PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs | K. Bell benched Week 14


recxjake
12-11-2006, 09:53 PM
Chiefs | K. Bell benched Week 14
Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:52:24 -0800

Adam Teicher, of the Kansas City Star, reports Kansas City Chiefs LB Kendrell Bell was benched late in the team's Week 14 game against the Baltimore Ravens. Head coach Herman Edwards said the team is considering using LB Keyaron Fox as the starter Week 15 instead of Bell. "We don't know that yet. We'll sit around, have a roundtable and figure out what we're going to do. He's going to play some more. I know that," Edwards said.

Count Zarth
12-11-2006, 09:53 PM
OH MY GOD.

I do not ****ing believe it.

This is fantastic news.

Sure-Oz
12-11-2006, 09:54 PM
Fox still hasn't impressed me too much, but a pile of shit with cleets is better than DumbBell.

BigRock
12-11-2006, 09:54 PM
Time to take out the garbage, Herm.

tk13
12-11-2006, 09:54 PM
Looks like Herm went into Gun's office and said it to his face.

Coach
12-11-2006, 09:54 PM
*Taps Herm at his shoulder*

14 weeks later, you finally got it right, you dumb son-of-a-bitch.

Now how about finally cutting Ryan Sims?

Deberg_1990
12-11-2006, 09:54 PM
But not Wesley?? WTF?? I know that guy has incriminating photos of Carl.....i just know it.

recxjake
12-11-2006, 09:55 PM
OH MY GOD.

I do not ****ing believe it.

This is fantastic news.

I didn't realize he got benched during the game.... anyone else notice it?

boogblaster
12-11-2006, 09:55 PM
Bout fricking time..worthless lazy bastard.........

FAX
12-11-2006, 09:55 PM
Herm made a decision to bench an under-performer? Gun's man? Without going to his office?

The team is imploding.

FAX

Count Zarth
12-11-2006, 09:55 PM
Looks like Herm went into Gun's office and said it to his face.

LMAO

SPchief
12-11-2006, 09:56 PM
I didn't realize he got benched during the game.... anyone else notice it?



If anybody else was like me, they would have been to busy curled up in a ball crying to notice.

Mecca
12-11-2006, 09:57 PM
Little late don't ya think.....

Short Leash Hootie
12-11-2006, 09:59 PM
Put Pollard at LB and see what happens...if it doesn't work, oh well.

Sully
12-11-2006, 09:59 PM
In the 4th quarter, during that long assed drive, we went to a 4-4 defense, and the only strter at LB was Mitchell. Bell and DJ were on the sideline, and Fox, Scanlon and Griffin were all in.

Short Leash Hootie
12-11-2006, 10:00 PM
In the 4th quarter, during that long assed drive, we went to a 4-4 defense, and the only strter at LB was Mitchell. Bell and DJ were on the sideline, and Fox, Scanlon and Griffin were all in.
that worked out well :rolleyes:

Mecca
12-11-2006, 10:01 PM
Taking out our best LB in DJ and leaving in Mitchell.....brilliant.

recxjake
12-11-2006, 10:02 PM
In the 4th quarter, during that long assed drive, we went to a 4-4 defense, and the only strter at LB was Mitchell. Bell and DJ were on the sideline, and Fox, Scanlon and Griffin were all in.

WHY?

dirk digler
12-11-2006, 10:02 PM
Taking out our best LB in DJ and leaving in Mitchell.....brilliant.

Gun's a genious :rolleyes:

FAX
12-11-2006, 10:02 PM
In the 4th quarter, during that long assed drive, we went to a 4-4 defense, and the only strter at LB was Mitchell. Bell and DJ were on the sideline, and Fox, Scanlon and Griffin were all in.

You have to be joking, Mr. Sully. Was DJ injured again?

FAX

Mecca
12-11-2006, 10:04 PM
I think they think because Mitchell is the MLB he has to stay in because he calls the defense.......he's sure great at it too...

morphius
12-11-2006, 10:06 PM
Which is odd, because Bell actually finally made 3 plays for losses yesterday, and we are going to bench him for it. Now don't mistake me as Bell supporter, but just seems like very odd timing.

It was odd when DJ and Bell were on the bell, our D looked pretty bad with the other guys out there.

