PDA

View Full Version : Grade The Defense


petegz28
09-10-2006, 05:04 PM
I give them a B- for the game. They were on the field a lot but still got little pressure up the middle.

JBucc
09-10-2006, 05:05 PM
B+, possible A-

ChiefsfaninPA
09-10-2006, 05:06 PM
B+ or A-. They look good. Besides the one serious when they went no huddle, I saw a lot of good things. They made Cinci work for everything they got. If Dante didn't drop that punt this game could've been totally different. That was the game changer.

Deberg_1990
09-10-2006, 05:06 PM
B They were solid for the most part except for a couple of breakdowns. They were aided somewhat by the bad weather.

Mecca
09-10-2006, 05:07 PM
C......when Cincy went into no huddle they looked lost. Let's not mention Ty Law standing 15 yards off Chad Johnson and Palmer repeatedly audibling and throwing for 8 yard gains to him.....

The 2nd half Cincy went to running the clock and it was raining......little better than I expected but still not good enough.

BigRock
09-10-2006, 05:08 PM
B sounds good. They weren't as good against the run as I would have liked to see, but Palmer didn't go off, 85 didn't do anything, and 3 times the Bengals got the ball already in FG range and only got into the end zone once.

Aside from the drive where Cinci went no huddle, the D was pretty solid.

Deberg_1990
09-10-2006, 05:11 PM
Still not alot of pressure from the front 4. Its going to be a looooong season..

mikey23545
09-10-2006, 05:12 PM
C......when Cincy went into no huddle they looked lost. Let's not mention Ty Law standing 15 yards off Chad Johnson and Palmer repeatedly audibling and throwing for 8 yard gains to him.....

The 2nd half Cincy went to running the clock and it was raining......little better than I expected but still not good enough.


:deevee:

PunkinDrublic
09-10-2006, 05:21 PM
I give the defense a solid B. I was impressed with the initial defensive play calling. If our offense would have capitalized after getting the three and outs we would have been 2 touchdowns ahead and controlled the time of possession.

Just think though with those blitz disguises we had if it was enough to confuse Palmer a little bit, just think what it will do to a knucklehead like Jake Plummer.

htismaqe
09-10-2006, 05:24 PM
B-

They did a good job, but SOMEBODY is gonna have to learn how to make adjustments - we got killed by that no huddle...

Count Alex's Losses
09-10-2006, 05:25 PM
Still not alot of pressure from the front 4. Its going to be a looooong season..

That was the best offensive line in the league out there. We did OK.

Mecca
09-10-2006, 05:25 PM
Apparently even with Law and Surtain recievers get 10 yard cushions.......that drives me insane.

Sure-Oz
09-10-2006, 05:27 PM
Defense kept us in the game as long as they could considering our offense kept turning the ball over.

Mr. Laz
09-10-2006, 05:28 PM
fantastic .... we held a power offense to only 23 points.


















we only had to castrate the entire offense to do it.

CupidStunt
09-10-2006, 05:28 PM
A solid "B", easily.

Tamba Hali and Jared Allen is going to be a bookend pair to fear for years to come.

htismaqe
09-10-2006, 05:32 PM
fantastic .... we held a power offense to only 23 points.

we only had to castrate the entire offense to do it.

We really didn't castrate the offense to do it.

We had to make a change at RT and LT becuase of abrupt retirements. Our new LT played OK today.

That leaves one position... :banghead: :cuss: :banghead: :cuss:

mikey23545
09-10-2006, 05:36 PM
How long before Sampson quits being Delilah and can play?

ChiefaRoo
09-10-2006, 05:36 PM
C, would of been a C+ if they would of stuffed Rudy Johnson on the early 3rd down but Kawiffa missed the tackle in the backfield.

I know some of you guys bust a nut over Mitchell but until he consistantly makes plays he's a C+ linebacker. For the record I think he'll get better as will the secondary.

Mr. Laz
09-10-2006, 05:37 PM
We really didn't castrate the offense to do it.

We had to make a change at RT and LT becuase of abrupt retirements. Our new LT played OK today.

That leaves one position... :banghead: :cuss: :banghead: :cuss:
Personally, I don't think we have a problem at OT. We have last year's starter returning at RT and Turley has done EXTREMELY well given the circumstance.

