PDA

View Full Version : Interview with HE on 38 Sports Spot last night.


Coogs
03-07-2006, 02:48 PM
Anyone else see it?

If this has been discussed already, my bad. Just didn't see a thread about it. HE was on for the entire 30 minute segment. Jack Harry did the interview.

A few key points.

Edwards indicated we may rush the ball up to 10 more times a game to utilize our offensive line and RB better, plus keep the defense on the sideline longer. :clap:

The play action pass may be used more. :clap:

Plans to use the draft to build this team more than the FA route. Will take best athlete available weather it be offense or defense. Will not reach on a player in the draft. :clap: :clap: :clap:


Had other comments, but these were the ones I found interesting.

Pasta Giant Meatball
03-07-2006, 02:50 PM
sounds good to me

Chiefnj
03-07-2006, 02:53 PM
What was the phrase of the night?

Herm always has a phrase he repeats continuously during a speech and/or interview.

Cormac
03-07-2006, 02:55 PM
That's all good news. It does mean we need RB depth though. I'm not convinced Priest will be back yet, but I sure hope so.

BTW, it sounds like he and Mike Solari will see eye to eye anyway. It always seemed that Solari was a meat-and-potatoes kind of offensive schemer.

JBucc
03-07-2006, 02:56 PM
so we're refering to Herm as HE now?

tk13
03-07-2006, 02:57 PM
I would take that as a sign that he thinks Priest is coming back. Or that we're going to draft a running back. Or he's just going to hand the ball to LJ 45 times a game.

John_Wayne
03-07-2006, 02:59 PM
Anyone else see it?

If this has been discussed already, my bad. Just didn't see a thread about it. HE was on for the entire 30 minute segment. Jack Harry did the interview.

A few key points.

Edwards indicated we may rush the ball up to 10 more times a game to utilize our offensive line and RB better, plus keep the defense on the sideline longer. :clap:

The play action pass may be used more. :clap:

Plans to use the draft to build this team more than the FA route. Will take best athlete available weather it be offense or defense. Will not reach on a player in the draft. :clap: :clap: :clap:


Had other comments, but these were the ones I found interesting.

I'll believe it when I see it.

coach_L
03-07-2006, 02:59 PM
so we're refering to Herm as HE now?

Yeah, is that H.E. for Herman Edwards' initials or is HE as in how we address God as He?

Count Zarth
03-07-2006, 03:00 PM
Edwards indicated we may rush the ball up to 10 more times a game to utilize our offensive line and RB better, plus keep the defense on the sideline longer.

And so it begins.

hawkchief
03-07-2006, 03:01 PM
Welcome back MartyBall!!!

Wile_E_Coyote
03-07-2006, 03:02 PM
video on demand http://www.nbcactionnews.com/kshb/sports/0,1925,KSHB_9430,00.html

~I've not tried it

shaneo69
03-07-2006, 03:04 PM
What was the phrase of the night?

Herm always has a phrase he repeats continuously during a speech and/or interview.

Last time I checked, there aren't any phrases that Herm repeats over and over.

keg in kc
03-07-2006, 03:04 PM
As long as the runs are late with leads, that's fine.

If he intends to shelve the offensive balance in favor of 3 yards and a cloud of dust, then we need to just go ahead and shift back to the WCO.

Either way, I'm not assuming anything significant is changing until I see it in a regular season game.

sedated
03-07-2006, 03:09 PM
hmmm, run the ball, play action pass, play tough defense, build through the draft.

when did we re-hire Marty?

Fat Elvis
03-07-2006, 03:09 PM
It is a ruse. You know as well as I do that the first time we are 4th and goal at the 2" line, herm will tell Solari to pull the patented Al Saunder's triple reverse fakey into the flashdance statue of liberty bamboozler play. It creates a hell of a mismatch.

