PDA

View Full Version : How did Kendrell play?


tyton75
09-18-2006, 07:27 AM
I can't say that I was focused on his play while watching the game.. but I think I only heard his name called once.. and maybe saw him around the tackle a couple times...

However, I saw DJ make some excellent plays and Kawika looked solid as well.. just wondering if he played well or do we need to be calling for Fox?

jspchief
09-18-2006, 07:41 AM
The only play I remmebr seeing him on was the fade to the TE that Plummer overthrew. It was an easy six points for most QBs.

Not sure how Bell did otherwise, but it's still pretty clear that he's a liability in coverage. I just don't think he's a Cover 2 LB.

boogblaster
09-18-2006, 08:12 AM
A waste of time and money..real lucky Snakie over-threw in the endzone....

ck_IN
09-18-2006, 08:17 AM
As a corollary, did anyone see Sims come close to doing anything. I do remember seeing him on the field once. It was a sweep away from him so he had no part in the play.

What's the latest on our 6th overall pick?

Chief Chief
09-18-2006, 08:20 AM
I specifically recall that, on that overthrow play, Bell set himself about 5 yards away and to the inside of the WR, and I thought he'd be at a big disadvantage on a fade away.

But, focusing on the positive, he did quickly run forward on running plays to break up the flow or make tackles. I remember he made a bone-jarring hit on one of the Bells solid at the line of scrimmage and Mitch Holthus remarked something along the lines of "One Bell rings another...".

HemiEd
09-18-2006, 08:21 AM
I saw Bell make a couple of nice tackles but he was back in coverage to much. I think he is was to slow to be in coverage, he should be rushing IMO.

MVChiefFan
09-18-2006, 08:23 AM
Bell did have one nice play on one of those damn pitches when he fought off a block and hit Bell (don't remember which one) in the legs for a yard or two loss. Pretty good play.

jspchief
09-18-2006, 08:26 AM
I saw Bell make a couple of nice tackles but he was back in coverage to much. I think he is was to slow to be in coverage, he should be rushing IMO.That's why I don't think he's a Cover 2 LB. When you keep the safeties deeper like you do in Cover 2, your LBs are going to have to be able to play in pass coverage. You can't just have him rushing forward on every play, or there will be big gaps in the zone on his side of the field.

He may or may not be a good LB. But IMO he will never be a great Cover 2 LB. He's a poor fit for this scheme.

Unfortunately from what I've seen from Fox, what we gain in coverage ability is lost in tackling. Fox has shown a nose for the ball, but doesn't have the power.

unlurking
09-18-2006, 08:49 AM
That's why I don't think he's a Cover 2 LB. When you keep the safeties deeper like you do in Cover 2, your LBs are going to have to be able to play in pass coverage. You can't just have him rushing forward on every play, or there will be big gaps in the zone on his side of the field.

He may or may not be a good LB. But IMO he will never be a great Cover 2 LB. He's a poor fit for this scheme.

Unfortunately from what I've seen from Fox, what we gain in coverage ability is lost in tackling. Fox has shown a nose for the ball, but doesn't have the power.
I'd have to agree with this. When the Donx lined up for the fade pattern I was screaming at him to close the distance on the WR. At the same time, whenever he was kept in to stop the run, he was around the ball a lot. I think I saw more of him yesterday than all of last year.

Shag
09-18-2006, 08:49 AM
I think Bell may have had his best game as a Chief. No, he wasn't spectacular, be he was solid, and seemed to be around a lot more plays than he has in the past. According to ESPN.com, he had 6 tackles (all solo) on the day, more than any other LBs on the team.

On the end-zone play, we all knew he was in trouble as soon as the TE split out - coverage is far from his strength, and Gunther really needs to take precautions to protect him from situations like that. Not optimal, but if he's our starter, we need to prevent a matchup like that in the future...

StcChief
09-18-2006, 08:54 AM
Other the TE overthow in the endzone he was OK.

Other teams will see the TE play and figure how to burn him.

PRIEST
09-18-2006, 08:56 AM
Bell looked fine,but my god was he getting choped on all most every damn play,I know its legal STFU

ChiTown
09-18-2006, 09:00 AM
That's why I don't think he's a Cover 2 LB. When you keep the safeties deeper like you do in Cover 2, your LBs are going to have to be able to play in pass coverage. You can't just have him rushing forward on every play, or there will be big gaps in the zone on his side of the field.



Bingo.

He's just not fluid enough to play in the Cover 2. He's an attacking style LB, that looks horribly uncomfortable in coverage. This is NOT a good defense for him at all.

HemiEd
09-18-2006, 09:03 AM
That's why I don't think he's a Cover 2 LB. When you keep the safeties deeper like you do in Cover 2, your LBs are going to have to be able to play in pass coverage. You can't just have him rushing forward on every play, or there will be big gaps in the zone on his side of the field.

He may or may not be a good LB. But IMO he will never be a great Cover 2 LB. He's a poor fit for this scheme.

Unfortunately from what I've seen from Fox, what we gain in coverage ability is lost in tackling. Fox has shown a nose for the ball, but doesn't have the power.

That makes a lot of sense. We aquired him before the decision was made to go cover 2 I believe.

jspchief
09-18-2006, 09:32 AM
When the Donx lined up for the fade pattern I was screaming at him to close the distance on the WR. The play before that, they did the same thing. Lined the TE up tight, then shifted him out. Bell moves over to cover him, then they run to the opposite side of the field. The next play, the call the same formation/motion, get the same look, and have an over-matched Bell covering the TE fade.

