View Full Version : The CHIEFS need to rebuild what made them respectable again..their DEFENSE!!
03-15-2001, 07:17 PM
This is just my personal view. I have been lucky enough in my 30 years of life to attend 15 CHIEFS games including 2 playoff games(Pit & Den) at Arrowhead. There is not a stadium or setting in professional sports that matches our beloved stadium. There's plenty of room to tailgate, party, and throw the pigskin around. Where else on the planet do you have fans lined up at the gates 4 hours before gametime just to set up for the "party"??? You sure cant do that the soon to be renamed "Trans-world" Dome..
The Chiefs and their fans are at their best when the CHIEFS Defense comes to hit, strip, and shut down opposing teams. Somewhere along the way over the last 3-4 years we've lost that edge. CHIEFS fans are loud and proud. The players and fans used to feed off of each other. We need to once again get that fire back and dominate again.
[Edited by Greg Herzig on 03-15-2001 at 08:21 PM]
Words that sing to my heart.
Defense Homer, waiting for a reason to cheer again.
keg in kc
03-15-2001, 08:32 PM
I want the total package, an offense that strikes fear into the opposing defenders, and a defense that simply dominates.
I don't want one or the other, I want them both.
I'm a greedy bastige, ain't I. ;)
Guess mommy never taught me how to share...
03-15-2001, 08:34 PM
I think that losing Kurt as our DC is a huge jump in improving our D, how can anyone consistently have Donnie Edwards so far out of position is beyond me.
03-15-2001, 09:21 PM
I agree that it is important to have balance. I want a balanced offense as well(not one that passes every down). The crowd noise at Arrowhead is a huge advantage if you have a good defense. We are there...Carl and Dick just have to take advantage of that.
03-15-2001, 09:28 PM
I agree the Defense needs to improve.
KCs Defense was the element that disappointed me most last year. We couldn't seem to protect a lead or field position when we needed.
Was this due to a.)poor coaching (a big part), or b.) being worn out because our offense didn't hold the ball long, c.)stupid penalties sapping their mental momentum.
The following numbers are pulled from thin air. They are not the result of legitimate statistical analysis, nor can I offer any support, other than my impressions from watching the team.
POOR COACHING: 98%
BAD OFFENSE: 1%
MENTAL MISTAKES: 1%
The worst problem with our Defense last season was the Spineless Jellyfish Stooge and his stinking soft zone.
The Chiefs managed to have smothering, dominating Defenses in past years even though the Offense was marginal at best. But we did not see the pathetic display we saw the last couple of years.
Words cannot express my disgust, disdain and dismissal of Schottenheimer as DC. Raye was a better OC than KS was a DC. Gunther was a better HC than KS was a DC. Stock was a better STC than KS was a DC.
clearly still has Stooge issues.
03-16-2001, 07:37 AM
With all due respect, the Chiefs "stooge" coaching didnt have much to work with last year. And losing Derrick Thomas was bigger than most people think. Teams designed game plans with Derrick Thomas in mind. He commanded double teaming. The Chiefs have nobody that commands that now.
The Chiefs need a defensive superstar. The "soft zone" you are talking about was probably played because it was their best defense. Man to man probably would have gotten the Chiefs secondary burnt left and right last year.
The coaching staff knows these players better than you and I do. There was a reason for the soft zone last year and my guess is because that the best option they had.
03-16-2001, 07:43 AM
Once again, you're going from thread to thread and showing your incredible lack of football knowledge.
The reason the soft zone was employed was two-fold:
1. Kurt didn't let the young CB's learn how to play man to man for fear of being burnt. Sometimes getting beat is the best way to learn (something which hasn't sunk in on you yet).
2. Willie Shaw (DB's coach) employed the same soft-zone system at Oakland. It's the system he uses. Tampa plays a lot of 2-deep coverage, but they play a tight zone. It works well. It's the system, not the players.
Robinson will NOT do the same thing. He didn't in Denver with a questionable secondary and he won't here.
~~Teaching the fool.
03-16-2001, 07:47 AM
Teams designed game plans with Derrick Thomas in mind. He commanded double teaming. The Chiefs have nobody that commands that now.
Actually, Ken, almost anybody but <i>you</i> would agree that if used properly, Donnie Edwards would command that attention.
Even our idiotic coaching staff espoused that philosophy during the past offseason. Unfortunately, their attention span and inability to focus on something week-to-week never allowed it to develop.