Reaper16
03-07-2006, 03:12 PM
It is a ruse. You know as well as I do that the first time we are 4th and goal at the 2" line, herm will tell Solari to pull the patented Al Saunder's triple reverse fakey into the flashdance statue of liberty bamboozler play. It creates a hell of a mismatch.
Isn't that the one where Kris Wilson ends up behind center with Bartee in the slot?

SBK
03-07-2006, 04:11 PM
Isn't that the one where Kris Wilson ends up behind center with Bartee in the slot?

I think we should use Wilson on running plays as the RB, he'd be sure to score everytime he touches the ball.

Why you ask? Because nobody will ever be able to see him on the field.

Fire Me Boy!
03-07-2006, 04:17 PM
He really likes the word obviously... also likes "the last time I checked".... I commented on both of those after his first interview, and this one confirms it.

FAX
03-07-2006, 04:27 PM
He really likes the word obviously... also likes "the last time I checked".... I commented on both of those after his first interview, and this one confirms it.

I wonder if the Chiefs would consider hiring a media consultant for Herm, Mr. Fire Me Boy!. He could use some coaching. He could also use a thesaurus. His rhetoric is repetitive, redundant, and reiterative, too.

It's wearing on my sensibilities. I find myself waiting for the next, "last time I checked" instead of listening to what he's actually saying. If nothing else, DV spoiled me in respect to his ability to handle interviews and press conferences.

FAX

picasso
03-07-2006, 04:42 PM
I wonder if the Chiefs would consider hiring a media consultant for Herm, Mr. Fire Me Boy!. He could use some coaching. He could also use a thesaurus. His rhetoric is repetitive, redundant, and reiterative, too.

It's wearing on my sensibilities. I find myself waiting for the next, "last time I checked" instead of listening to what he's actually saying. If nothing else, DV spoiled me in respect to his ability to handle interviews and press conferences.

FAX

What with DV saying things like, with DV saying things like this quite possibly, yeah like this quite possibly? Or the way he talks about the players, about the players. I repeat the players that's what you're saying aren't you, I thought so, I thought so.
That drove me up the wall, up the wall.

HemiEd
03-07-2006, 04:52 PM
What was the phrase of the night?

Herm always has a phrase he repeats continuously during a speech and/or interview.

Without reading any further I am betting on "last time I checked."

FAX
03-07-2006, 04:52 PM
What with DV saying things like, with DV saying things like this quite possibly, yeah like this quite possibly? Or the way he talks about the players, about the players. I repeat the players that's what you're saying aren't you, I thought so, I thought so.
That drove me up the wall, up the wall.

An excellent argument, Mr. picasso. My compliments.

Nobody's perfect, of course. My humble but well-thought-out opinion is that DV is one of the all time best at press conferences. I found him to be consistently entertaining and oftentimes even interesting.

When the Herminator speaks, on the other hand, he gives the impression that his pants are too tight and it's sombody else's fault.

FAX

Count Zarth
03-07-2006, 04:54 PM
When the Herminator speaks, on the other hand, he gives the impression that his pants are too tight and it's sombody else's fault.



So true.

Coogs
03-07-2006, 05:53 PM
And so it begins.

Yep! We are finally going to play Chiefs football again. Run.... Play-action pass.... control the clock... and tough defense. After 1 playoff year in the last 10, it's about time we get back to something that works in KC.

And for you other guys, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers with the DE thing. I just used DV for Dick Vermiel, AS for Al Saunders, etc. Just thought I would stay with the same trend.

milkman
03-07-2006, 08:30 PM
What with DV saying things like, with DV saying things like this quite possibly, yeah like this quite possibly? Or the way he talks about the players, about the players. I repeat the players that's what you're saying aren't you, I thought so, I thought so.
That drove me up the wall, up the wall.

I'd say that this is a "glaring" example.

Count Zarth
03-07-2006, 10:03 PM
Yep! We are finally going to play Chiefs football again. Run.... Play-action pass.... control the clock... and tough defense. After 1 playoff year in the last 10, it's about time we get back to something that works in KC.


Fool. There was nothing wrong with the offense. We did ALL of those things last year.

