PDA

View Full Version : Hey, Gaz! (meanwhile, on the back of the bus...)


KCJohnny
04-24-2001, 09:01 PM
Hey Gaz:
Tell me something.
Much has been bandied about the 1999 Rams defense, even though they played most of the season with a 20 point lead by halftime and played the #31 toughest NFL schedule that year. Some people point to the NFC championship game where the Rams 'held' rookie QB Shaun King to 6 points. My question for you is:

Will you REALLY be satisfied with a defense like the '99 Rams or do you hunger for a Ravenish, '85 Bearish, '69 Chiefsish D that can take on ANYBODY, ANYWHERE?

To me, the '99 Rams D was like a kid who could beat up most anybody in the neighborhood as long as they were 50 pounds smaller and the bully's buddies were allowed to hold them down.

Just wonderin'.

KCJ
Dartboard for the new regime

keg in kc
04-24-2001, 09:17 PM
You know John, for someone who supposedly doesn't want to have anything to do with the Rams you sure seem to have an unhealthy fixation with them. Nowhere do I see anyone here discussing that team in any context, including the defense, so why exactly are you bringing this up?

WisChief
04-24-2001, 09:19 PM
who cares as long as we win.........???????????

Raiderhader
04-24-2001, 09:24 PM
Chaplin,
good to see you on the Planet ( even if you are still trying to stir up trouble ;) ).


Kyle,
it is relevant because with DV we will probably see a defense somewhat similar to that of St. Loui.

Gaz
04-25-2001, 09:03 AM
What I want to see in my Defense is an aggressive, attacking attitude. I want to see them set the agenda, rather than reading and reacting to whatever The Enemy does. They may not dominate every game, but they will disrupt The Enemy’s game plan. Confusion to The Enemy!

I cheerfully accept that this means we will be burned for a bit play on occasion. Even though I howl and rage at my TV, I will see one or more of our secondary vainly racing after a WR who is headed for the end zone. That is the price you pay for attacking: you leave yourself open for a counterpunch. The alternative is to cower against the ropes and cover up. I’d rather take the beating, thank you.

And, of course, I want to see crushed QBs littering the field. Makes me smile…

So, I do not differentiate between the Rams or Ravens Defenses. We do not have the personnel to be the Ravens [I do not want Ray Lewis in the R&G, for example]. All I want is a DC who attacks the Enemy every game, every play, every chance he gets. Gunther's fearless consecutive blitzing of Buffalo at our own goal line remains one of my very favorite football memories.

Needless to say, the Spineless Jellyfish’s stinkin’ soft zone was the “death of a thousand cuts” for me.

xoxo~
Gaz
Ready to rock with Robinson at the helm.

keg in kc
04-25-2001, 09:05 AM
John, I posted something that I think you should read involving this very subject:

Read me! (http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?threadid=16562)

HC_Chief
04-25-2001, 10:21 AM
Gaz - that is EXACTLY the Defense I would like to see! :)

Aggressive, violent, ruthless. I want opposing QBs shaking at the knees - I want incontenence to be a concern for opposing trainers ("How many changes of pants will we need <i>this</i> trip to Arrowhead?")

Soft zones must be eliminated! If we're to employ zone coverage, let it be a tighter 'man' zone - rather than the jellyfish-soft 'spot' zone.

Press WRs at the line; chuck 'em hard & often! Plug the Gs and C with big DTs and attack the edges with athletic DEs. Take the fight to them! Dictate the pace of the game.

Blitz LBs and <i>feign</i> LB blitzes. Mix it up - confuse and confound.

Smash... Crush... Destroy!

ct
04-25-2001, 10:28 AM
HC and Gaz, you guys need to cool down until closer to TC at least. I can't get all fired up this far from the season opener!! I just can't take it, I tell ya!!

keg in kc
04-25-2001, 10:29 AM
Sounds good to me, HC.

MrBlond
04-25-2001, 02:24 PM
I would like to add my .02.

