making personnel decisions. But only two regulars, fullback Tony Richardson and defensive tackle Lional Dalton, are scheduled to be unrestricted free agents, so the Chiefs could return this year’s team largely intact if they choose.

“I would think a majority of guys would be back,” quarterback Trent Green said. “I think most of the contract situations have been taken care of and the couple that are up are ones that can be taken care of. I don’t see it being drastically different.”

Everything can change quickly with the hiring of a new head coach. The Chiefs, for instance, may decide to whack underachieving players like linebacker Kendrell Bell. Signed as a free agent last year, Bell is only seventh on the Chiefs in tackles.

He is due a roster bonus of more than $3.5 million next year and his salary jumps from a manageable $540,000 to about $2.7 million.
Shawn Barber, who missed most of this season because of injuries, is available as a replacement.

Other than possibilities in Dalton and Bell, the Chiefs may return all their defensive starters.

The offense is another issue. Eight offensive starters, including Richardson, will be 30 or older when next season begins.

Green recently polled many of the other offensive starters to try and gauge their moods about next season.

“Everybody I’ve talked to is kind of wait and see,” Green said. “There really hasn’t been any ‘Hey, this is what I’m going to do.’ When (Vermeil) is ready to make his decision and make it known to all of us, then there will be more of that conversation.

“I want to play a few more years and I’d like to have these guys with me. So I’m doing all the politicking I can to see that they all stay around.”

Much depends on veteran offensive linemen Willie Roaf, Will Shields and Casey Wiegmann and their decisions on whether to return for another season. Roaf indicated this week he would probably play one more year.

All would be welcomed back no matter the coach.

“A lot of it is predicated on some of the older players and whether they decide to go,” said Lynn Stiles, the vice president for football operations. “It’s not because a lack of ability that they would decide to hang it up. It’s a matter of whether they want to do it because they’re more than equipped physically to do it. If their mental state is positive and they still have a passion for what they’re doing, why does age have anything to do with it?”

The Chiefs will also need to resolve the Larry Johnson-Priest Holmes matter unless they are satisfied with the rotation they used during the season’s first half.

Otherwise, the Chiefs might have a very familiar look next season.

“There’s no reason why this team can’t be better than it was this year with very similar personnel,” Stiles said.

Coach
12-30-2005, 01:19 AM
Man, after reading this article, why do I get the impression of the 2003-2004 off-season?

Oh that's right, we didn't cut anyone, nor signed new players, minus Dalton.

Logical
12-30-2005, 01:21 AM
Not the least bit encouraging.

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 01:22 AM
Man, after reading this article, why do I get the impression of the 2003-2004 off-season?

Oh that's right, we didn't cut anyone, nor signed new players, minus Dalton.

You can't bring in a bunch of free agents every offseason.

And we don't need to. We need to find an answer at defensive tackle and perhaps wide receiver but that is it.

tk13
12-30-2005, 01:25 AM
“There’s no reason why this team can’t be better than it was this year with very similar personnel,” Stiles said.

Translation: This coaching staff is dead.

And we're going to hire whoever thinks they can win with the personnel we have. Like Gunther two years ago.

Logical
12-30-2005, 01:25 AM
You can't bring in a bunch of free agents every offseason.

And we don't need to. We need to find an answer at defensive tackle and perhaps wide receiver but that is it. Perhaps you have missed it but our secondary stinks at pass coverage.

Part is scheme, most is a lack of talent after Surtain. Our safeties suck in coverage but play decent run to very good run defense.

Coach
12-30-2005, 01:26 AM
You can't bring in a bunch of free agents every offseason.

And we don't need to. We need to find an answer at defensive tackle and perhaps wide receiver but that is it.

Wasn't implying as "bringing in a bunch of free agents." If I did, then I apologize, but that was not the intent. It's just, to me, after reading that article, that there won't be any changes, as in, not bringing in anyone decent.

I agree on the answer at DT and maybe WR, but I would also like to get a safety. I'm not completely sold on Wesley.

Logical
12-30-2005, 01:27 AM
Translation: This coaching staff is dead.

And we're going to hire whoever thinks they can win with the personnel we have. Like Gunther two years ago.Pretty much

Coach
12-30-2005, 01:30 AM
Translation: This coaching staff is dead.

And we're going to hire whoever thinks they can win with the personnel we have. Like Gunther two years ago.

Translation: We're ****ed.