Sully
12-11-2006, 10:06 PM
You have to be joking, Mr. Sully. Was DJ injured again?

FAX

He wasn't. When Baltimore brought in an extra reciever, Bell and Scanlon came out, and Sapp and DJ went into the game.

Sully
12-11-2006, 10:07 PM
Which is odd, because Bell actually finally made 3 plays for losses yesterday, and we are going to bench him for it. Now don't mistake me as Bell supporter, but just seems like very odd timing.

It was odd when DJ and Bell were on the bell, our D looked pretty bad with the other guys out there.

I, too, thought Bell had a better game than most Sunday.

Deberg_1990
12-11-2006, 10:08 PM
Which is odd, because Bell actually finally made 3 plays for losses yesterday, and we are going to bench him for it.

Yea i thought the same thing. Yesterday was the first time i remember him making multiple plays for losses. Weird.....oh well, im sure there is alot more to this than we may ever know...

Mecca
12-11-2006, 10:08 PM
We need some new LB's.......we have 1.

Coach
12-11-2006, 10:09 PM
We need some new LB's.......we have 1.

While I agree with that, it is not a major need. DT's is the bigger issue right now.

Chan93lx50
12-11-2006, 10:10 PM
We need some new LB's.......we have 1.

And that one gets a hang nail and comes out of the game!

Mecca
12-11-2006, 10:11 PM
While I agree with that, it is not a major need. DT's is the bigger issue right now.

Well we're tying some money into some of those crappy ones which isn't good.......if they give Mitchell a big contract I'll go apeshit.

Coach
12-11-2006, 10:13 PM
Well we're tying some money into some of those crappy ones which isn't good.......if they give Mitchell a big contract I'll go apeshit.

I actually went apeshit when they gave Ty Law that big money, considering how much Surtain and Knight are making, and the fact that all of us knew, before the signing of Ty Law, that our DT's were not exactly "great" players, if you will.

Personally, the first priority for 2007 should be getting a DT who can stuff the run and actually consist a pass-rush if we are going to have a defense of some kind.

Thig Lyfe
12-11-2006, 10:15 PM
14 weeks late.

wutamess
12-11-2006, 10:18 PM
In the 4th quarter, during that long assed drive, we went to a 4-4 defense, and the only strter at LB was Mitchell. Bell and DJ were on the sideline, and Fox, Scanlon and Griffin were all in.

Well considering we left early... we listened to the radio on the way home. DJ had tweaked his ankle again. Bell was on the pine earlier in the game and not only in the 4th qtr as I'd noticed it earlier and was happy as hell he was finally on the bench.

Now if we can get Sammie Parker & Ryan Sims to the Raiders, I'd say our season is complete.

Sully
12-11-2006, 10:19 PM
I hadn't heard about DJ's ankle, thanks.

Coach
12-11-2006, 10:21 PM
Well, considering that we have some youth on the LB's crew, other than DJ, why not give Scanlon, Grisby, and Griffin a chance?

I mean, it's not like we're going anywhere this season anyways. :shrug:

Redcoats58
12-11-2006, 10:22 PM
if they give Mitchell a big contract I'll go apeshit.
They will just because of the amount of tackles he is racking up again.

Chan93lx50
12-11-2006, 10:23 PM
Well, considering that we have some youth on the LB's crew, other than DJ, why not give Scanlon, Grisby, and Griffin a chance?

I mean, it's not like we're going anywhere this season anyways. :shrug:

I agree!

Put our young safties in and put some of our young LB in.

wutamess
12-11-2006, 10:24 PM
Well, considering that we have some youth on the LB's crew, other than DJ, why not give Scanlon, Grisby, and Griffin a chance?

I mean, it's not like we're going anywhere this season anyways. :shrug:


I actually kinda like Mitchell. He could be a Zach Thomas like LB.
Hated Bell in there but I think Fox Mitchell and DJ would be a pretty good core of LB's. Of course we'd have to give Fox a couple of games to get used to the position but anyone has to be better than Bell.

We need a badass defensive leader in the worse way.
Why is it the Chiefs NEVER sign a free agent in their prime?
They'll overspend on someone that's on the end of their mileage.

Although Surtain was a good pickup. Noone's going to shut down everything.

Mecca
12-11-2006, 10:25 PM
They will just because of the amount of tackles he is racking up again.