Given the choice between the 99 rams D and the historic D's in Baltimore, Chicago, and KC is unfair. With the defensive players in place now, with no additions, KC has a better D then the Rams. More teams have won the Superbowl with outstanding offenses and solid defenses than vice-verse. Dallas, San Fran, Denver, GB, and Washington were more offensive than defensive, while certainly solid to very good on defense. Buffalo went to 4 SB lead by their K-gun, no huddle offense and a good D. While Pittsburgh won 4 with the "Steel-Curtain" D, their offense boasted 3 HOFers in Bradshaw, Harris, and Swann, with Stallworth right behind. Dallas had its "Doomsday Defense" but also HOFers in Staubach, and Dorsett. The Baltimore SB may not have been possible without future HOFer Shannon Sharpe. The bottom line, IMO, is that KC was not going to win a Superbowl with GrBac, Gunther, Raye, and RBBC. Change was needed on the offensive side of the ball. Did the defense need improvement? No doubt. Changing coordinators and scheme should lift production. Losing McGlockton was addition by subtraction. A full years experiance should improve Wesley, Warfield, Bartee, and Dennis. Edwards and Mazlowski should flourish as attacking LBs (ala Romo). this may have been a private message for Gaz, but I had to respond. IMO, another year of improving the defense and neglecting the offense would have left us in an increasingly familiar position...watching the playoffs from home.

MrBlond
04-25-2001, 02:29 PM
One more thing,

KCJ,

I too am glad to see you back on the Planet.

Gaz
04-25-2001, 02:36 PM
HC_Chief-

I want incontenence to be a concern for opposing trainers ("How many changes of pants will we need this trip to Arrowhead?")

Yes! That is the flavor I crave. Damn the torpedoes and attack The Enemy where he lives. Get into that backfield and wreak some havoc.

CRUSH SOME QBs!

If Robinson can give me another hit of the stuff we gave George and Young and Warner, I will walk barefoot across broken glass for him.

xoxo~
Gaz
Way too pumped for April.

Otter
04-25-2001, 03:33 PM
Thanks for getting me all pumped up guys, maybe I'll beat up my stapler or somthing.

I'm hungry for some attack defense as well. The stooge (may their scheme burn in hades) philosiphy still leaves me seathing.

otter
~hungy to see the opposing QBs running for their lives and crying for their mommys

ExtremeChief
04-25-2001, 04:27 PM
I hafta agree with ya'all...I want risk takin, smash mouthin, blitzin, bumpin, crushin, sackin, balls to the wall, no holes barred, kick your freakin *** defense.

I do have to go with blond though and say that improvements in the offense were needed, especially in the predictability dept.

KCJ and Gaz...although the air is much cooler up here, I'll work my way towards the back of the bus...


carefully riding both sides of the fence...

KCJohnny
04-25-2001, 07:21 PM
Mr. Blond:
No, this was not a private thread and I thoroughly enjoyed your remarks. I have to say that the current Chiefs roster is built more to be a '93 Cowboys than a '99 Rams, IMO. But this defense is being patterned on the late 90s Rams/Donx defenses with even their very own defensive coordinators to prove it. Both these defenses were adequate against the run, weak against the pass, and benefitted hugely from early leads due to the Superstar play of the offensive playmakers. Personally, I don't find this as entertaining as the 2000 Ravens, but that's because it was Marty who brought me back to even watching football again after ignoring it for a decade.

It is also not exactly accurate to say that the Kurt Schottenheimer Chiefs did not attack. They were second in the NFL in takeaways and defensive scoring in 1999; they blitzed until they were mercilessly exploited with screens and draws.
The 2000 Chiefs had 54 sacks, 40 by the F4. It was because of attacking defense that they buried the Rams in the 1st quarter 20-0 and went on to win 54-34. The weakness of both the '99 and the '00 Chiefs was the secondary, which is the EXACT weakness of Robinson/Guinta's defenses.
It is a huge gamble to invest so minimally in defense the way the Chiefs seem to be doing. It is predicated on getting opponents down by 14-20 points and then going for broke. Personally, I don't see that happening, although I will rejoice if it does.

Finally, no one seems to want to respond to my point about the '99 Rams playing the league's softest schedule. That same year, the Chiefs played the league's 8th toughest schedule. The Rams had a couple more takeaways than the Chiefs and that was against the #31 toughest schedule. KC is staring a TOUGH schedule this year against some pretty good defenses.

Kurt's D DID gamble, attack, etc. And I believe you will not see a great improvement over his '99 D but a slight improvemnt over the Shaw-infected '00 Chiefs.

KCJ
Full of hot air and bombast

Otter
04-25-2001, 08:50 PM
KCJ,

You are correct, the '99 Rams did have a soft schedule. I don't think their defense, that year or any following year, was anything to brag about. They won because they took the NFL by surprise with their new, brassy offensive scheme. Then backed it up with an adequate defense.