TinyEvel
12-30-2005, 01:33 AM
Hey, at least this guy called out K-Bell.

kcfanXIII
12-30-2005, 01:47 AM
it sounds likeif dick comes back, the offense will be back. it makes it worth it to have those three on the oline back.
if the offense comes back intact, needs in order of importance:
1. FS who is more athletic than wesley
2. DT who is a real threat
3. CB even if its just a way to push warfield and surtain to play their best.
4. WR vetern or through the draft, as long as he's a true threat.
5. QB need to think about green's replacement. qb's are always better given a year or two of development, with no pressure to start.

i'd be happy with a 2/3 split, with 2 coming from either FA or the draft, and 3 coming from the other . as long as these needs are addressed PROPERLY, kc will be a contender in 06.

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 01:49 AM
Perhaps you have missed it but our secondary stinks at pass coverage.


They are not that bad. Certainly not as bad as they were in last year or in 2002.

If the Chiefs run defense had shown up in Dallas and New York we'd be talking playoffs right now. That is how much of a concern the pass defense is!

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 01:50 AM
I'm not completely sold on Wesley.

You can't take a guy that keeps getting turnovers off the field. You simply can't.

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 01:52 AM
Translation: This coaching staff is dead.

And we're going to hire whoever thinks they can win with the personnel we have. Like Gunther two years ago.

The personnel we have is fine. We went 10-6 with it and better coaching will make us even better.

I hope you don't think our AWESOME COACHES got us to 10 wins this year! ROFL

Chiefs Pantalones
12-30-2005, 01:52 AM
Doesn't Teicher write a "Next year's Chiefs may look familiar" article every year at this time?

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 01:52 AM
Translation: We're ****ed.

Good christ, it's not even the offseason yet.

kcfanXIII
12-30-2005, 01:52 AM
You can't take a guy that keeps getting turnovers off the field. You simply can't.
alright, trade bait. he'd be worth a second rounder don't you think?

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 01:53 AM
alright, trade bait. he'd be worth a second rounder don't you think?

Hell no. Wesley is good and needs to stay.

kcfanXIII
12-30-2005, 01:54 AM
Hell no. Wesley is good and needs to stay.
but he's not a free safety. do you want him matching up on a slot reciever if sapp isn't in the game?

Logical
12-30-2005, 01:54 AM
Doesn't Teicher write a "Next year's Chiefs may look familiar" article every year at this time?I don't think he did last year, but he has indeed written one several different times.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-30-2005, 01:55 AM
I don't think he did last year, but he has indeed written one several different times.

Is that sad on the Chiefs part, or on his part? Or both?

Logical
12-30-2005, 01:56 AM
They are not that bad. Certainly not as bad as they were in last year or in 2002.

If the Chiefs run defense had shown up in Dallas and New York we'd be talking playoffs right now. That is how much of a concern the pass defense is!

We are only 31st in the NFL in pass defense, how bad do we need to be?

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-PASSING/2005/regular?sort_col_1=8

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 01:57 AM
but he's not a free safety. do you want him matching up on a slot reciever if sapp isn't in the game?

Why wouldn't the nickel corner be in the game if the offense has three wide receivers out there?

MOST safeties in this league are out of their element covering wide receivers.

Wesley is NOT a problem on this defense.

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 01:58 AM
We are only 31st in the NFL in pass defense, how bad do we need to be?

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-PASSING/2005/regular?sort_col_1=8

Pass rush, fool.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-30-2005, 01:58 AM
I think if we had a Dline that could get to the QB consistently we wouldn't be half bad in the secondary. Dline is the secondary's best friend, IMO.

Logical
12-30-2005, 01:59 AM
Pass rush, fool.hahaha, like it is only the pass rush that is the problem.

kcfanXIII
12-30-2005, 02:01 AM
Why wouldn't the nickel corner be in the game if the offense has three wide receivers out there?

MOST safeties in this league are out of their element covering wide receivers.

Wesley is NOT a problem on this defense.
i'm not saying he's a problem. but he's out of his element playing free safety. you can tell he's used to plyaing the strong side. so do you think knight is the problem?

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 02:02 AM
hahaha, like it is only the pass rush that is the problem.

It is most of the problem.

Did you watch the Houston game? All Houston could do was throw quick stuff all game and I didn't see anyone getting burned.

Chiefs Pantalones
12-30-2005, 02:07 AM
When you don't have a good Dline, a good offense can pretty much do anything they want to you. They pick the way they will execute the criminal, so to speak. It all starts up front. If you don't have a good Dline, a good offense will either run up and down on you (see--Giants and Dallas game) or just pass it on you the entire time. IMO, the reason our run defense was so good, or should I say, looked so good, was because good offensive teams just chose to kill us that way--they could've ran on us if they wanted to.