It was a brilliant coaching by Denver. The first play we showed a weakness, and they came right at it the following play. Good thing Plummer sucks.

the Talking Can
09-18-2006, 09:40 AM
dude is crazy slow....permanent liability against the pass...got cut on damn near every play...DJ and Mitchell covered for him constantly...weak link of the LB core...stuck with him....moral victory...

HC_Chief
09-18-2006, 09:43 AM
What tTC said. Bell = slow, horrible in pass coverage, and incapable of getting past blocks in the running game.

He made ONE play yesterday... he happened to run blitz in the right place and cleaned up a Sammy Knight hit on the RB in the backfield. If that doesn't tell you how slow Bell is, nothing will: he got to the RB AFTER Sammy Knight.

Lzen
09-18-2006, 09:44 AM
I didn't see the game. But NFL.com has him down for 6 tackles. [/shrug]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20060917_KC@DEN

HC_Chief
09-18-2006, 09:44 AM
BTW, Mitchell was WAY out of position on several plays yesterday. Every time, it appeared he was crashing down to Bell's side because Bell was neutralized by a single blocker.

Chiefnj
09-18-2006, 10:10 AM
Bell was one overthrow away from being this weeks goat. Instead Herm, LJ and Law are sharing the horns. It wouldn't have been Bell's fault (he shouldn't be left in single coverage on obvious fade pattersn) but the tinkerbell fans would have been out in force. That was perhaps the biggest defensive blunder of the day. The Chiefs dodged a bullet on that one.

Phobia
09-18-2006, 10:12 AM
I think Bell may have had his best game as a Chief. No, he wasn't spectacular, be he was solid, and seemed to be around a lot more plays than he has in the past. According to ESPN.com, he had 6 tackles (all solo) on the day, more than any other LBs on the team.

On the end-zone play, we all knew he was in trouble as soon as the TE split out - coverage is far from his strength, and Gunther really needs to take precautions to protect him from situations like that. Not optimal, but if he's our starter, we need to prevent a matchup like that in the future...

This is the exact post I was going to make.

HC_Chief
09-18-2006, 10:18 AM
Why is having an OUTSIDE LINEBACKER out in coverage on a TIGHT END a "mismatch"? That's his f*cking job! I could see your point if we were talking about Antonio Gates or Tony Gonzalez, you know, a real receiving threat, but that's not what we're talking about here. The OLB should be able to cover the damned TE.

kepp
09-18-2006, 10:19 AM
I didn't see the game. But NFL.com has him down for 6 tackles. [/shrug]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20060917_KC@DEN
I wouldn't be a good NFL statistician. They have DJ down for 3 tackles and 1 assist. I thought I saw him make three tackles in the backfield alone. :shrug:

jspchief
09-18-2006, 10:24 AM
Why is having an OUTSIDE LINEBACKER out in coverage on a TIGHT END a "mismatch"? That's his f*cking job! I could see your point if we were talking about Antonio Gates or Tony Gonzalez, you know, a real receiving threat, but that's not what we're talking about here. The OLB should be able to cover the damned TE.I somewhat agree with this.

He's a OLB in a Cover 2. He has to be able to play in coverage.

Beyond that, he's the OLB in the goalline package lined up against a TE in a formation that's loaded on the other side. To bring someone else over to cover for his ass pretty much screws with the entire defensive package.

Chiefnj
09-18-2006, 10:27 AM
Why is having an OUTSIDE LINEBACKER out in coverage on a TIGHT END a "mismatch"? That's his f*cking job! I could see your point if we were talking about Antonio Gates or Tony Gonzalez, you know, a real receiving threat, but that's not what we're talking about here. The OLB should be able to cover the damned TE.

Bell is a two down LB who isn't good in coverage. It's a mismatch.

siberian khatru
09-18-2006, 10:30 AM
Why is having an OUTSIDE LINEBACKER out in coverage on a TIGHT END a "mismatch"? That's his f*cking job! I could see your point if we were talking about Antonio Gates or Tony Gonzalez, you know, a real receiving threat, but that's not what we're talking about here. The OLB should be able to cover the damned TE.

Bell can't do his job. Simple as that.

HC_Chief
09-18-2006, 10:37 AM
Bell is a two down LB who isn't good in coverage. It's a mismatch.

I agree with this. It's a PERSONNEL issue, not an ASSIGNMENT issue. In other words, the OLB <i>should</i> be capable of covering the TE in that situation; KENDRELL BELL is NOT capable of covering the TE.

I keep hearing how Keyaron Fox is such a stud and is so fast and blah blah blah. So why don't we see him on the field? Bell is not showing much... hasn't since we added him.

Iowanian
09-18-2006, 10:41 AM
Bell stretched out one of the sweeps and helped stop it....He blew up a screen for a loss......and got smoked in the endzone for an easy 6 if Plummer didn't suck.

I've said it since the preseason......I have no idea why he's starting over Fox, other than Gunther's pride being butthurt because his FA is a bust.

Sure-Oz
09-18-2006, 10:51 AM
Fox should be in coverage and bell more of a rusher. I saw him on one good play and he almost got beat by a TE in the endzone but plummer can't throw.

runnercyclist
09-18-2006, 11:03 PM
Per ususal-poorly