As far as the Chiefs defense, I think we will see an improvement because the players have coaches they can believe in. Last years performance had much to do with the lack of direction, the circus at running back, Gun's total lack of PR skills (TOTAL LACK OF PR SKILLS I SAY) and the hundreds of other things that went on inside the ranks that caused the players to lose their faith, their desire to win and their motivation.

They were warriors with weak and inept generals. A strong and wise leader is worth his weight in gold when preparing for and taking his troops into battle. Vermeil will prove that this year. And as much as I hate to see it happen, so will Marty.

I'm not counting on new personnel for improvement, but the new perspective of our old personnel. Our CBs having a year under their belt wont hurt either.

BTW - the "TOTAL LACK OF..." is a kind of nervous tick I have left over from last years press conferences ;)

KCJohnny
04-25-2001, 09:31 PM
Otter,
I hope you are right. If you are, the Chiefs could be looking at 12-4 and shocking pants off of everyone. I really believe that the chiefs will have a ton of offense this year, and if they can put a 10-12th ranked D on the field, they could really make some noise. I sure do hope so, although I believe it will be because Gun handed him a fundamentally sound football squad with the league's 8th best offense, not (so much) because Vermiel is a superior leader.

milkman
04-25-2001, 09:45 PM
Johnny,
Take off your Gun/Rose covered glasses. One of the primary reasons that Gun had to go was because his teams were were terrible in the fundamentals.
Bad tackling was nearly as responsible for the Chiefs poor defensive showing as was the poor schemes, both offensively and defensively.
If VD and crew get this team to perform better in the fundamental parts of the game, that in itself will be an improvement.

jAZ
04-25-2001, 09:57 PM
Several points:

1) Attacking schemes are ineffective without proper personel. We could implement an agressive, blitzing, attacking scheme, but if our DBs are average or less, we will be exploited more than occasionally. We don't have Hasty and Carter on the corners anymore. Maybe our young guys will develop, but we need a stud. Maybe we can find one in next year's draft, cause from what I have heard, there weren't any in this year.

2) To be a champion, you have to be great. I think that the last 2 years have proven that you don't have to be a great O and a great D. Just one or the other is enough.

In past years, KC has been great on D and ST. Weak on O. During those years we yearned for a prototypical QB. For athletic recievers. For an everydown RB. Well we have those now, but apparently at the expense of the stud CB and pass rushing LB and DT.

No matter to me, as long as we are not average on O, D AND ST. To be a jack of all trades, and master of none will get us nowhere. Pick something and be really, really good. It appears that our something (to the dismay of many longtime fans) is O.

3) I don't see changing our scheme as the primary solution to our defensive woes. It's nice to imagine our anticipated O with our historical D. But we don't have the same talent on the D side of the ball. Before we can implement our attacking D, we must improve the caliber of our personel. That could happen through player development, but it should have started with our draft.

4) On that note, IMO, we should have passed on a 4 RD FB and 5 RD TE. Those players may have been talented, but we had greater areas of need and at that point in the draft talent evaluation is a crapshoot anyway. Draft for talent early, draft for need in the middle, draft for potential in the late rounds... that's what I say.

Backup TEs, FBs and S are a dime a dozen. CB, LB, DL are to be guarded. If forced to cut players to free up cap space, I don't believe the KC would cut Eric Hicks in order to keep Tony Richardson. Both are pro-bowl caliber starters, but DL are hard to replace.

We passed on:
ILB... Brandon Spoon, Carlos Polk, Edgerton Hartwell
OLB... Jason Glenn, Riall Johnson, Jeremiah Pharms
DT... Marcus Bell, Mario Monds, Shawn Worthen, Mario Fatafehi
CB... Leonard Myers, Jimmy Williams, Raymond Walls

I don't know anything more than I read about players, so I am not about to critique the KC coaching staff on player evaluation, but I do believe that in order to effectively implement an attacking D, we need more than aging CBs and mis-used LBs.

jAZ
04-25-2001, 10:00 PM
I don't know anything more than I read about players, so I am not about to critique the KC coaching staff on player evaluation, but I do believe that in order to effectively implement an attacking D, we need more than aging CBs, mis-used LBs, and backup TE, FB, S.

milkman
04-25-2001, 10:08 PM
Papa,
That is a good asessment of the KC situation.
The only thing that I could offer to add to that, is that I strongly believe that Bartee and Dennis have the tools to thrive in tough man coverage, (If I say it often enough, people might begin to listen to it) and saw it any time that they were asked to do it (rare as that was).
Having talked about it over time, even with my initial reservations about Robinson, I'm more comfortable with the defense going into the '01 season, than at the end of last season.