Our D is still overall bad. We have some talented players, more in the LBs and in the secondary, if we get more talent upfront (where it all starts), we'll be a much better D, IMO. Jared Allen is the only one who's job is pretty safe, if I were the coaches or player personnel guy.

tk13
12-30-2005, 02:17 AM
Why wouldn't the nickel corner be in the game if the offense has three wide receivers out there?

MOST safeties in this league are out of their element covering wide receivers.

Wesley is NOT a problem on this defense.
Because we like to split time between McCleon and a OLB covering the slot half the time....

Saggysack
12-30-2005, 04:46 AM
Hey, at least this guy called out K-Bell.

Yeah, he called out Bell, but his answer to Bell was a LB that will have a higher salary than Bell and has missed 21 of the last 32 games. Wonder why Teicher didn't include in his little bit that Barber's salary next year is larger than Bell's... :hmmm:

Honestly, I don't think there is any organization that would give up on a talent like Bell after only one year. Too much upside to be throwing away. I'm sorry you guys want them to dump Bell, I just don't see it happening. Considering that the Chiefs will more than likely have a totally different coaching staff next year, Bell will get his chance under a new coach. I think you guys will have your panties in a bunch come next year when Bell makes the 53 man roster.

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 04:48 AM
I think you guys will have your panties in a bunch come next year when Bell makes the 53 man roster.

We can't afford to give him that bonus. I don't mind having him back here, but it better be at the right price.

There's no question Gunther's moronic scheme wasn't using him properly.

Saggysack
12-30-2005, 04:50 AM
We can't afford to give him that bonus. I don't mind having him back here, but it better be at the right price.

There's no question Gunther's moronic scheme wasn't using him properly.

Yes we can. Don't fool yourself.

Bell isn't going anywhere till the next coaching staff has their look at him. You can hold me to that.

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 04:56 AM
Yes we can. Don't fool yourself.


C'mon. With the way our salary cap is right now?

Saggysack
12-30-2005, 05:22 AM
C'mon. With the way our salary cap is right now?

No one can say correctly right now how far we are over on the salary cap next year. No one.

Woods gone, Shields gone, McCleon and his 2 mil gone, Warfield must restructure, Barber must restructure(2.75m salary alone), Green may even have to restructure his 5.7mil as well. Too many variables to consider to make a judgement on how much we are over the cap.

Bob Dole
12-30-2005, 06:10 AM
If the organization let's Tony Richardson sign somewhere else, Bob Dole will make time to drive to KC and kick someone's ass.

the Talking Can
12-30-2005, 06:23 AM
“There’s no reason why this team can’t be better than it was this year with very similar personnel,” Stiles said.


holy ****ing shit.....remember JUST TWO YEARS AGO when you brought everybody back? you ass eating moran...I love the way we embrace and give reach arounds to mediocrity...

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 06:25 AM
holy ****ing shit.....remember JUST TWO YEARS AGO when you brought everybody back? you ass eating moran...I love the way we embrace and give reach arounds to mediocrity...

He said "very similar" not "the same."

This is an indictment of the coaching staff NOT the players.

the Talking Can
12-30-2005, 06:27 AM
He said "very similar" not "the same."

This is an indictment of the coaching staff NOT the players.

yeah, we can read...between the lines as well...but thanks for clearing up what was already crystal clear....

philfree
12-30-2005, 06:49 AM
If the organization let's Tony Richardson sign somewhere else, Bob Dole will make time to drive to KC and kick someone's ass.

Oh bull hockey! You're always spouting off crap like that. And if that offends you I'll call your bluff and PM you my address and you come kick mine. Well maybe you might....... T-Rich ain't gonna go play for any other team IMO. At his age if he can't get it done enough to satisfy the coaches in KC he won't whore himself out. He ain't gonna clean up financialy as a FA..........IMO the only way he's not a Chiefs for one more year is if he retires and still then he'll be made to do that because of health. They'll probably have to carry him off the field in the end. T-Rich is a Great KC Chiefs. One of my favorite Chiefs Games I've attened was the last game of the season at "The Head" when T-Rich got the start as RB. The piles of graded snow were 15' high and the fans who were there made as much noise as a packed house as Tony rushed for 130 yards and we kicked the Donks tail all day long. No playoffs on the line just a bunch of tough mofos on the field and in the stands. It was football for the love of the game and the fan experience. It was beaUtiful.

PhilFree:arrow:

htismaqe
12-30-2005, 06:57 AM
I love going through this every offseason.

This is the NFL. Except for Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder, teams appraoch marquee free agency in a 2-year cycle. We do it and lots of other teams do it.

We're not gonna sign any big-name guys this offseason. We knew that IMMEDIATELY after we signed Bell, Knight, and Surtain.