Logical
03-07-2006, 11:59 PM
Welcome back MartyBall!!!It is no suprise, exactly what I expected.

Nightwish
03-08-2006, 12:04 AM
Welcome back MartyBall!!!
I never saw much of a problem with playing MartyBall during the regular season. It worked for us, though our defense was much more respectable back then. The problem with Marty's scheme was that in high-pressure situations, he played too conservatively and wasn't gutsy when he needed to be.

Nightwish
03-08-2006, 12:07 AM
I wonder if the Chiefs would consider hiring a media consultant for Herm, Mr. Fire Me Boy!. He could use some coaching. He could also use a thesaurus. His rhetoric is repetitive, redundant, and reiterative, too.

And alliterative, apparently! ROFL

Dave Lane
03-08-2006, 03:13 AM
The only part I liked was the more play action pass part. But really overall its not a big thing. Running the ball 70% of the time is a big deal I want more balance. Dick around with the D and leave the O alone.

Dave

DaWolf
03-08-2006, 03:30 AM
I just want to win football games and win in the postseason. That is the ONLY thing this team can do that will excite me. I DON'T CARE what kind of offense we use to do it, as long as we do it...

Guru
03-08-2006, 03:41 AM
I just want to win football games and win in the postseason. That is the ONLY thing this team can do that will excite me. I DON'T CARE what kind of offense we use to do it, as long as we do it...

Come on.... reach for the sky man... I want a friggin SB victory. :)

phxchief
03-08-2006, 06:04 AM
Using these comments as a guide, I now pray that guys like Santonio Holmes and Chad Jackson and Winston Justice are all gone before our picks.

I don't want the coaches falling in love with offensive talents at the #20 selection.

Alphaman
03-08-2006, 06:46 AM
[QUOTE=Coogs]Edwards indicated we may rush the ball up to 10 more times a game to utilize our offensive line and RB better, plus keep the defense on the sideline longer. :clap: QUOTE]

This is HORRIBLE news, absolutely HORRIBLE. Let's go inside the numbers.

Last season the Chiefs ran 520 rush plays and 539 pass plays. That's a 49% run, 51% pass balance.

If we increase the number of running plays by up to 10 per game (let's call it 7 on average) that is an additional 112 running plays and 112 less passing plays.

We now have 60% running plays and 40% passing plays. This team will now become a middle of the pack scoring offense. We don't have the WRs to just pass the ball when we have to. Passing in obvious running situations and vice versa is what enables this offense to flourish. Why don't we do well in 3rd and long situations? Because we don't have a WR that can just flat out beat a guy who knows this is going to be a pass play. We will see more of those situations with this strategy.

The key is not to reduce the offensive productivity to protect the defense, the key should be to improve the defense to match the offense's productivity.

Disheartening...very disheartening.

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 06:48 AM
Yep! We are finally going to play Chiefs football again. Run.... Play-action pass.... control the clock... and tough defense. After 1 playoff year in the last 10, it's about time we get back to something that works in KC.

Technically, it's 3 playoff season in the last 10. Two of those 3 were done the old 'Chiefs football' way and I dont remember those years turning out any better than the DV way.

KC has been one of the best rushing teams in the league SINCE Marty left thanks to real RB's, first of all, and a good OL. The offense has been made more dynamic by an actual QB as well. Changing the offense is a mistake. It's the defense that has been the problem.

Otter
03-08-2006, 06:55 AM
I'll send Herm at $70 bottle of scotch if he tries to develop a QB.

I'm a glutton for punishmet, I know.

patteeu
03-08-2006, 06:57 AM
Using these comments as a guide, I now pray that guys like Santonio Holmes and Chad Jackson and Winston Justice are all gone before our picks.

I don't want the coaches falling in love with offensive talents at the #20 selection.

Of course. Because the offense is so young and has years of productivity ahead of them. We sure wouldn't want to see any restocking before the whole damn thing takes a nosedive off the cliff.
:rolleyes:

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 07:19 AM
I'll send Herm at $70 bottle of scotch if he tries to develop a QB.