Mecca
09-10-2006, 05:39 PM
Justin Smith on 1 play picked Turley up and basically shoved him into Green.....I'm not all that thrilled with Turley if guys are going to do that to him every game.

keg in kc
09-10-2006, 05:39 PM
LJ's fumble early was big, I thought, even if we didn't lose it. Drive-killer, momentum-killer.

As for castrating the offense, I saw 7 sacks today. In other words, Jordan Black castrated the offense, not Herm or Solari.

I thought the defensive performance was a solid C. The second quarter was a nightmare The difference between this year and past years is that we'd have lost that game 35-10, rather than 23-10.

I say C because the defense played okay, but didn't make any real game-changing plays. A home game like this, I expect more than bending and not breaking. We need takeaways and defensive score. They didn't give us that.

mikey23545
09-10-2006, 05:42 PM
LJ's fumble early was big, I thought, even if we didn't lose it. Drive-killer, momentum-killer.

As for castrating the offense, I saw 7 sacks today. In other words, Jordan Black castrated the offense, not Herm or Solari.

I thought the defensive performance was a solid C. The second quarter was a nightmare The difference between this year and past years is that we'd have lost that game 35-10, rather than 23-10.

I say C because the defense played okay, but didn't make any real game-changing plays. A home game like this, I expect more than bending and not breaking. We need takeaways and defensive score. They didn't give us that.

Yeah, they should have outscored one of the best offenses in the league by themselves, and
certainly should have held them to less than 236 yards!

splatbass
09-10-2006, 05:44 PM
I'll give them a solid B, and I think they'll improve as the season goes on.

They held Rudi Johnson to 96 yards, and Palmer to 127 yards passing, 236 total yards. That is pretty good against a very good offense.

keg in kc
09-10-2006, 05:44 PM
I thought it was average.

Sue me.

You can suck their jocks if that's what you're into, mikey.

JBucc
09-10-2006, 05:45 PM
Since we're grading things I'd give the offense a D+ and ST a big fat F

beer bacon
09-10-2006, 05:47 PM
B+

QB Pressure:

Our pressure wasn't great, but considering who we were playing, that was expected. We only had one sack, but we also had periods where we got good pressure and forced Palmer into bad throws/to throw it away. I also don't remember hardly any plays where Palmer was just able to stand back and wait eight seconds until somebody came open.

Our blitzing was more effective then I ever remember it being last season. Although we didn't get any sacks from blitzers, DJ's blitz helped Allen get his sack and forced fumble. Blitzes also made Carson rush some throws. We also did a better job of mixing things up by showing blitzes, and then dropping those guys into coverage.

Coverage:

Even tough Law was sometimes giving his man too big of a cushion, I was pretty pleased with our coverage as well. Surtain, Law, and Walls all made some nice plays on the ball. The only thing that really disappointed me about our coverage was that Surtain missed a couple of turnovers that could have helped us out. I don't know if we would have gotten any points out of them considering how our offense was playing, but you never know.

Run defense:

Other then the breakdowns in the second quarter, I thought we really did a good job. We held RJ to under 100 yards on 28 carries, and we held Cinci to 3.4 ypc as a team. I was especially impressed with our run defense in the second half. Our D-line and LBs seem very solid against the run, but I am concerned about our safeties ablilties to clean up when an RB gets out in the open field.

I am reiterating, but I was really impressed with our second half defense. Cinci had six possessions in the second half. The only possession in which they didn't start out with great field position was when they started on their own 25 after the second half kickoff. For their other five possessions they started at the KC 45, the Cinci 41, the KC 44, the KC 47, and the KC 19. Considering the fields they had to deal with, it was pretty impressive they only gave up six points. It was a shame our offense couldn't take advantage of this.

mikey23545
09-10-2006, 05:51 PM
I thought it was average.

Sue me.

You can suck their jocks if that's what you're into, mikey.

Nice factual argument, you pathetic little ****.

mikey23545
09-10-2006, 05:53 PM
I am reiterating, but I was really impressed with our second half defense. Cinci had six possessions in the second half. The only possession in which they didn't start out with great field position was when they started on their own 25 after the second half kickoff. For their other five possessions they started at the KC 45, the Cinci 41, the KC 44, the KC 47, and the KC 19. Considering the fields they had to deal with, it was pretty impressive they only gave up six points. It was a shame our offense couldn't take advantage of this.