As for Bell, if he doesn't restructure he should be gone. Period. I agree with Saggy, nobody gives up on that much talent. But at the same time, nobody pays that much PRODUCTION $6M a year.

And gochiefs:

WESLEY SUCKS. He sucked in Robinson's scheme and he sucks now.

Douche Baggins
12-30-2005, 07:04 AM
And gochiefs:

WESLEY SUCKS. He sucked in Robinson's scheme and he sucks now.

I disagree. I don't think you can remove a player that gets that many turnovers.

stevieray
12-30-2005, 07:07 AM
I love going through this every offseason.




me too, this isenough "ammo" till kickoff 2006.


ROFL

philfree
12-30-2005, 07:12 AM
holy ****ing shit.....remember JUST TWO YEARS AGO when you brought everybody back? you ass eating moran...I love the way we embrace and give reach arounds to mediocrity...

I think it's been proven that just changing players or coaches isn't the answer. Regardless there is a point where coaching and allowing ones self to be coached is part of the equation. I'm disapointed in Guns D but at least we can see improvement from a few players and against the run. Where as under G-Rob not one player on D showed any improvement. We do need some more talent in certain areas but constant change from what I've seen usually leads down the wrong path. Our O won't change much hopefully(and it hasn't changed much for the last three or four years so....) and hopefully our D will make the right changes to finally turn it around but there will be no drastic changes but there will be some. Well unless we totally change our coaching staff to one with a totally different scheme. IMO that would be a very foolish move.

PhilFree:Arrow:

mississippichiefan
12-30-2005, 07:14 AM
Our number one need is d-line , with a pass rush your secondary looks much better , but we also need another CB , maybe a young one . WR is also a need as is a young offensive tackle . With a better pass rush , we have a shot at a Super Bowl IMO . Go Chiefs !

dirk digler
12-30-2005, 07:17 AM
I don't have a problem keeping the O together but the D side of the ball needs gutted along with all of the coaches.

stevieray
12-30-2005, 07:19 AM
I don't have a problem keeping the O together but the D side of the ball needs gutted along with all of the coaches.

ROFL

Don't hold your breath.

philfree
12-30-2005, 07:20 AM
I disagree. I don't think you can remove a player that gets that many turnovers.

Wesley is a mixed bag. IMO he's mad more ggod plays this year then he has bad. The question is can he ever improve and take his overall game to a higher level? It ended up not counting but the play he made on 4th down against the Cowboys was a clutch play that will be ignored but the fact is he made a play that as far as he knew won the games for us and he knew he had to make that play. He stepped up and it got jerked away.

PhilFree:Arrow:

dirk digler
12-30-2005, 07:21 AM
ROFL

Don't hold your breath.

Cmon don't ruin my dream

the Talking Can
12-30-2005, 07:21 AM
I think it's been proven that just changing players or coaches isn't the answer.

PhilFree:Arrow:

no, it's been proven that acquiring shitty coaches to replace shitty coaches isn't the answer...it has also been proven that doing nothing about a DL that has been one of the worst of the league for 5 years is also not the answer...if we line up Hicks/Sims/Browning/Dalton again next year the results will be the same: failure...

dirk digler
12-30-2005, 07:25 AM
no, it's been proven that acquiring shitty coaches to replace shitty coaches isn't the answer...it has also been proven that doing nothing about a DL that has been one of the worst of the league for 5 years is also not the answer...if we line up Hicks/Sims/Browning/Dalton again next year the results will be the same: failure...

Yep

cdcox
12-30-2005, 07:46 AM
They are not that bad. Certainly not as bad as they were in last year or in 2002.

If the Chiefs run defense had shown up in Dallas and New York we'd be talking playoffs right now. That is how much of a concern the pass defense is!

Do you watch the games? Receivers have been so wide open all year long that additional pressure on the QB will have little effect. You have to challenge the QB with pressure AND down field coverage. The secondary coverage scheme is a terrible design. Its not like the receivers are covered initially and they break free because the QB has plenty of time to throw. They are open all the way down the field.

New Englad has 31 sacks compared to our 28, same neighborhood. Their secondary is so banged up they are starting players that weren't even in the NFL at the beginning of the season. Yet their pass defense is still slightly better than ours!

By the way, there is virtually no correlation between pass defense and sacks. Plenty of teams have much better pass defense than we do with many fewer sacks (Chiefs in red):

Chiefnj
12-30-2005, 07:57 AM
Do you watch the games? Receivers have been so wide open all year long that additional pressure on the QB will have little effect. You have to challenge the QB with pressure AND down field coverage. The secondary coverage scheme is a terrible design. Its not like the receivers are covered initially and they break free because the QB has plenty of time to throw. They are open all the way down the field.