03-16-2001, 07:49 AM
Didnt I just read a post of Ken's that blasted the KC coaching staff as the #3 reason that KC underachieved and also another post that decried Carl for not letting players 'develop' and now this one that both supports this 'piss poor coaching staff' and shielding the younger players from developing on the field?
This is doublespeak of Denise-ian proportions.
03-16-2001, 07:51 AM
you learn in practice. If you cant cover man to man in practice, why would you try it in a real game?? No matter how bad you think the coaches were, my guess is that they now a little more than me and quite a bit more than you.
A soft zone was the Chiefs best coverage last year. Fact.
Mark, you are a typical Chief fan that blames all failures on coaching. It shows how much you know about the game.
03-16-2001, 07:59 AM
How in the hell is learning in practice better than learning in a real game situation? Didn't Ricks tear up the field in practice? Yet he never saw any action.
Are the Chiefs young DBs great? Who the hell knows ... they've never been given a chance. And the soft zone didn't help. If they played a tight two-deep ala Tampa they could've done much better.
Do you know what a 2-deep zone is, Ken? If so, prove it by explaining it.
As far as blaming everything on coaching, I don't. But if I did, it would make more sense than blaming everything on the GM. At least coaches come up with the game plan.
~~Waiting for Packf*ck's response ...
03-16-2001, 08:28 AM
While you're busy searching the net for the answer (since I doubt you know) could you also enlighten us on what makes a zone "soft" compared to "hard"? (And no asking your wife for the definition of "hard" ... I doubt she knows anyway).
~~Still waiting ...
03-16-2001, 08:34 AM
Coaches work with the players the General manager provides. You probably think it the coaches fault that Carlton Gray cant cover anyone when in reality, he was cut twice the year before Carl rolled out the red carpet for him.
It starts with talent and then coaching and then scheme.
The Chiefs dont have very many talented players. Not winning a playoff game in 8 years ought to tell you something.
03-16-2001, 09:14 AM
1. Coaches work with the players the General manager provides.
I do see your point. HOWEVER, a good coach is able to maximize the talent he has around him. The Stooges did nothing of the sort. Look a Baltimore (on offense): Trent sucks, as does most of their WRs. They have a good TE, a fine RB and a solid OL. But it takes the entire unit to succeed. The coaches were smart enough to install a system that worked for their players. The Chiefs coaches were not.
2. Your mantra of "Blah blah blah no playoff wins in 8 years blah blah blah no playoff wins in 8 years" is getting old. We all know they haven't had success. What the f*ck do you want us to do? Quit rooting for them? Quit hoping that things will improve? I don't think so. Rooting for a team and hoping that they will win is part of being a fan.
3. Are you going to answer my questions? I think your diversionary tactic just shows you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
~~Quickly getting bored with Kenney.
You sound like Schottenheimer [and that is not a compliment].
Schottenheimer’s Defensive scheme consisted of sending the DL straight up field. They did not converge on the QB and paid scant attention to the ball carrier slipping past them. There was not effort to contain, just blind rushing. Mistake #1.
At the same time, the LBs were dropping back into coverage. Let’s look at this logically for a second. You send the house on the DL, which means the RB or QB is often going to slip past the onrushing lineman. So where are the LBs who should be laying the hammer on the ball carrier? Unfortunately, they are several yards downfield, dropping into coverage. Mistake #2.
Then surely you expect the CBs to shut down the WRs, yes? No. The CBs were playing the soft zone, sometimes 10 yards off the WR.
So, let us recap:
· No pressure on any QB with the minimal agility to step aside.
· No LBs to stop the enemy player who got past the LOS.
· CBs playing so far off the WR that they had no chance for the INT.
· Safeties so far downfield they had to phone in the plays.
I understand that it serves your personal agenda to excuse the coaching and blame Carl for the talent level on the team, but I think you are totally wrong on this issue.
thinks the 98% was a bit low, but wanted to give McGlockton credit for his offsides penalties.
03-16-2001, 11:48 AM
As a fan I enjoy a great defense as much as I do the offense. The takeway philosophy is particularly enjoyable. What sucks is containment.
03-16-2001, 11:56 AM
At the most Green is worth a second. He is not a first round qb! He is a joke for first and third. Weinke is almost a spitting image of Green and he is probably a 3rd rd this year. Yet, most would prefer someone other than Weinke at 3rd rd. And next year it is going to rain QBs so it is not now or never but just get the house in order then bring in the bride.
03-16-2001, 11:58 AM
Sorry for the wrong thread post. NCAA is a distraction.