ATTN: Keg in KC

GoodDaySir!
09-10-2006, 05:53 PM
mikey has poopy Diapers. :(

htismaqe
09-10-2006, 05:55 PM
RE: Laz

Turley played just fine.

The other guy that I mentioned was Kevin Sampson. Obviously, had I know when I posted that (3 weeks ago?) that Black was going to start at RT, my answer may have been different.

Nice try though.

Count Alex's Losses
09-10-2006, 05:57 PM
We only gave up one passing play over 20 yards, and that came on a busted blitz.

Gave up one run over 20 yards.

That's a huge difference from years past.

Thig Lyfe
09-10-2006, 05:58 PM
1st Quarter: A
2nd Quarter: D
3rd Quarter: B-
4th Quarter: A

Average: 83%, B-

Bowser
09-10-2006, 06:02 PM
C+

The best thing about that is this defense has a chance to be good. Much better than the previous 7 years.....

ChiefsCountry
09-10-2006, 07:07 PM
Defense was a B. Cincy has a high powered attack and held them to 2 touchdowns and 3 field goals. Its alot better than years past. This game had two major game changers - one was Dante's fumble, second was Trent's injury. Jared Allen's fumble turned it around until Trent got hit.

Gravedigger
09-10-2006, 07:09 PM
B the Dline caused havoc!

mconwell
09-10-2006, 07:11 PM
C-

The run defense was ok

Virtually no pressure on the QB

Terrible short yardage pass defense

Gunther must go

Cochise
09-10-2006, 07:15 PM
B. Good enough to win. Not spectacular but you can't blame the defense.

Hell we would have won the super bowl giving up 20 PPG the past several years.

Thig Lyfe
09-10-2006, 07:17 PM
2003 O + 2006 D = SB

Tribal Warfare
09-10-2006, 07:17 PM
Seriously a solid B

Run D looked good
Pass D looked good
DB play was fairly decent
LBs were swarming and sticking the ballcarriers
DL was damn good especially the outside pressure of Hali/Allen.

AZORChiefFan
09-10-2006, 07:19 PM
B - solid. They were in situations that last year would've yeilded TD's lots of short fields thanks to Dante and that 'punt' by Colquitt what a time to pick to shank one.

Mecca
09-10-2006, 07:21 PM
I don't know how much enthusiam I have for the defense......Cincy looked like once it started to rain in the 2nd half they shut it down and were content to just run clock knowing without Green the Chiefs couldn't catch them.

Psyko Tek
09-10-2006, 07:24 PM
Apparently even with Law and Surtain recievers get 10 yard cushions.......that drives me insane.


no chit we get shutdown corners and don't use tehem

WTF

dj56dt58
09-10-2006, 07:27 PM
The difference between this year and past years is that we'd have won that game 48-35, rather than lose 23-10.


fixed your post

the Talking Can
09-10-2006, 07:28 PM
We only gave up one passing play over 20 yards, and that came on a busted blitz.

Gave up one run over 20 yards.

That's a huge difference from years past.

yeah, that was a 5 yard flip pass when gun called an obvious 8 man blitz...for the second time...

our pass D was much improved

Ugly Duck
09-10-2006, 07:39 PM
you pathetic little ****.
You guyzr gonna flip when you see the Week One Defensive stats tomorrow:

#1 Saints 186 yds
#2 Chiefs 236 yds
#3 Pats 240 yds
#4 Eagles 241 yds
#5 Rams 259 yds
#6 Bears 267 yds
#7 Pittsburg 278 yds
#8 Bengals 289 yds

GoHuge
09-10-2006, 07:56 PM
B-

They did a good job, but SOMEBODY is gonna have to learn how to make adjustments - we got killed by that no huddle...I agree and that whole Law and Surtain giving that 10 yards of cushion is also driving me insane. What is a cover corner now?

craneref
09-10-2006, 08:42 PM
You guyzr gonna flip when you see the Week One Defensive stats tomorrow:

#1 Saints 186 yds
#2 Chiefs 236 yds
#3 Pats 240 yds
#4 Eagles 241 yds
#5 Rams 259 yds
#6 Bears 267 yds
#7 Pittsburg 278 yds
#8 Bengals 289 yds

Good post, the CHIEFS "D" did and awesome job today, if the Bengals were assisted by the CHIEFS anemic Offense today the game bight have ended in a 3-3 tie. I was impressed with the "D" even when they were giving WAY too much room to the receivers!!

craneref
09-10-2006, 08:42 PM
You guyzr gonna flip when you see the Week One Defensive stats tomorrow:

#1 Saints 186 yds
#2 Chiefs 236 yds
#3 Pats 240 yds
#4 Eagles 241 yds
#5 Rams 259 yds
#6 Bears 267 yds
#7 Pittsburg 278 yds
#8 Bengals 289 yds

Good post, the CHIEFS "D" did and awesome job today, if the Bengals were not assisted by the CHIEFS anemic Offense today the game might have ended in a 3-3 tie. I was impressed with the "D" even when they were giving WAY too much room to the receivers!!

Count Alex's Losses
09-10-2006, 08:45 PM
The Bengals had to complete lots of short passes to generate long drives.

It took great decision making and pinpoint accuracy, along with smart reads by the quarterback.

Think Plummer can do all that consistently, time after time?

cdcox
09-10-2006, 08:47 PM
The Bengals had to complete lots of short passes to generate long drives.

It took great decision making and pinpoint accuracy, along with smart reads by the quarterback.

Think Plummer can do all that consistently, time after time?

In Denver, Plummer'll score enough to beat us with a Huard lead offense.

cdcox
09-10-2006, 08:54 PM
In the base zone, rushing 4, we stunk. Any time we got pressure it was with a variant scheme. That tells me we have to run more variant schemes. One scheme that worked was whent they put 8-9 at the LOS, and blitzed or dropped back into zones from there. Denver ran that scheme effectively last year. Didn't shut down the run enough. Kawika overan too many plays. Knight and Wesley were not factors. Not a complete breakdown, but LOTS of room for improvement.

Ugly Duck
09-10-2006, 08:54 PM
The Bengals had to complete lots of short passes to generate long drives.

It took great decision making and pinpoint accuracy, along with smart reads by the quarterback.

Think Plummer can do all that consistently, time after time?Don't sell the guy short..... when he wasn't fumbling the ball away, he was completing pinpoint passes. Its just that three of them were to the other team.....

elvomito
09-10-2006, 09:11 PM
I agree and that whole Law and Surtain giving that 10 yards of cushion is also driving me insane. What is a cover corner now?i'm no expert, but is this done as a way to protect the weak-playing safeties?

dj56dt58
09-10-2006, 09:19 PM
i'm no expert, but is this done as a way to protect the weak-playing safeties?
i have a better idea then..put pollard and page in

blueballs
09-10-2006, 09:25 PM
rain

Cochise
09-10-2006, 09:47 PM
Cushions are part of this defense. It's designed to give short yards instead of long yards, prevent a big play, prevent YAC. Permit movement but prevent them from getting into the end zone. That's how it works.

freebeer
09-12-2006, 08:41 AM
I give the defense a solid B. I was impressed with the initial defensive play calling. If our offense would have capitalized after getting the three and outs we would have been 2 touchdowns ahead and controlled the time of possession.

Just think though with those blitz disguises we had if it was enough to confuse Palmer a little bit, just think what it will do to a knucklehead like Jake Plummer.


I think it may be another long season......LJ has to step up.

CupidStunt
09-12-2006, 08:43 AM
I complain as much as anyone about the cushions we give, but would you trust our corners man-on-man (against anyone, let alone the likes of Javon Walker and Chad Johnson) with the kind of pass-rush we get without blitzing?

I wouldn't.

The only time we get pressure is when we send the house, and when we do that, the corners have to play off the ball 'just in case'.

greg63
09-12-2006, 08:44 AM
The "D" was great; now if we can just get all other teams in the NFL to NOT use the no huddle...