New Englad has 31 sacks compared to our 28, same neighborhood. Their secondary is so banged up they are starting players that weren't even in the NFL at the beginning of the season. Yet their pass defense is still slightly better than ours!

By the way, there is virtually no correlation between pass defense and sacks. Plenty of teams have much better pass defense than we do with many fewer sacks (Chiefs in red):

Maybe my chart reading skills suck, but aren't there only 4 teams with less sacks than KC?

philfree
12-30-2005, 07:59 AM
I don't have a problem keeping the O together but the D side of the ball needs gutted along with all of the coaches.

I don't know what you mean by gutted. IMO the one thing we lack at any one position on D is a truely dominate player up front. Allen is really good but he's gonna have to bring it up one more notch to be dominate but as much as I like him alot but he's gonna have prove it but in the mean time we best keep looking for that one player. A DT, a DE an OLB or a superior FS. We need to add a dominate player at any one of those positions and we'll start to enjoy the other additions we've made on our D. One dominate player on D. I heard the DT is getting old crap and maybe we should trade him and then he had his accident. After that we've seen how much he really meant to our D. How bout the Packers D without Reggie White? I think we need to let a few guys walk if they won't renegotiated their contracts but IMO I think the right addition will have more of an effect then the subtractions that alot of Chiefs fans seem to want. I will say that besides on the Planet I hear more people express that they want DV to stay rather the go. I feel that way and I feel Gun needs another year to improve the D to level we want. He's really only had one year to improve it because in his first year he was handcuffed with the same players that G-Rob left behind. He deserves one more year to get his D to gell and along with that he deserves a chance to add a dominate player to our D. Preferably the front four.....

Man it's tuff to type a long post like that when you've stayed up drinking all night............For any proof readers out there who want to nit-pick this post for spelling, punctuation or grammer........You couldn't hang with me and even be able to concieve such a post. Really!

PhilFree:arrow:


PhilFree:Arrow:

cdcox
12-30-2005, 08:02 AM
Maybe my chart reading skills suck, but aren't there only 4 teams with less sacks than KC?

Yup, and 3 others tied. Among those 8 teams are 3 of the best pass defenses in the league.

StcChief
12-30-2005, 08:02 AM
hope they make some moves based on player performance.....not SSDY.

Chiefnj
12-30-2005, 08:04 AM
As to Teicher's article, I wouldn't make much of it.

Everyone knows that Teicher is a bit lazy and doesn't often break any stories with inside information. In fact, Athan might have more sources than Adam at this point. I wouldn't rely too much on anything he writes.

I do have to admit though that it is a little scary to imagine that CP might hire a head coach who wants as little change as possible.

This is definately the year to extend the contracts of your own stars - Allen and Johnson, cut overpaid underachieving vets and sign lots of low monetary risk-high reward type free agents. You might get lucky like the Chiefs did with Dalton last year and the Broncos did with the Cleveland DL this year.

Chiefnj
12-30-2005, 08:06 AM
Yup, and 3 others tied. Among those 8 teams are 3 of the best pass defenses in the league.

What is "best pass defenses"? Total yardage? Yards per attempt? Lowest 3rd down %?

shaneo69
12-30-2005, 08:10 AM
Honestly, I don't think there is any organization that would give up on a talent like Bell after only one year. Too much upside to be throwing away. I'm sorry you guys want them to dump Bell, I just don't see it happening. Considering that the Chiefs will more than likely have a totally different coaching staff next year, Bell will get his chance under a new coach. I think you guys will have your panties in a bunch come next year when Bell makes the 53 man roster.

Bell has chronic shoulder problems that apparently prevent him from tackling anyone. And his groin/sports hernia injury doesn't look like it helped his speed any, whether in coverage or trying to chase down QB's/RB's. He's not gonna get any better no matter what scheme you put him in. The Chiefs have basically been playing with 10 guys out on the field all year. Even if he was making $750,000 next year, I wouldn't keep him.

A mistake was made. Time to cut your losses and move on. That's what's been so difficult for Carl to understand during his tenure. When screw ups are made in personnel decisions, he lets the guy kill us for several years. Carlton Gray, Lew Bush, Ray Crockett, Glenn Cadrez, Dexter McCleon, William Bartee, Julian Battle, Junior Siavii, Eric Hicks, Greg Wesley, Jerome Woods, etc. Carl just lets them hang around seemingly forever stealing paychecks.