Does this mean they think Mike Mazlowski was great too?

Mecca
12-11-2006, 10:26 PM
I actually kinda like Mitchell. He could be a Zach Thomas like LB.
Hated Bell in there but I think Fox Mitchell and DJ would be a pretty good core of LB's. Of course we'd have to give Fox a couple of games to get used to the position but anyone has to be better than Bell.

We need a badass defensive leader in the worse way.
Why is it the Chiefs NEVER sign a free agent in their prime?
They'll overspend on someone that's on the end of their mileage.

Although Surtain was a good pickup. Noone's going to shut down everything.

Mitchell may think he has fire by yelling on the sideline but he doesn't play with fire......he jogged into on that blitz, jogged around making no plays the whole game.

And Fox is light and can't tackle he's routinly drug 3-4 yards by RB's.

wutamess
12-11-2006, 10:26 PM
Speaking of which...
Am I the only one that thinks Jarred Allen is overrated?
He'll have huge games at home and mediocre games at home but I can only remember 2 games in his career where he blew it up on the road. However, even though he's overrated we should still pay him to retain him as I don't think there's another replacement for him.

Redcoats58
12-11-2006, 10:26 PM
Does this mean they think Mike Mazlowski was great too?
They would have paid him if he didn't get injured. I wouldn't pay Mitchell much, but you know how the Chiefs are.

Chan93lx50
12-11-2006, 10:27 PM
I actually kinda like Mitchell. He could be a Zach Thomas like LB.
Hated Bell in there but I think Fox Mitchell and DJ would be a pretty good core of LB's. Of course we'd have to give Fox a couple of games to get used to the position but anyone has to be better than Bell.

We need a badass defensive leader in the worse way.
Why is it the Chiefs NEVER sign a free agent in their prime?
They'll overspend on someone that's on the end of their mileage.

Although Surtain was a good pickup. Noone's going to shut down everything.

NAIL IN THE HEAD!

I dont care what position on D, either it be DT, LB, CB, S, etc....... We need a leader on the field. All strong D have a leader and this team never has had one since DT.

I thought Law could be one, but he just wants a paycheck. They guy would play high school ball if they paid him the big bucks

Sully
12-11-2006, 10:27 PM
Speaking of which...
Am I the only one that thinks Jarred Allen is overrated?
He'll have huge games at home and mediocre games at home but I can only remember 2 games in his career where he blew it up on the road. However, even though he's overrated we should still pay him to retain him as I don't think there's another replacement for him.

I'm beginning to agree. He gives great effort, but he is starting to remind me a lot of Eric Hicks, especially on misdirection and bootlegs.

C-Mac
12-11-2006, 10:28 PM
Looks like Herm went into Gun's office and said it to his face.
ROFL

Coach
12-11-2006, 10:29 PM
I actually kinda like Mitchell. He could be a Zach Thomas like LB.
Hated Bell in there but I think Fox Mitchell and DJ would be a pretty good core of LB's. Of course we'd have to give Fox a couple of games to get used to the position but anyone has to be better than Bell.

We need a badass defensive leader in the worse way.
Why is it the Chiefs NEVER sign a free agent in their prime?
They'll overspend on someone that's on the end of their mileage.

Although Surtain was a good pickup. Noone's going to shut down everything.

I don't mind Mitchell, I just hope that that Chiefs FO doesn't break the bank or grossly overpay him.

Bell, I can agree. What's funny though was that I thought that Bell had a decent game aganist the Ravens, and ironcially, he gets benched. :shrug:

We do need a badass defensive leader in a worse way, but none of the current players we have will step up. Could Tamba be one? Who knows? Hard to tell.

And I absolutely agree that the Chiefs never sign someone that was either entering or in their prime. That's like Raider-like type of signings.

Surtain is a ok pickup, but with the NFL rules slanting more towards the offense, and most of the rules are pointing aganist the secondary of most defenses, the only way to defeat that rule is to have a big stout front 7, like Baltimore, Chicago, etc.

C-Mac
12-11-2006, 10:29 PM
Which is odd, because Bell actually finally made 3 plays for losses yesterday, and we are going to bench him for it. Now don't mistake me as Bell supporter, but just seems like very odd timing.


