View Full Version : Well, so much for a quality coaching staff
01-15-2001, 12:20 PM
One of the supposed upsides to Vermeil was that he would hire a quality staff to surround him. Now we have a Special Teams coach who was so good, he was out of football last year, and a Defensive Coordinator who was fired from an 11-5 team.
Vermeil is quickly losing my support. I can only imagine what offensive coordiantors are out there who have coached or played for UCLA, but I am sure one of them is coming here.
Next, he'll cut Richardson and keep Bennett.
I am just venting here, but I think hiring Robinson is one dumbass move, with a capital D.
01-15-2001, 12:22 PM
The jury is out on this one!
01-15-2001, 12:28 PM
I think all of the letters in dumbass should be capitalized with this move, don't you?
What a DUMBASS move!!! :(
01-15-2001, 12:44 PM
In my opinion, this is just not a sound, quality hire. He gave up a billion yards to Dillon. If they were not going to go with Tobin or Rhodes, at least they could have looked at a few more canidates.
01-15-2001, 12:57 PM
People... chill!!! We got the Denver DC - not their crummy players! :)
Robinson aggressively employs the blit - which I like! He prefers zone coverages though - which I do NOT like!
Biggest positive: SB experience. We now have a HC, DC, and hopefully OC(Saunders) who have <i>all</i> been part of a recent SB winning franchise.
01-15-2001, 02:11 PM
Some food for thought before you all storm Arrowhead with torches and pitchforks.
<i>The performance of Robinson's defense throughout the 1998 playoffs was paramount to Denver's quest for a second straight title. The Broncos allowed opponents just 53 rushing yards per game in the postseason, and forced an unbelievable 13 turnovers in just three games, giving Denver a +12 turnover ratio. Add that to an impressive +10 ratio for the regular season, and Denver boasted a +22 ratio for all of 1998. In each of the Broncos' first two postseason games, the defense allowed a franchise-low 14 rushing yards, and in the entire postseason allowed just 25 points and two touchdowns.
The Broncos ranked third in the NFL in rushing defense in '98, allowing just 80.4 yards per game, the lowest in franchise history. The top two full-season rushing defense figures in franchise history have come during Robinson's tenure (1st-1998, 2nd-1996). Over the final 11 games of the season (including postseason), Denver allowed just 56.6 rushing yards per game, and for the season, allowed just two individuals to rush for more than 100 yards. Additionally, the Broncos allowed fewer than 20 points in 11 of their 19 regular or postseason games in 1998.
The Broncos' defense was equally impressive in 1997, when Denver won its first World Championship. Robinson crafted a brilliant game plan in Super Bowl XXXII to control the
explosive Green Bay offense, resulting in a 31-24 win. Robinson's defensive unit rose to the occasion when most challenged, limiting the Packers to an 0-of-7 showing on
third-down attempts in the second half, and 0-of-1 on fourth down. Out of six occasions during the entire playoffs in which opponents began a drive in Denver territory, just two netted points, and both were field goals. During the regular season, opponents were shut out once and held to three points on three other occasions. </i>
Was it the coaching? Was it the players? Was it a soft schedule? I dunno but these stats sound pretty fair.
01-15-2001, 02:27 PM
Those stats came from KCChiefs.com.
They are 100% biased.
The reason the Denver rush D looks good on paper is because they usually WAY ahead of their opponent on the scoreboard.
Thus, teams were usually playing catch-up and not running the football.
The Chiefs mediocre running backs have almost always run all over the Donkeys.
I think the Denver D is very soft and has been for a long time. The offense has always made that D look better by giving them leads to play with.
He was fired from Denver for a reason. It's another bad hire IMO.
[Edited by Cannibal on 01-15-2001 at 03:30 PM]
01-15-2001, 02:40 PM
I'm not particularly in favour of the hire but I think we should wait and see before we pillory him.
And Cannibal those stats didn't come from KCChiefs.com. Not even close.
*watching that knee jerk*
01-15-2001, 02:43 PM
There are stats "just like" those on the Chiefs official site.
And wherever they came from, it looks like a "Rufus Dawes" clone put them together.
01-15-2001, 02:49 PM
Stats are stats. They are the same stats that were on the Bronco website before he was fired.
We percieve his defenses as being soft and needing a lot of points to win. That's because Denver has always had a good offense.
What he does bring is sacks, turnovers, a physical style of play, using the corners man on man, and the knowledge of how to use his linebackers. Maslowski and Edwards should definitely benefit from this.
I don't know how this will turn out, but I'm going to play wait and see...
01-15-2001, 02:52 PM
We'll see, I can't help but think about how our mediocre offense has handled that D for a good 3 or 4 years now.
01-15-2001, 03:04 PM
True, but they've also had some very good games in those spans. IE we couldn't stop the Raiders the last two years if our life depended on it, yet Denver didn't seem to have that many problems doing so. Some teams have another team's number...
01-15-2001, 03:05 PM
I have to admit this hire is confusing, I thought we had gotten rid of, say one thing and do another. As in Rison is having the best camp ever, oopss, hello Oakland. Or the Dishman thing, whatever. Now we have DV letting the world know Vince Tobin is the man, interviewing Ray Rhodes, and out of the blue, hires Robinson. Everyone says he surrounds himself with quality assistants, so for whatever reason, I am going to give him a chance, but I hate this damned lying, that seems to be so prevalent, in the NFL.