I'm a glutton for punishmet, I know.

ROFL

A new coach and the 'fire' is rekindled...

wolfpack0735
03-08-2006, 07:59 AM
great,,,hermie hasn`t even had a training camp yet and he`s already screwing up the offense. its worked the last ,what, 3 years leave it alone. LJ willbe used up before the middle of the year. well at least boring martyball gave you time to get up and pee.

htismaqe
03-08-2006, 08:52 AM
I love this place.

We're doomed.

Hog Farmer
03-08-2006, 09:07 AM
I think maybe he's just making those comments so that Priest will think he's gonna get in his 20 carries per game. I agree, we've had the #1 offense the last five years with a chance for it to be even better this year, and Herm shouldn't fugg with it. Just get the Defense to step up a notch is all we need. Our run D was great last year. Just a little push up front with some of Herms motivation mixed in is what we need.

phxchief
03-08-2006, 09:24 AM
Of course. Because the offense is so young and has years of productivity ahead of them. We sure wouldn't want to see any restocking before the whole damn thing takes a nosedive off the cliff.
:rolleyes:

Would you rather the offense fall off or the defense make no improvement?

I'd rather build a championship caliber defense than try to maintain a championship caliber offense.

Just me, though. Maybe you're not tired of fun yet successless football in KC.

nmt1
03-08-2006, 09:30 AM
Just me, though. Maybe you're not tired of fun yet successless football in KC.

We've been doing it that way for 15 years. Why change now?

Coogs
03-08-2006, 09:30 AM
Fool. There was nothing wrong with the offense. We did ALL of those things last year.

Not really. We featured the play action pass in a few games. And it worked. Even with Black at LT it worked when we used it. And it controlled the clock, there by keeping the defense on the sideline.

And I am convinced that for Gun to have a tough defense, it has to be on the sideline the majority of the game, not on the field.

I am also convinced that if we utilize the play-action game more, we may not need to draft a bunch of O-linemen that can get out on the corners to block. Plus, the play action allowed Black to provide Green with good pass protection, where as the straight drop back passes nearly caused Green to get killed.

You like your type of football, I like mine. I'll take smashmouth football on both sides of the football anyday. I love that style of play.... but that is just me.

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 09:34 AM
It's a joke to suggest anyone at LT besides Roaf provided Green 'good' pass protection.

Coogs
03-08-2006, 09:41 AM
It's a joke to suggest anyone at LT besides Roaf provided Green 'good' pass protection.

There was a game right before Roaf came back where we went to exclusive use of the play action pass. The extra half second Black was afforded allowed Black to give Green 'good' pass protection for that game.

In the straight drop back passing games I would agree with you.

patteeu
03-08-2006, 09:47 AM
Would you rather the offense fall off or the defense make no improvement?

I'd rather build a championship caliber defense than try to maintain a championship caliber offense.

Just me, though. Maybe you're not tired of fun yet successless football in KC.

How about some balance for a change? Best athlete available is the way to go in the draft. You can't keep focusing exclusively on the defense and hope to be able to compete when all the offensive playmakers disappear. As important as defense is, there aren't many teams like the Ravens superbowl team that win almost exclusively with defense. I'd rather shoot for some balance than hope to bring this defense up to the level of that Ravens team before LJ leaves or has a career ending injury.

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 09:54 AM
There was a game right before Roaf came back where we went to exclusive use of the play action pass. The extra half second Black was afforded allowed Black to give Green 'good' pass protection for that game.

In the straight drop back passing games I would agree with you.

You're not referring to the Philly game are you? That's probably not the best example of what you want KC to return to--snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Mr. Kotter
03-08-2006, 10:00 AM
Anyone else see it?

If this has been discussed already, my bad. Just didn't see a thread about it. HE was on for the entire 30 minute segment. Jack Harry did the interview.

A few key points.