My thoughts also....

patteeu
12-11-2006, 10:29 PM
Why is it the Chiefs NEVER sign a free agent in their prime?

Because the guys who still have prime in front of them usually aren't obvious and the guys who are obvious don't have much prime left (which is why they are available in the first place).

wutamess
12-11-2006, 10:30 PM
And Fox is light and can't tackle he's routinly drug 3-4 yards by RB's.

As opposed to Bell just looking at RB's and plays. I'll take being drug as long as they're tackled. Fox will be alright.

I have faith that Herm will fix it. He's a defensive coach.

We have a stud LB, 2 potential future studs as Safeties, 2 potential stud DE's. We need LB to replace Bell and 2 DT's. Draft for entire defense & Free Agency for Offensive tackle & stud WR & maybe even DT.

Coach
12-11-2006, 10:31 PM
Speaking of which...
Am I the only one that thinks Jarred Allen is overrated?
He'll have huge games at home and mediocre games at home but I can only remember 2 games in his career where he blew it up on the road. However, even though he's overrated we should still pay him to retain him as I don't think there's another replacement for him.

While he is overrated, at least he's tons better than Hicks.

Hali, while a rookie, is pretty good, but I can see that he hasn't gotten to the QB as much as he did early on the season, of course, it could be contributing to the fact that it is his first season and such. :shrug:

At either way, the Chiefs really need 2 DT's that can command double teams. Somebody decent like what Chicago had in 2003 in Washington and Trayler.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-11-2006, 10:34 PM
As opposed to Bell just looking at RB's and plays. I'll take being drug as long as they're tackled. Fox will be alright.

I have faith that Herm will fix it. He's a defensive coach.

We have a stud LB, 2 potential future studs as Safeties, 2 potential stud DE's. We need LB to replace Bell and 2 DT's. Draft for entire defense & Free Agency for Offensive tackle & stud WR & maybe even DT.

Gunther Cunningham was a defensive coach, too. How'd that work out for us? How about Tony Dungy? Marvin Lewis? Jim Mora Jr.?

wutamess
12-11-2006, 10:35 PM
Because the guys who still have prime in front of them usually aren't obvious and the guys who are obvious don't have much prime left (which is why they are available in the first place).

BS!
Moss couple of good years still left.
Champ. Denver has gotten 4 years out of him and more.
Donnie Abraham went to Falcons this year... banged up but when he was in he was a beast.

That's all I can think of at the moment.

Mecca
12-11-2006, 10:36 PM
There's an Allen thread on here should be within the first 3 pages were I pretty much say what you said about him disappearing alot....

Mecca
12-11-2006, 10:37 PM
BS!
Moss couple of good years still left.
Champ. Denver has gotten 4 years out of him and more.
Donnie Abraham went to Falcons this year... banged up but when he was in he was a beast.

That's all I can think of at the moment.

It's because FA's in their prime or close to it are really really expensive and the Chiefs won't pay someone a huge contract. They'll take the older guys cause they're cheaper.

We'd pay a 32 year old LB past his prime instead of paying the 25 year old star Lance Briggs the giant contract, that's Chiefs philosophy.

wutamess
12-11-2006, 10:38 PM
Gunther Cunningham was a defensive coach, too. How'd that work out for us? How about Tony Dungy? Marvin Lewis? Jim Mora Jr.?

Mora has had top defenses. Hartwell & Abraham & Kearney is/was hurt too.
Dungy never had anything to build on. Freeney only.
Marvin lewis had a defense his first 1-2 seasons. Average. But then again, he had nothing to build on.

Chan93lx50
12-11-2006, 10:39 PM
There's an Allen thread on here should be within the first 3 pages were I pretty much say what you said about him disappearing alot....

Well, he has to shine that big brass belt buckle he wears after the games

Coach
12-11-2006, 10:39 PM
Mora has had top defenses. Hartwell & Abraham & Kearney is/was hurt too.
Dungy never had anything to build on. Freeney only.
Marvin lewis had a defense his first 1-2 seasons. Average. But then again, he had nothing to build on.

I think you're forgetting Bob Sanders. While Sanders is short and all, he can play D.

FAX
12-11-2006, 10:52 PM
Well, he has to shine that big brass belt buckle he wears after the games

Can't blame him though. If he leaves your saliva on it, the darn thing will rust.