Dartgod
12-30-2005, 08:14 AM
Do you watch the games? Receivers have been so wide open all year long that additional pressure on the QB will have little effect. You have to challenge the QB with pressure AND down field coverage. The secondary coverage scheme is a terrible design. Its not like the receivers are covered initially and they break free because the QB has plenty of time to throw. They are open all the way down the field.

New Englad has 31 sacks compared to our 28, same neighborhood. Their secondary is so banged up they are starting players that weren't even in the NFL at the beginning of the season. Yet their pass defense is still slightly better than ours!

By the way, there is virtually no correlation between pass defense and sacks. Plenty of teams have much better pass defense than we do with many fewer sacks (Chiefs in red):
You don't have to get sacks to have an effective D line. All they have to do is cause the QB to throw sooner than he wants to. Something our D line knows nothing about.

shaneo69
12-30-2005, 08:15 AM
Philfree just set the record for most misspellings of "dominant" in one post. :clap:

Dartgod
12-30-2005, 08:17 AM
Much depends on veteran offensive linemen Willie Roaf, Will Shields and Casey Wiegmann and their decisions on whether to return for another season.
BTW, this is the first I've heard of Wiegmann possibly retiring.

ceebz
12-30-2005, 08:18 AM
You can't take a guy that keeps getting turnovers off the field. You simply can't.


Wesley sucks. He's never around the ball unless it's a run play of 20 yards or more, or a pass that's overthrown.

A good playmaking FS would go a long way in fixing the pass defense.

Dartgod
12-30-2005, 08:19 AM
Philfree just set the record for most misspellings of "dominant" in one post. :clap:
Man it's tuff to type a long post like that when you've stayed up drinking all night............For any proof readers out there who want to nit-pick this post for spelling, punctuation or grammer........You couldn't hang with me and even be able to concieve such a post. Really!
Hehe, he called you out before you even responded.

dirk digler
12-30-2005, 08:21 AM
I don't know what you mean by gutted. IMO the one thing we lack at any one position on D is a truely dominate player up front. Allen is really good but he's gonna have to bring it up one more notch to be dominate but as much as I like him alot but he's gonna have prove it but in the mean time we best keep looking for that one player. A DT, a DE an OLB or a superior FS. We need to add a dominate player at any one of those positions and we'll start to enjoy the other additions we've made on our D. One dominate player on D. I heard the DT is getting old crap and maybe we should trade him and then he had his accident. After that we've seen how much he really meant to our D. How bout the Packers D without Reggie White? I think we need to let a few guys walk if they won't renegotiated their contracts but IMO I think the right addition will have more of an effect then the subtractions that alot of Chiefs fans seem to want. I will say that besides on the Planet I hear more people express that they want DV to stay rather the go. I feel that way and I feel Gun needs another year to improve the D to level we want. He's really only had one year to improve it because in his first year he was handcuffed with the same players that G-Rob left behind. He deserves one more year to get his D to gell and along with that he deserves a chance to add a dominate player to our D. Preferably the front four.....

Man it's tuff to type a long post like that when you've stayed up drinking all night............For any proof readers out there who want to nit-pick this post for spelling, punctuation or grammer........You couldn't hang with me and even be able to concieve such a post. Really!

PhilFree:arrow:


PhilFree:Arrow:


I would say that what we truly lack is 1 dominant player period on the D not necesarily just the D-Line.

It would be nice to have a guy like Ed Reed at safety.

Messier
12-30-2005, 08:23 AM
This article acts like there will be no draft and that the Chiefs will make no moves in free agency. Teicher is a joke, he guesses every year. With the exception of last year he says every year the chiefs are gonna go with what they have.

DTLB58
12-30-2005, 08:26 AM
BTW, this is the first I've heard of Wiegmann possibly retiring.

I've posted this before but since it has been brought up I'll mention it again.

Wiegmann's dad works at the same John Deere plant that I do here in Iowa and he has told many that Casey has said he will play out his current contract and then he is done. I believe there is one more year left on his current deal.

A side note to this. Casey has taken very good care of his money and certainly wouldn't need to keep playing.

philfree
12-30-2005, 08:27 AM
no, it's been proven that acquiring shitty coaches to replace shitty coaches isn't the answer...it has also been proven that doing nothing about a DL that has been one of the worst of the league for 5 years is also not the answer...if we line up Hicks/Sims/Browning/Dalton again next year the results will be the same: failure...



We've added D line players every year under DV.

If you think major changes every year is gonna lead to success then I'd say you're wrong. I do believe we need to keep trying to upgrade our D line though. I don't correlate that with gutting the defense though. We had five new starters on D this year and it didn't have the effect we all wanted. I suppose something like that gelled once somewhere immediately but I'd say it's usually taken much longer. It took Dungy 4 years to change the Colts D to where it is now. I guess we should expect alot more out of Gun in the first year he recieved a nice wave of new personel. You know that most HCs don't come in and turn their side of the ball that is their expertice into the #1 unit in the NFL within 2 years. DV did...........Yeah I guess we should run him out of town on a rail because he has no idea about what he's doing.