Edwards indicated we may rush the ball up to 10 more times a game to utilize our offensive line and RB better, plus keep the defense on the sideline longer. :clap:

The play action pass may be used more. :clap:

Plans to use the draft to build this team more than the FA route. Will take best athlete available weather it be offense or defense. Will not reach on a player in the draft. :clap: :clap: :clap:


Had other comments, but these were the ones I found interesting.

Wow. If CP lets him follow-through on those....I'd be pretty happy. The only thing I'd say, he needs to be flexible with game-calling....over-commiting to the run, and recreating a Martyball-like predictability would not be a good thing.

Also, I'm assuming that if we need to fill a spot, and we have the money and cap space we'd still be willing to go after someone. For example, I don't expect us to be "active" with FA this off-season, but if we pass on an affordable and clear upgrade at, say, DT, WR, DE, FS, or CB.....I'll be pissed.

Coogs
03-08-2006, 10:03 AM
You're not referring to the Philly game are you? That's probably not the best example of what you want KC to return to--snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I don't know which game I am referring to. What I am referring to is that Black did an OK job of protecting Green when the passing game relied on the play action aspect.

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 10:32 AM
I don't know which game I am referring to. What I am referring to is that Black did an OK job of protecting Green when the passing game relied on the play action aspect.

Or the Buffalo game...Black had a stand out performance in that game too.

Count Zarth
03-08-2006, 10:40 AM
You're not referring to the Philly game are you? That's probably not the best example of what you want KC to return to--snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I think he's talking about the Texans game.

milkman
03-08-2006, 10:53 AM
The only part I liked was the more play action pass part. But really overall its not a big thing. Running the ball 70% of the time is a big deal I want more balance. Dick around with the D and leave the O alone.

Dave

The defense has been Dicked around with for 5 years, and that's the problem.

Now let's get it fixed. :)

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 10:58 AM
I think he's talking about the Texans game.

Of course...when your RB runs for 211, the key was the play action passing game.

LOL.

phxchief
03-08-2006, 10:59 AM
How about some balance for a change?

How about some defense for a change?

Look, i'm not saying ignore the offense completely from here on out, but the priority should be defense.

We lost more games due to lack of pass rush and pass coverage than due to a dropped ball here and there.

shaneo69
03-08-2006, 11:05 AM
How about some defense for a change?

Look, i'm not saying ignore the offense completely from here on out, but the priority should be defense.

We lost more games due to lack of pass rush and pass coverage than due to a dropped ball here and there.

I agree. We have solid starters for 2006 at every position on offense, provided T-Rich is re-signed.

Our first round pick needs to be an immediate starter on defense.

Count Zarth
03-08-2006, 11:06 AM
Of course...when your RB runs for 211, the key was the play action passing game.

LOL.

Yeah but we threw for like 150 in the first half, much of it off play action.

shaneo69
03-08-2006, 11:10 AM
Yeah but we threw for like 150 in the first half, much of it off play action.

So now you're agreeing with the "fool"?

If Saunders had used that play-action gameplan that he used against the Texans in the other games that Roaf missed, we probably would've been in the playoffs instead of the Steelers.

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 11:12 AM
Yeah but we threw for like 150 in the first half, much of it off play action.

Actually, it was 175 in the first half, while LJ had 117 rushing. Green finished the game with 220, LJ 211.

Maybe it was great play action. Then again, maybe it was the Texans.

patteeu
03-08-2006, 11:23 AM
How about some defense for a change?

Look, i'm not saying ignore the offense completely from here on out, but the priority should be defense.

We lost more games due to lack of pass rush and pass coverage than due to a dropped ball here and there.

And I'm not saying ignore the defense completely. Where we differ is that I think the priority should be on the best available player instead of bypassing an offensive player in favor of an inferior defensive player.