FAX

RedThat
12-11-2006, 11:08 PM
Why not try Bernard Pollard at WLB?

I saw some fire in that kid on Sunday. He hits like a freak'n train. And actually covered the Baltimore TE's pretty well on one goalline play.

Lonewolf Ed
12-11-2006, 11:19 PM
I didn't realize he got benched during the game.... anyone else notice it?

No, I was too preoccupied with the burial of the last vestiges of my hopes for the playoffs to notice such details.

beer bacon
12-11-2006, 11:44 PM
I didn't realize he got benched during the game.... anyone else notice it?

I knew something was up when I noticed Scanlon and Griffin out there on defense.

blueballs
12-12-2006, 12:57 AM
No one wanted to come play for Vermeil
even Roaf said his practices shortened his career

ChiefsFan4Life
12-12-2006, 04:25 AM
Are you kidding me? This is the ONLY game so far this season where I even noticed Bell making plays

I hate our organization

the Talking Can
12-12-2006, 05:16 AM
and this is why the Chiefs suck

Bell should have been benched a year and a half ago....but the Chiefs wait until two seasons are ruined before making a change....

**** you Gunther

scott free
12-12-2006, 05:37 AM
Well thats a start. They could have made an even better statement by sacking Greg"Throw at Me"Wesley.

Heads MUST roll.

huskerdooz
12-12-2006, 06:08 AM
I didn't realize he got benched during the game.... anyone else notice it?

You first have to notice that he's on the field (i.e., make a play), to be able to notice when he actually gets replaced.

Chiefnj
12-12-2006, 06:59 AM
I'm not reading throught the whole thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned, but Bell was pulled and then the Ravens went on their 8 minute plus drive down the field. I'm not sure the experiment worked too well.

jspchief
12-12-2006, 07:27 AM
I'm not reading throught the whole thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned, but Bell was pulled and then the Ravens went on their 8 minute plus drive down the field. I'm not sure the experiment worked too well.It was mentioned but it deserves repeating.

Better be careful what we wish for. We can sit here and assume Bell hasn't been replaced because of coaching incompetence, but it's probably a lot more realistic to assume it's because we don't have someone better to fill in for him.

The coaches watch a hell of a lot more footage of Bell's play than we ever will, and they also get to see what his replacements can or cannot do in practice. It's more than a little presumptious to think we all see things that professional coaches don't. Of course, you always have to account for the loyalty/pride factor, but Herm Edwards is the guy ultimately in charge and he shouldn't have a stitch of loyalty or commitment to Bell or any other LB on the team.

I'm just not convinced that we have a better option. I'm not even convinced that Bell is as bad as some seem to think.

tomahawk kid
12-12-2006, 07:28 AM
I blame Gunther.

Chiefnj
12-12-2006, 07:33 AM
I'm just not convinced that we have a better option. I'm not even convinced that Bell is as bad as some seem to think.

I agree. I don't know why Bell isn't blitzed more. That was his strength in Pittsburgh. Herm's trying to fit a lot of sqaure pegs into his circular cover 2 puzzle.

In the end, this is good for Bell. The Chiefs can release him and he can go to a team like San Diego, be placed in the middle of a 3-4 and get 8 sacks a year.

jspchief
12-12-2006, 07:37 AM
I agree. I don't know why Bell isn't blitzed more. That was his strength in Pittsburgh. Herm's trying to fit a lot of sqaure pegs into his circular cover 2 puzzle.

In the end, this is good for Bell. The Chiefs can release him and he can go to a team like San Diego, be placed in the middle of a 3-4 and get 8 sacks a year.I agree that it's probably a matter of fit.

I question whether he was suited to be a 4-3 LB in a coventional scheme. Now we've taken it a step further and are asking him to play a cover 2 LB that requires him to spend that much more time doing the thing he's weakest at... covering.

I suppose long term it's best that we start looking elsewhere for our LB on that side. But I'm skeptical tha twe'll see any great improvement this year from the move.

KC-TBB
12-12-2006, 07:43 AM
...abandon the cover 2, play your best atheletes, get some playing time for pollard and page...BRILLIANT!

jspchief
12-12-2006, 07:49 AM
...abandon the cover 2, play your best atheletes, get some playing time for pollard and page...BRILLIANT!I'm tempted to agree.