PhilFree:arrow:

philfree
12-30-2005, 08:33 AM
Hehe, he called you out before you even responded.

Yes I did.....


PhilFree:arrow:

shaneo69
12-30-2005, 08:33 AM
IMO, we need a new LDE (1st round), a starting DT to play next to Sims (UFA), an OLB to replace Bell (Griffin or Fox), and a smart new FS to replace Wesley (maybe Connot or mid-round pick).

If Marshall Faulk and the Rams part ways, I think he would be a great addition as backup to LJ. And I think we need to draft a QB in round 2 or 3.

cdcox
12-30-2005, 08:35 AM
What is "best pass defenses"? Total yardage? Yards per attempt? Lowest 3rd down %?

The graph is total yardage. Yards per attempt shows a little stronger correlation with sacks, but it is still weak. There are 3 teams with 28 or fewer sacks that allow 6.5 yds or less per attempt. Opponents QB passer rating is also weakly correlated with sacks. But again 3 teams with opponent passer ratings 75.3 and below have 28 or fewer sacks.

I wish the NFL kept statistics on QB pressures, but they don't. My point is that we give recievers far too much latitude in catching the ball in the secondary. That hasn't changed much since 2002.

dirk digler
12-30-2005, 08:39 AM
We've added D line players every year under DV.

If you think major changes every year is gonna lead to success then I'd say you're wrong. I do believe we need to keep trying to upgrade our D line though. I don't correlate that with gutting the defense though. We had five new starters on D this year and it didn't have the effect we all wanted. I suppose something like that gelled once somewhere immediately but I'd say it's usually taken much longer. It took Dungy 4 years to change the Colts D to where it is now. I guess we should expect alot more out of Gun in the first year he recieved a nice wave of new personel. You know that most HCs don't come in and turn their side of the ball that is their expertice into the #1 unit in the NFL within 2 years. DV did...........Yeah I guess we should run him out of town on a rail because he has no idea about what he's doing.

PhilFree:arrow:

Lovie Smith did. The Bears D was ranked 23rd last year and now they are ranked #1.

Heck the first year of Gregg Williams as being the DC he turned their 25th ranked D into the 3rd ranked in 2004 and they are #7 this year.

Gun has no excuses IMO and either does no D DV.

cdcox
12-30-2005, 08:42 AM
I've posted this before but since it has been brought up I'll mention it again.

Wiegmann's dad works at the same John Deere plant that I do here in Iowa and he has told many that Casey has said he will play out his current contract and then he is done. I believe there is one more year left on his current deal.

A side note to this. Casey has taken very good care of his money and certainly wouldn't need to keep playing.

This is the first time I've seen this, thanks for posting it!

At the end of this season or the next we are likely to lose:

Shields
Richardson
Roaf
Wiegmann

and possibly Green (although I think it is likely he plays 2 or 3 more years, rather than one).

Sometime in the next 3 years, we are going to have to face a 5 win season. I'd just as soon start the rebuilding process now, when a fresh coach comes in.

philfree
12-30-2005, 08:45 AM
I would say that what we truly lack is 1 dominant player period on the D not necesarily just the D-Line.

It would be nice to have a guy like Ed Reed at safety.

I'm right with you on that. It's the 3rd downs where we really just poop in our hats so a great 2ndary player of a great D lineman who's dom.....who kicks his opponents ass 90% of the time is what is needed IMO. A great OLB who can rush the QB might work too but then we're going back to scheme. I'd rather just kick the ass of the guys across from me in the trenches......That simplifies everything on D.

PhilFree:arrow:

greg63
12-30-2005, 08:49 AM
We need to retain Richardson. IMO. Offense; good, defense; not so good - needs help in the off season. I thing Gun needs at least one more season to try to get the defensive side of the ball up to speed before running him out of town on a rail.

BigRedChief
12-30-2005, 08:53 AM
We will not add any impact free agents this off season.

Our draft position will not allow us to draft an immediate impact player.

King Carl will not spend draft picks to move up in the draft to get an immediate impact player.

We will go into next season with less talent than this year.

Our only chance next year is to utilize the talent we have better. Use a different defensive scheme like not playing off the WR's 10 yards on every play. Use DJ and Bell's talent better. Play Surtain in bump and run. etc.etc

Use LJ's talent to run the ball to evolve into a play action team that can stretch the field.