NaptownChief
09-12-2006, 08:45 AM
I would give them a B also....I thought the LB'er played very well...Law and Surtain were very solid. Allen and Hali made a little bit of noise. I thought Wesley and Knight offered little as did our DT's. Seemed like Reed held his own but the rest of the DT's seemed to do their usual nothing.

htismaqe
09-12-2006, 08:47 AM
I don't know how much enthusiam I have for the defense......Cincy looked like once it started to rain in the 2nd half they shut it down and were content to just run clock knowing without Green the Chiefs couldn't catch them.

Cinci did go conservative in the 2nd half, but we STOPPED IT.

In years past, they would have lined up and pounded out touchdown after touchdown on this sorry defense...

htismaqe
09-12-2006, 08:48 AM
I would give them a B also....I thought the LB'er played very well...Law and Surtain were very solid. Allen and Hali made a little bit of noise. I thought Wesley and Knight offered little as did our DT's. Seemed like Reed held his own but the rest of the DT's seemed to do their usual nothing.

We got exactly what I expected out of Reed. HUGE improvement over years past.

Unfortunately, we also got exactly what I expected out of Edwards -- virtually nothing...

NaptownChief
09-12-2006, 08:49 AM
We got exactly what I expected out of Reed. HUGE improvement over years past.

Unfortunately, we also got exactly what I expected out of Edwards -- virtually nothing...

Yeah, it is nice to get the upgrade in Reed...A real shame that Sims is such a lazy POS...

greg63
09-13-2006, 12:22 AM
Yeah, it is nice to get the upgrade in Reed...A real shame that Sims is such a lazy POS...

Yep!

Inspector
09-13-2006, 07:24 AM
I gave them an "A".

They stayed after the game and cleaned the chalkboard erasers for extra credit.

jspchief
09-13-2006, 07:54 AM
C+

They are still inconsistent, and their stat line was helped by the fact that the Bengals coasted the second half. We still gave up 17 points in the first half.

I saw little to believe they are more than a middle of the pack defense. I'm sure they'll have good days, but unless some thinsg change, they're going to have some bad days too.

MOhillbilly
09-13-2006, 07:58 AM
I would give them a B also....I thought the LB'er played very well...Law and Surtain were very solid. Allen and Hali made a little bit of noise. I thought Wesley and Knight offered little as did our DT's. Seemed like Reed held his own but the rest of the DT's seemed to do their usual nothing.


imo sims played a decent game and moved in traffic very well making some plays.


i agree about the safties that started, a very poor showing.

id give them a C+ the DT and safties have to play better to get Bs & As.

MOhillbilly
09-13-2006, 07:59 AM
C+

They are still inconsistent, and their stat line was helped by the fact that the Bengals coasted the second half. We still gave up 17 points in the first half.

I saw little to believe they are more than a middle of the pack defense. I'm sure they'll have good days, but unless some thinsg change, they're going to have some bad days too.

alot of it had to do w/ the shit play calling by gunther.

jspchief
09-13-2006, 08:02 AM
alot of it had to do w/ the shit play calling by gunther.That very well may be true. It doesn't change the fact that the product we put onthe field was average at best IMO.

Brock
09-13-2006, 08:06 AM
first quarter - A

all else - D

Whatever that averages out to.

splatbass
09-13-2006, 12:38 PM
That very well may be true. It doesn't change the fact that the product we put onthe field was average at best IMO.


I don't really agree, but I will say that even if they were just average it is a major improvement over the last few years. If we would have had an average defense last year we would have been in the playoffs.

HC_Chief
09-13-2006, 01:17 PM
C-

They were okay for stretches. They were horrible for stretches. SOme players showed flashes. They applied ZERO pressure on the QB. The DTs were ineffective. The starting safeties played poorly. Kendrell Bell was a no-show... <i>again</i>.

Personally, I think the stats are misleading. If you go by numbers alone it looks like KC did a good job holding a potent offensive team to less than 300yds and only 23 points. When you consider however that the potent offense they faced went into an uber-conservative shell in the second half because they knew our offense was sputtering, I submit the numbers <i>could</i> have been <i>much</i> worse. Imagine if Marvin Lewis had a pair, like Jimmy Johnson did, and decided to keep running that no-huddle in the second half. I bet KC would have surrendered 500 yds and 40+ points for the game.