We clearly don't have the players for a Cover 2 defense. We lack a front four that can pressure on it's own. At least one of our LBs is terrible in coverage. In a scheme that needs safeties that play like corners, we have one that runs like a LB and another that that consistently gets lost in space.

I feel like we need to give the players a chance to get the scheme down, but at the same time this scheme looks to just be a bad fit for our players.

Fish
12-12-2006, 07:53 AM
Why not try Bernard Pollard at WLB?

I saw some fire in that kid on Sunday. He hits like a freak'n train. And actually covered the Baltimore TE's pretty well on one goalline play.

WLB requires difficult coverage situations. Experience is important to that position. And if Pollard were better in coverage, he'd more than likely have taken Knight's job already. His tackling is obviously pretty decent, but I think it will take a year or so for him to learn the mental part. I'd rather leave him at safety and let him develop at a slower pace than force him into a LB position. He's making a great contribution to special teams in the process too.

Chiefnj
12-12-2006, 07:57 AM
I feel like we need to give the players a chance to get the scheme down, but at the same time this scheme looks to just be a bad fit for our players.

That's the part that has me worried. It seems like all the big free agent moves the last 3 years are all wasted.

I know people will probably disagree with me, but I think last years defense was closer to being a good defense than the present one. I think the scheme was better last year and suited the personnel better. Even if you look at the Giants game where we had a defensive collapse, the players were in position to make a play. It wasn't like Tiki hit a hole and had 80 clear yards to the endzone. Players were in position to tackle and just got run over; repeatedly. Not a bad play call by Gun, just horrid execution. I think if you had kept the old scheme, the addition of Hali, Law, Reed and Edwards would have fielded a more consistent defense.

stevieray
12-12-2006, 08:08 AM
I'm tempted to agree.

We clearly don't have the players for a Cover 2 defense. We lack a front four that can pressure on it's own. At least one of our LBs is terrible in coverage. In a scheme that needs safeties that play like corners, we have one that runs like a LB and another that that consistently gets lost in space.

I feel like we need to give the players a chance to get the scheme down, but at the same time this scheme looks to just be a bad fit for our players.

Maybe this is by design. This is the third starter benched.

It has exposed our weakest spots. If Herm can have another successful draft(DT, CB, LB)next years roster would be more adjusted towards the scheme.

I think too many people had too high of expectations this year, due to the fear of a collapsing Offense.

jspchief
12-12-2006, 08:14 AM
Maybe this is by design. This is the third starter benched.

It has exposed our weakest spots. If Herm can have another successful draft(DT, CB, LB)next years roster would be more adjusted towards the scheme.

I think too many people had too high of expectations this year, due to the fear of a collapsing Offense.Well, I think if you bring in a head coach, you have to expect him to put in his philosophy/schemes.

In our hearts we all wanted to try and eek out another year or two of Vermeil's offense with Herm magically fixing the D. But what he's doing instead is building his team. It may make for disappointment this year, but if the franchise is dedicated to their head coach, you have to let him do it his way.

We all pissed and moaned about drafting Bernard Pollard, and now everyone is clamoring to see more of what looks to be the biggest hitter we've had in close to a decade.

Herm is building his team. It may have dashed our hopes of winning with the old, and it may have rendered some past FA signings useless, but at the end of the day we have to at least see what he molds this pile of clay into.

pak1983
12-12-2006, 08:17 AM
yeah lets bench a player because we don't use him right. if you watched the game you saw that early play where bell burst through the line to the rb. that is where he should be directed everytime, behind the line ofscrimmage. instead we like to put him out on a reciever and totally screw ourselves and him. why not play dante hall at cornerback? because he is not a ****in cornerback and bell is not a pass coverage linebacker.

Chiefnj
12-12-2006, 08:18 AM
I think too many people had too high of expectations this year, due to the fear of a collapsing Offense.

You don't necessarily expect a 10-6 team to have to rebuild. I think high expectations were warranted.

siberian khatru
12-12-2006, 08:21 AM
You don't necessarily expect a 10-6 team to have to rebuild. I think high expectations were warranted.