01-15-2001, 03:07 PM
Besides, another way to look at it is any recycled DC is available at this point due to a reason. Vermiel could have promoted a position coach, but I don't think he wants to go through what Gunther had to with Kurt, or what the Rams went through with Guinta when he got promoted to fulltime duty, for example...
01-15-2001, 03:10 PM
Wait, wait wait. What lying? Every newspaper said he was interviewing Tobin first, then Robinson. The Denver Post specualted he may be interested in Rhodes. The Chiefs and Vermiel didn't lie. We were the ones, myself included, that specualted that Tobin was a done deal, through what I had heard over the radio shows and whatnot, which was all just specualtion...
01-15-2001, 03:12 PM
Man, as long as he doesnt bring Romo, well be fine. Hey look, after winning a Superbowl, do you think V wants to come out of retirement and fall on his face? Lets not 2nd guess him until about our 3rd pre-season game is over. We may not go to the S/B in 2002, but I bet we get closer every year.
Rison= Butterfingers!!!! Ha Ha!!!!!
01-15-2001, 04:00 PM
And remember, Shanarat signed Dale Carter in order to bring in a guy to fix that defense and allow Robinson more freedom with his blitz schemes. That did not work out and they never did really fix their secondary.
I'm listening to WHB right now and there was some specualtion that Tobin might not have gotten the job because his defensive philosophy that he laid out in the interview wasn't as aggressive as the Chiefs like...
01-15-2001, 04:25 PM
Maybe someone can help me out. I don't remember Denver's defense being all that aggressive. Greg Robinson said he prefers bump and run coverage, but it depends on personell. It was almost if he was trying to lay the foundation for playing zone by saying that the Chiefs players may not be capable of playing tight conerage.
Please, someone give somethng to make me feel better about this.
01-15-2001, 07:18 PM
If I recall correctly, the addition of Dale Carter was hailed as the final piece which would allow Robinson to really turn the defense loose and be more aggressive than ever. He likes physical defenses that get sacks and that blitz, but in order to do that your corners better be good. Along with Carter, there have been some pretty lackluster additions back there. And of course if your pass defenders aren't that good, you can't be as aggressive as you want.
He says that is his philosophy, and he has shown it in the past. But if we're planning on going with Pat Dennis again and if Hasty doesn't return, I don't know if any defensive coordinator could do what they want to do. The Hasty decision is going to be big, and we have to add another corner...
01-15-2001, 10:36 PM
Why does everyone dog on the zone? Sure, bump and run is sexy, but it also leads to the big play. Many, many teams have won employing a zone scheme. If you watch college football, then you have watched zone coverage. The Pittsburg Steelers got to the Super bowl running zones. The Ravens often employ zones. The Giants have to because it plays to the strength of their corners. They run bump and run as well, but it's the combination that wins.
01-15-2001, 11:50 PM
Where is everyone getting this thing that Robinson likes the zone. Here is a quote from today's KC Star Article.
Robinson said he would prefer that the Chiefs play more man coverage than in 2000, when they frequently played three rookies in their passing defense.
"Man-to-man is critical in this league," he said. "You have to have the ability to play man-to-man. I like bump-and-run coverage. That's totally about personnel. I think if you're able to play man-to-man coverage, you put yourself in position to be aggressive."
It seems to me that if you had Denvers weak cover corners you would be forced to play more zone.
So please explain why you think he prefers zone?
01-16-2001, 12:03 AM
My point in post 17 was it sounded like he was making an inference to our poor talent at corner by saying he prefers man to man, but it all depends on the personel. It was like he was already making an excuse for not playing man to man.
And as far as the Ravens using zone alot, well, when we get a front 7 like that I will welcome the zone with a great big hug.
01-16-2001, 12:34 AM
The scariest part about this whole thing is that CP, DV and now Robinson are all old friends. Isn't the friendship over business how the whole 4 stooge thing started?!?!
01-16-2001, 09:39 AM
You're contradicting yourself...
Playing zone=weak personnel (Chiefs rookies caused us to play zone)
Baltimore uses zone
If we had front 7 like B-more, you'd welcome the zone?
Seems to me, if they're THAT GOOD, they should be playing MAN-TO-MAN, or is there another reason to play zone? Methinks there is...
01-16-2001, 11:21 AM
Consider Vermiel, Shaw, Zygmount (sp?) and Styles were all close friends working in St Louis. Sometimes it can help, IE you trust each other, you have a good working relationship, you can be brutally honest, and sometimes it hurts, IE you become overlook or become blind to obvious faults. I thought Gunther took a lot of unfair flak for hiring friends, IE his best friend on the staff was Rowen, and he did a fantastic job bringing Gonzo along. He was never really close friends with the stooges fromwhat I know, he just felt familiarity and comfort with them.
We shall see...
01-16-2001, 11:37 AM
The reason you can play zone with a strong front seven is the d-line can pressure the quarterback, the linebackers are free to cover sideline to sideline. This leaves the defensive backfield free to cover spots on the field because so much of the underneath is already covered, and the safeties can play deep.
A lot of the time when you are using man to man, the linebackers are responsible for attacking the line of scrimmage and the quarterback, forcing you to cheat your safeties to the line of scrimmage for run support as well as the short middle.
Does that make sense?
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.