The top performing player taken at the top of the draft by the Chiefs in recent memory is Larry Johnson, an offensive player that they took when defense was clearly the most pressing need. While it's true that that hasn't been enough to win a superbowl, where would the Chiefs be now if they didn't have LJ? By contrast, they took Junior Siavii to address their glaring DT need in '04 and we all know how that's turned out so far. If a Derrick Johnson falls to them this year then hell yes, pick a defensive player. But if they have the choice against a stud offensive lineman or a defensive lineman who is a reach, I say take the stud. All else being equal, take the player at the position of most need where we have the least potential already on the roster.

Count Zarth
03-08-2006, 11:26 AM
So now you're agreeing with the "fool"?


No, not really. I was just IDing that game.

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 11:27 AM
And I'm not saying ignore the defense completely. Where we differ is that I think the priority should be on the best available player instead of bypassing an offensive player in favor of an inferior defensive player.

The top performing player taken at the top of the draft by the Chiefs in recent memory is Larry Johnson, an offensive player that they took when defense was clearly the most pressing need. While it's true that that hasn't been enough to win a superbowl, where would the Chiefs be now if they didn't have LJ? By contrast, they took Junior Siavii to address their glaring DT need in '04 and we all know how that's turned out so far. If a Derrick Johnson falls to them this year then hell yes, pick a defensive player. But if they have the choice against a stud offensive lineman or a defensive lineman who is a reach, I say take the stud. All else being equal, take the player at the position of most need where we have the least potential already on the roster.

It should ALWAYS be best available player...reaching, as KC consistently does, is a huge mistake. Drafting for need is also a mistake, because I think teams that are desperate for a position will 'build up' a player, in their minds, that really isnt all that good.

ct
03-08-2006, 11:43 AM
BAA, to a point. Say Deangelo Williams is BAA @20, then I certainly think you bypass that one and look to the next best.

With that in mind, in my opinion, only OT and WR should be selected @20 over a defensive player. QB wouldn't necessarily disturb me, with Green getting up there, but there just won't be the value at 20.

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 11:45 AM
BAA, to a point. Say Deangelo Williams is BAA @20, then I certainly think you bypass that one and look to the next best.

With that in mind, in my opinion, only OT and WR should be selected @20 over a defensive player. QB wouldn't necessarily disturb me, with Green getting up there, but there just won't be the value at 20.

What position does Williams play?

Mr. Kotter
03-08-2006, 11:47 AM
What position does Williams play?

He's the Memphis RB

ct
03-08-2006, 11:49 AM
What position does Williams play?

RB, often rated as the 2nd best behind Bush. but there is a lot of disagreement b/n Williams, LenDale White, and Lawrence Mulroney, so it's quite possible he's still there at 20.

Yeah Yeah I know we took LJ when we already had Priest, and that has turned out to be huge!! But this is a very different situation. Priest had big ?'s at that point, and those ?'s are even bigger today. Not many ?'s with LJ, not on the field anyway. RB in round 1 should be the absolute furthest thing from our board, even if the BAA board has 1 sitting on top when we're up.

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 11:49 AM
He's the Memphis RB

Dunno...even with Priest as backup, I'd still strongly consider him.

ct
03-08-2006, 11:50 AM
Dunno...even with Priest as backup, I'd still strongly consider him.
:rolleyes:

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 11:50 AM
RB in round 1 should be the absolute furthest thing from our board, even if the BAA board has 1 sitting on top when we're up.

In that case, maybe the best course of action would be to entertain trade down offers.

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 11:52 AM
:rolleyes:

LOL...Im sorry you disagree, but Im a BAA believer. When KC does this, it's succesful.

patteeu
03-08-2006, 11:53 AM
In that case, maybe the best course of action would be to entertain trade down offers.

I agree. I'm a BAA believer too.

Reaper16
03-08-2006, 11:54 AM
DeAngelo Williams > Reggie Bush

ct
03-08-2006, 11:55 AM
DeAngelo Williams > Reggie Bush

LenDale White > Reggie Bush

ct
03-08-2006, 11:56 AM
In that case, maybe the best course of action would be to entertain trade down offers.

:thumb:

LOL...Im sorry you disagree, but Im a BAA believer. When KC does this, it's succesful.