03-16-2001, 02:40 PM
Mark and Gaz,
I do not excuse the coaches for the teams poor record the past few years. Gunter Cunningham was one of the worst coaches in the league. But its not all his fault. Chester McGlockton, Carlton Gray, Elvis Grbac, Bam Morris, Lew Bush, ect. You cant win with those guys. Other coaches have proven that too. You have to get help from your scouts and General Manager. You have to spend cap money wisely. Peterson hasnt done that.
Quit ripping on Shottenheimer. He is the best coach this organization has had since Hank Stramm. He won with guys named Bono, Lake Dawson, Sean LaChappel, Derrick Walker, Dave Krieg, and Willie Davis. All garbage, IMO. Those guys didnt produce for the Chiefs and were basically out of the league when the Chiefs finally let them go.
IMO, Shottenheimer was a miracle worker considering the talent he had. Nobody else could have won with Steve Bono or Elvis Grbac. Shottenheimer got 13 regular season wins. Nobody else could have gotten 10 wins with either one of those jokes. Noboby else has.
03-16-2001, 02:45 PM
I think Gaz is referring to Kurt not Marty.
Since this thread is about the Defense, since Marty has not been with us for a couple of years, and since I was talking about the Defensive scheme last year [when Marty was not here, but Kurt was the DC], I assumed it was understood that I was talking about Lil’ Bro’ Kurt Schottenheimer.
assumed too much, apparently.
03-17-2001, 01:13 AM
You have succeeded where many others have tried and failed.
You’ve plugged that gaping hole from which spills an endless river of claptrap.
As Billy Joel said, he’ll always be uberstud to me (heterosexually speaking of course)
The silence is deafening.
03-17-2001, 06:31 AM
Gaz - Though I will stand alongside of you in your criticism of KS, I think GC and Willie Shaw may have been making most of the decisions. I seem to remember in 99, not a great defense, but at least an average one. True, we had Dishman on the other corner, who, though burned a few times, at least knew how to play man coverage. And then we bring in Guns favorite person, Willie, and now we completely revamp our style of play. In the pecking order, I wonder how much Asst. Head Coach, plays against Defensive Coordinator. I am not absolving KS, but think Shaw deserves at least a "stooge" name too.
03-17-2001, 06:54 AM
I already gave Shaw what I consider the perfect nickname.
Let me know what you think.
Funny, when a player leaves, my passion for/against them drops off the radar screen. But I am still angry with the Stooges for what they did to the Chiefs. I wonder why that is.
Being a Defense Homer, the lion's share of spite is reserved for the ignorant, inept, buffoons who trashed my once-proud D. I have enough repressed anger that there is plenty left over for Shaw.
still working through his Stooge issues.
03-17-2001, 08:34 AM
No argument from me on Kurt Shottenheimer. However, if you think the Chiefs have a talented defense, you are sorely mistaken. The Chiefs need players first and coaching second.
03-17-2001, 08:35 AM
Since we three agree, I wonder if CP would give us a call, I wouldn't tell him who to draft, just which side of the ball. On another thread, Milkman and I agree on a stopgap QB this year, take our lumps, build D, and start working on the O next year. I hope CP listens. Fat chance.
Evidently, you have not read the numerous posts where I said our Defense must be rebuilt. That is disappointing, because they are everywhere on both BBs.
always suspected no one was reading his posts.
The Chiefs need players first and coaching second.
However, I think you are wrong on that statement. By far the worst problem with our Defense last season was the Stooge in the skybox. I explained my reasoning in a previous post. Since the numbers are missing, you may have to look for it, but it was posted on 03-16-2001 at 11:38 AM.
already happier with the D, now that the Stooges are gone.
I am concerned about our CB situation. We have  unproven rookies in Dennis and Bartee. We have Warfield who showed some promise before his injury last season. And we have Gray as veteran guidance. Yes, I am concerned.
But pass defense must take place in the enemy backfield, before the pass is thrown. The PI rules are stacked entirely in favor of the receiver. WRs crying for flags are common and the refs are eager to comply. McCaffrey is making a career out of faking contact to draw flags. Therefore, you can no longer rely on tough man coverage. The NFL wants completions, not great defensive plays. Therefore, the point of attack against the passing game is the guy lobbing the ball. If you defend the pass after the ball is in the air, you are already in deep trouble.
That leads to my concern about our DL situation. I am very happy with Hicks and content with Clemons. DE is fine. But Williams and Browning are not acceptable at DT. Either would be acceptable depth, but we need a run stuffing DT.
That is where I would spend that #12 pick. Seymour, Stroud, Lewis or Rogers in the 1st Round.
wants a HB-stuffing and QB-crushing D like he used to see.