BigRedChief
12-30-2005, 08:56 AM
We need to retain Richardson. IMO.

When Tony Richardson signed his last contract there was also an announcement that he would go to work in the Chiefs front office when his playing days were over.

dirk digler
12-30-2005, 08:56 AM
We will not add any impact free agents this off season.

Our draft position will not allow us to draft an immediate impact player.

King Carl will not spend draft picks to move up in the draft to get an immediate impact player.

We will go into next season with less talent than this year.

Our only chance next year is to utilize the talent we have better. Use a different defensive scheme like not playing off the WR's 10 yards on every play. Use DJ and Bell's talent better. Play Surtain in bump and run. etc.etc

Use LJ's talent to run the ball to evolve into a play action team that can stretch the field.

What a downer

BigRedChief
12-30-2005, 08:58 AM
What a downer

Don't shoot the messenger. :shake:

You know I'm right. King Carl will not spend more money this offseason and even if he did where's the cap room to do it?

philfree
12-30-2005, 08:59 AM
Lovie Smith did. The Bears D was ranked 23rd last year and now they are ranked #1.

Heck the first year of Gregg Williams as being the DC he turned their 25th ranked D into the 3rd ranked in 2004 and they are #7 this year.

Gun has no excuses IMO and either does no D DV.

I think those teams had better players in place then the Chiefs have had. We had very little in regards to talent when DV showed up. Damn near nothing. We've tried build it through the draft for the most part till this year. But to expect an ovenight change is very homeristic......I'm guilt ridden for that myself. To me the biggest screw up in the NFL is not sticking with and giving coaches a real chance to build what they they want. To much immediate gratification is expected. I've seen Jeff Fishers name put forth as a great coach who perhaps we should make a play for. It took him 8 years to get his team to the SuperBowl.......I ain't seen that kind of patientce around here ever.


PhilFree:arrow:

dirk digler
12-30-2005, 09:00 AM
Don't shoot the messenger. :shake:

You know I'm right. King Carl will not spend more money this offseason and even if he did where's the cap room to do it?

I know he always pulls this every other year shit. This teams needs better personnel at WR, O-Line, and especially on the D. But we will stand pat with our thumbs up our ass while the rest of the division improves.

htismaqe
12-30-2005, 09:14 AM
I know he always pulls this every other year shit. This teams needs better personnel at WR, O-Line, and especially on the D. But we will stand pat with our thumbs up our ass while the rest of the division improves.

Lots of teams do it. It isn't unique to Carl.

siberian khatru
12-30-2005, 09:17 AM
I've seen Jeff Fishers name put forth as a great coach who perhaps we should make a play for. It took him 8 years to get his team to the SuperBowl.......I ain't seen that kind of patientce around here ever.


PhilFree:arrow:

It took 5. Just like it's taken every Super Bowl champion in the last 30 years.

htismaqe
12-30-2005, 09:18 AM
It took 5. Just like it's taken every Super Bowl champion in the last 30 years.

What?

I know of at least two exceptions to that right off the bat.

siberian khatru
12-30-2005, 09:27 AM
What?

I know of at least two exceptions to that right off the bat.

Who?

siberian khatru
12-30-2005, 09:38 AM
What?

I know of at least two exceptions to that right off the bat.

I researched this when Brock brought it up a month or two ago. Don't be misled by my shorthand on this thread, which implies that only coaches who have been with their teams for 5 years or less have won Super Bowls in the last 30 or so years.

More precisely, of the last 30 or so SB winners (I stopped counting in the mid-70s), each coach had won a SB with that team within his first 5 years of being there. So multiple winners like Gibbs or Walsh were winning SBs in their 7th or 9th years, but they had won their first within their first 5 years.

greg63
12-30-2005, 09:45 AM
When Tony Richardson signed his last contract there was also an announcement that he would go to work in the Chiefs front office when his playing days were over.

:hmmm: ...Didn't know that; of course, admittedly, there's very little that I do know. That's why I rely on you BRC for info such as this. :D

siberian khatru
12-30-2005, 09:47 AM
I researched this when Brock brought it up a month or two ago. Don't be misled by my shorthand on this thread, which implies that only coaches who have been with their teams for 5 years or less have won Super Bowls in the last 30 or so years.

More precisely, of the last 30 or so SB winners (I stopped counting in the mid-70s), each coach had won a SB with that team within his first 5 years of being there. So multiple winners like Gibbs or Walsh were winning SBs in their 7th or 9th years, but they had won their first within their first 5 years.

Actually, let me be more specific: John Madden in 1976 was the last guy who needed more than 5 years. So it's been "roughly" or "virtually" 30 years. :)