Perhaps we dont necessarily disagree after all.

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 12:02 PM
:thumb:
Perhaps we dont necessarily disagree after all.

True...consider this: Maybe KC could convert Williams to FB.

Mecca
03-08-2006, 12:03 PM
You should always take the BAA available because you never know where you're going to be in 3 years. Everyone hated the Larry Johnson pick now 3 years later we're building our team around him.

Mr. Kotter
03-08-2006, 12:26 PM
True...consider this: Maybe KC could convert Williams to FB.

He's too small for a FB....

Mecca
03-08-2006, 12:37 PM
You also don't draft FB's atleast not very high. Alot of teams FB's were undrafted players.

RedThat
03-08-2006, 12:40 PM
Deangelo Williams won't be there when it is time for KC to pick.

I feel more than confident when I say this. I think he'll be picked within the top 20. For sure.

I am a believer in BAA as well. And my gut feeling says a lot of the top rated prospects will be gone when we pick. I still think Tamba Hali will be there when we pick, and FTR just say he is, then THAT definately should be our pick!

If Bunkley is still there at 20, which I think could be a possiblity, then it's a toss up between Hali and Bunkley. And no I don't think we should draft a CB in this draft. There are much better passrushers than DBs in this draft. And you know that I know and I know that you know, the road and journey to a successful pass defense starts with a good passrush. So, with that being said, we gotta go with what our hearts tell us, and that is draft a good quality passrusher. This draft is LOADED with them.

Coogs
03-08-2006, 12:40 PM
If Saunders had used that play-action gameplan that he used against the Texans in the other games that Roaf missed, we probably would've been in the playoffs instead of the Steelers.


:thumb:


Which leads me to believe that is not a bad plan for this season.

And, it keeps Guns crew on the bench. That has to be a good thing, as everyone pretty much agrees the defense still sux.

ct
03-08-2006, 12:41 PM
Deangelo Williams won't be there when it is time for KC to pick.

I feel more than confident when I say this. I think he'll be picked within the top 20. For sure.

I am a believer in BAA as well. And my gut feeling says a lot of the top rated prospects will be gone when we pick. I still think Tamba Hali will be there when we pick, and FTR just say he is, then THAT definately should be our pick!

If Bunkley is still there at 20, which I think could be a possiblity, then it's a toss up between Hali and Bunkley. And no I don't think we should draft a CB in this draft. There are much better passrushers than DBs in this draft. And you know that I know and I know that you know, the road and journey to a successful pass defense starts with a good passrush. So, with that being said, we gotta go with what our hearts tell us, and that is draft a good quality passrusher. This draft is LOADED with them.

So which is it? Draft BAA or don't draft a CB because we know what we need - a passrusher?

Reaper16
03-08-2006, 12:43 PM
So which is it? Draft BAA or don't draft a CB because we know what we need - a passrusher?
Luckily, I can't concieve of a scenario where CB will be BAA at #20.

ct
03-08-2006, 12:44 PM
True...consider this: Maybe KC could convert Williams to FB.

You also don't draft FB's atleast not very high. Alot of teams FB's were undrafted players.

Hmmm, maybe I'm just dumb, but I'm guessing Titus was kidding? :shrug:

RedThat
03-08-2006, 12:44 PM
So which is it? Draft BAA or don't draft a CB because we know what we need - a passrusher?

BAA...My gut feeling says it will be a passrusher. A DE.

ct
03-08-2006, 12:46 PM
Luckily, I can't concieve of a scenario where CB will be BAA at #20.

But you still have badly contradicted yourself. BAA or team need? Personally, I'm a half breed, and have clarified as such. BAA is the way to go, but not if an obvious 'last-thing we need' presents itself, then you pass and look a next-BAA.

EDIT: You fixed your post, I was too late.

So what if CB is best on the board? What if RB is best on the board?

KCTitus
03-08-2006, 01:23 PM
Hmmm, maybe I'm just dumb, but I'm guessing Titus was kidding? :shrug:

shhh! :D