03-17-2001, 09:10 AM
Gaz - I agree, a good DT would go a long way towards upgrading a defense in need. Two things, I think could still happen. Williams may be cut on June 1, along with Carlton Grey. There has to be a CB who would not break the bank in FA, that would give us one cover corner. I like one of your picks to team with Browning and use Steve Martin as the depth. Get rid of "I only play on Sundays" Williams. With Grey, Bush, and Williams, I believe there is some more money that we can get under the cap. Use it.
03-17-2001, 09:50 AM
Do you have ANY recollection of how you used to blast Thomas in his last season or so. How he no longer commanded any attention on defense, how he was past it etc., how he could only sack Jeff George because he only got up for those games, how he slacked off against other teams etc. etc. I know you're going to say "I never said those things" or "prove it". I bet Titus has some of those quotes.
Now you say losing Derrick Thomas was bigger than most people think. Teams designed game plans with Derrick Thomas in mind. He commanded double teaming.
Why the change of heart? Now he was the key piece missing from our defense. Hmmmmm.
Also, if the coaching was not the biggest problem with our defense.......what about the scheme putting Dennis and Hasty on one side of the field each, regardless of where the best opposing WR was lined up? That sounds like a coaching decision to me. I doubt Dennis came out onto the field at SF and said, "hey, James, let me cover Terrell Owens. You saw how well I covered Tim Brown, I can take him". Jeez.
03-17-2001, 11:32 AM
You have a selective memory. In an earlier post, I said that Derrick meant more to the defense than what I had originally thought. Ask Titis to find it for you.
Derrick was a great player, clearly on the decline in the last few years. He was awesome at home during his entire career, but disappeared on the road where he couldnt take advantage of the crowd noice. He commaned double teaming his entire career. The Chiefs have NOBODY that requires that now.
As far as coaching, again, you have a selective memory. I too agree that the staff was garbage. However, I dont place total blame on the coaching staff. IMO, the Chiefs are that talented on defense and the general manager hasnt given them much to work with. Chester McGlockton? Who wants that guy? ditto for Dan Williams. Dale Carter leaves and the best Peterson can do is sign Carlton Gray?? You think thats helping out Kurt Shottenheimer? You expect the Cheifs to stop people with a couple of malcontents like Chester and Dan Williams?? How about Lew Bush?? Hell, the 1-15 Chargers didnt need him. Some of you guys think that just because they wear the Chiefs uniforms, they should be all-pros. And if they are not, its the coaches fault. Forget about past performances with other teams. They are Chiefs now and if they dont perform it the coaches fault. Its assinine!
Vince Lombardi couldnt do much with those guys. I think we both agree on that.
03-17-2001, 12:00 PM
Thanks for clarifying. That response makes much more sense than what I gathered from the others.
It's not all coaching that led to the demise of our defense, but I believe it's still more the coaching than the players. I am glad Chet is gone. I wish Dan Williams was too, but maybe he'll wake up now that he must know he's next to be released otherwise. Carlton Gray is useless, and nobody can argue with that. On the flip side, it must be the coaching that led to the underachievements of Lew Bush and Donnie Edwards to name a couple. There's no way that Lew Bush (who was pursued by other teams than just KC last offseason) is as bad as he played for us last season. He was not a solid LB in SD playing at that level. Donnie Edwards had a poor year too. Coaching problem.
The use of our DBs last year was an embarassment. Hopefully those guys can regain some level of confidence under the new regime. Our CBs are far from being all-pros IMO even though they wear Chiefs red. But if they are only as good as what we saw last season, they should never have been drafted. I don't believe that's the case either. Conclusion - bad coaching.
With a better DC, we may still not be a top 10 defense unless we make some good offseason moves, but we won't be bringing up the rear either. I hope Robinson is the answer - I have my reservations - but I expect at least a serious improvement.
What we need player-wise is Maz at ILB (that still leaves us with a hole at OLB unless Bush steps up to his previous form), a run-stuffing DT (from the draft preferably), and CB veteran leadership, which looks like it will be hard to come by as there is no-one that stands out in FA this season IMO, except for Denard Walker who we are not pursuing. What I am afraid of is:
How good will Robinson be?
We may not adequately address our DT needs in the draft.
Our CB play will not improve much - the arrival of Robinson and the departure of Hasty may offset.
An injury to Clemons or Hicks would severely hurt our pass-rush.
We may have a void at OLB.
We don't know how good our players are until we see them performing in a suitable system. Hopefully Robinson solves that.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.