After losing Roaf, I lowered my expectations -- I thought we were an 8-8/9-7 team. After losing Green, I REALLY lowered them. Then, of course, we held together nicely and stood at 7-4, and I FOOLISHLY began to believe that the worst had passed and we might actually come together at the right time to make a run.

Looks like my initial opinion was correct -- we were/are an 8-8/9-7 team. Shame on me for allowing optimism to creep into my brain.

chagrin
12-12-2006, 08:22 AM
What happened to this guy? How did he fall so far down?

jspchief
12-12-2006, 08:23 AM
You don't necessarily expect a 10-6 team to have to rebuild. I think high expectations were warranted.If you look at that record in a void maybe.

But if you also take note that an already old offense was getting older, and we lost two pro-bowlers and another starter on that offense, it should temper yoru expectations.

I'm not sure what predictions I made in the off-season. I think I mostly said I believed we were still a 10 win team... which we might be.

I think where the expectations are unrealistic is in what fans think this offense is still capable of.

Fish
12-12-2006, 08:29 AM
Well, I think if you bring in a head coach, you have to expect him to put in his philosophy/schemes.

In our hearts we all wanted to try and eek out another year or two of Vermeil's offense with Herm magically fixing the D. But what he's doing instead is building his team. It may make for disappointment this year, but if the franchise is dedicated to their head coach, you have to let him do it his way.

We all pissed and moaned about drafting Bernard Pollard, and now everyone is clamoring to see more of what looks to be the biggest hitter we've had in close to a decade.

Herm is building his team. It may have dashed our hopes of winning with the old, and it may have rendered some past FA signings useless, but at the end of the day we have to at least see what he molds this pile of clay into.

Good points.

This is the mindset I've taken for this season as well. It's been frustrating all year, and I've kept hope that we'd somehow sneak into the playoffs and get by with a mix of DV/AS baggage and Herm youngsters. But I don't see it as a step backwards if we don't make it to the playoffs this years. Herm has shown me a lot with the adversity he's overcome this year.... I think if we give him a draft or 2, and some FAs better suited for his style of play, he can take us in the right direction.

I still highly question whether Gun deserves to tag along.....

Chiefnj
12-12-2006, 08:59 AM
After losing Roaf, I lowered my expectations -- I thought we were an 8-8/9-7 team. After losing Green, I REALLY lowered them. Then, of course, we held together nicely and stood at 7-4, and I FOOLISHLY began to believe that the worst had passed and we might actually come together at the right time to make a run.

Looks like my initial opinion was correct -- we were/are an 8-8/9-7 team. Shame on me for allowing optimism to creep into my brain.

I was thinking more in terms of when Herm was first hired. The expectations at that time and up through the draft were "just improve the D a little and we are in the postseason." When Herm was hired, it wasn't presented as a "we are starting over" plan. In fact, didn't Peterson say something to the effect that his team wasn't going to take steps back?

Building a team with Herm and Carl at this point in time is going to be one hell of a bumpy ride.

Lzen
12-12-2006, 09:32 AM
I didn't realize he got benched during the game.... anyone else notice it?
I noticed #53(Kris Griffin?) was playing a lot of downs. I assumed that was due to either the Chiefs running a 4-4-3 or Bell was taken out for ineffectiveness.

siberian khatru
12-12-2006, 09:39 AM
I was thinking more in terms of when Herm was first hired. The expectations at that time and up through the draft were "just improve the D a little and we are in the postseason." When Herm was hired, it wasn't presented as a "we are starting over" plan. In fact, didn't Peterson say something to the effect that his team wasn't going to take steps back?

Building a team with Herm and Carl at this point in time is going to be one hell of a bumpy ride.

"Rebuild" is not in Carl's vocabulary. That's why I fear we're gonna finish 8-8/9-7, which to Carl is A) proof once again that we're competitive, and B) one or two players and/or one or two lucky breaks away from being 10-6/11-5 and in the playoffs. We're always on the fringe of the playoff hunt, and for Carl that seems to be enough. He's adamant about not taking a couple of steps backward for a season or two in order to take a bigger step forward.

RedThat
12-12-2006, 10:03 AM
It was mentioned but it deserves repeating.

Better be careful what we wish for. We can sit here and assume Bell hasn't been replaced because of coaching incompetence, but it's probably a lot more realistic to assume it's because we don't have someone better to fill in for him.

The coaches watch a hell of a lot more footage of Bell's play than we ever will, and they also get to see what his replacements can or cannot do in practice. It's more than a little presumptious to think we all see things that professional coaches don't. Of course, you always have to account for the loyalty/pride factor, but Herm Edwards is the guy ultimately in charge and he shouldn't have a stitch of loyalty or commitment to Bell or any other LB on the team.

I'm just not convinced that we have a better option. I'm not even convinced that Bell is as bad as some seem to think.

I just don't think he is suited for what the Chiefs are asking him to do.

It is clear, he is not a weakside linebacker. He is not a guy you want to drop back in coverage, or contain the backside. Imo, it's just dumb on the coaching staff part, they just completely didn't know how to use him?

I blame Gunther. Bell is an inside linebacker in a 3-4.

Anyong Bluth
12-12-2006, 11:54 AM
I agree the key is to get in a top notch DT or two. Hell, Give me one Wide load and one inside rusher and I think it would a huge difference. Keep DJ and KM and start Fox for the LB, switch wesley and knight for page and pollard and draft a few young db's to start taking over for Law and eventually Surtain, with Sapp and Walls coming in at dime and nickel

CoMoChief
12-12-2006, 12:09 PM
Put Pollard at LB and see what happens...if it doesn't work, oh well.


Hell Yeah :thumb:

Bring on the Bonecrusher motherfugga!!!!!

Chief Faithful
12-12-2006, 12:18 PM
I didn't realize he got benched during the game.... anyone else notice it?

Notice what? Missing in action is missing in action whether on the field or on the bench.

HemiEd
12-12-2006, 01:45 PM
Looks like Herm went into Gun's office and said it to his face.

ROFL nice!

dirk digler
12-12-2006, 02:06 PM
Herm said in his PC today that Bell was still the starter and doesn't know where this stuff comes from

shaneo69
12-12-2006, 02:51 PM
I just don't think he is suited for what the Chiefs are asking him to do.

It is clear, he is not a weakside linebacker. He is not a guy you want to drop back in coverage, or contain the backside. Imo, it's just dumb on the coaching staff part, they just completely didn't know how to use him?

I blame Gunther. Bell is an inside linebacker in a 3-4.

If you remember, Gunther tried to play a 3-4 for awhile last year, but had to scrap it when Fox got hurt. He also tried to play Griffin as an OLB/pass rusher in the 3-4, but that didn't work at all.

On the other hand, Griffin looked great as a 4-3 coverage OLB in the preseason last year when Bell was out. I remember a pick he got on the sidelines against the Rams that was pretty sweet. I'd rather see him in Bell's spot than Fox.

Woodrow Call
12-12-2006, 02:59 PM
On the other hand, Griffin looked great as a 4-3 coverage OLB in the preseason last year when Bell was out. I remember a pick he got on the sidelines against the Rams that was pretty sweet. I'd rather see him in Bell's spot than Fox.

I agree IMO Griffin has looked better than Bell/Fox. I would love to see him start the last 3 games.

BigRock
12-12-2006, 02:59 PM
Herm said in his PC today that Bell was still the starter and doesn't know where this stuff comes from
This looks like a classic case of the dumbass KC media creating a story out of nothing. When they quote Herm saying...

"We don't know that yet. We'll sit around, have a roundtable and figure out what we're going to do. He's going to play some more. I know that."

Where is that quote from? What was the question that got that answer? Did they ask about benching Bell, or did they just ask if Fox was going to see more playing time?

From what Herm was saying, it sounded like they had to sub in some backup LBs on Sunday because the starters got dinged up. Bell was probably one of them. So the "reporters" see Bell come out, get that quote from Herm about Fox playing more, and invent a story about Fox maybe becoming the starter.

And when they ask Herm, he looks at them like "WTF?".

El Jefe
12-12-2006, 03:06 PM
Deberg_1970 I like you point, he should have done it to Wesley first. Bell had a few good plays against the Ravens, better than the horrible play of Wesley.

Calcountry
12-12-2006, 03:12 PM
Taking out our best LB in DJ and leaving in Mitchell.....brilliant.It will help us with a draft pick, and valuable reps to yong players. Methinks Herm threw it in after the Cleveland game and is prepping the team for a new generation.