Logical
04-25-2001, 11:02 PM
I am thrilled to see so many of the BB members and I agree with the return to the Chiefs heritage of the 60s and early 70s of kick them in the teeth and rip their hearts out through their throats aggressive defense. Those defenses also made lots of errors which resulted in losses like our 42-10 loss to the Raiders in 68 and many many others, but also resulted in some real as$ kickin in far more games than there were losses.

KCJ, the CBs (cept Crockett) are young give them time, our D line is young now (cept maybe Williams and he aint old yet), and is good at the sack game but must improve at run stuffin. Our linebacking corp is a mix and time will tell on it. Funny the area I questioned the most linebackers was deemed not an issue for the Chiefs by most of the experts, I just do not get that.

John, I predict by midseason you will love this defense.

KCJohnny
04-26-2001, 06:15 AM
Great comments, guys.
This defense will be alright, but will be exploited in the passing game. This is bound to happen, both because of the youth and the track record of Robinson/Guinta. Last year KC gave up a franchise record 25 TD passes; most of the KC pass exploitation was in the underneath zone. This was the results unde of blitzing backers and Safteys who did not cheat up for run support, but floated back to help out in the deep zone because Dennis was burned so frequently. I doubt we'll see much zone under Robinson. But he will still send blitzers and leave the middle of the field open. Remember Corey Dillon and Tony Richardson tore the donx to shreds last year. I will not even mention Guinta's pathetic defense in StL.

This will be exciting football to watch, as long as the Chiefs don't get multiple TOs in the air-Saunders scheme. That IS a risk you take in a pass-oriented offense, especially w/ a new QB who is unfamiliar with the receivers. One of the things people take for granted in KC is that we have always had (very) positive giveaway/takeaway ratios. Even under Gun, the Chiefs did extremely well. The 1999 Chiefs were phenomenal in that aspect. You should give Kurt his due on that.

KCJ

keg in kc
04-26-2001, 06:22 AM
In my opinion, the defense will be fine. I seriously think we're underestimating the level of talent we have, and I believe that the players we have fit the aggressive-type system to a "T". We will be significantly better at both linebacker and cornerback, I believe, than most people seem to think, leaving only the interior D-line as a question mark, (again, in my opinion).

There will be moments spent in the burn ward, that happens with any defensive system (remember Baltimore's first game against Jacksonville last season...) but I do believe that we'll have a much more solid defense than recent history has given us, and it will be a lot of fun to watch.

We may not be contenders, even so, but I honestly do not think we'll see a defense that gives up more than 20 points/game, and will probably be more in the 17-18 point range.

That's what I expect to see...

KCJohnny
04-26-2001, 06:27 AM
Keg:
If you are correct and this D averages 18 pts a game, the Chiefs will win the AFC West.

Unfortunately, you are not correct.

This D will be hot/cold. They will look brilliant playing behind a 21 point lead, and lost playing with a 14 pt deficit.

KCJ
Hopes he is wrong with this prognostication

keg in kc
04-26-2001, 06:30 AM
Unfortunately, you are not correct.

That's something that you simply do not know.

I may well be wrong in the end, but at this point in time, your projections are no less/more valid than mine. We're both speculating, and just because my opinion happens to be different from yours, it doesn't mean I'm "wrong" since neither of us is discussing anything tangible at the moment.

If you want to tell me "you were wrong" in December, after seeing what transpires, that's fine - I wouldn't argue the point in that case, but telling me I'm wrong now is ridiculous.


And, John, peace. We don't have to argue about everything. I feel like we're yin and yang sometimes and I don't know why...

KCJohnny
04-26-2001, 06:34 AM
Kyle:
As far as 'wrong', read my post. I said that I hope that I am wrong and you are right.
Shalom.
KCJ

keg in kc
04-26-2001, 06:41 AM
Understood.

I don't usually read signatures...

Gaz
04-26-2001, 08:44 AM
My hopes for the D are based on two things:

1. Schottenheimer is gone.
2. Robinson likes to attack.

The coaches lost at least [4] games for us last season, and Schottenheimer’s stinkin’ soft zone was responsible for [3] of them [Titans, Oakland & Oakland]. We may not win [3] additional games with Robinson, but we will not lose games because we were in the prevent for 60 minutes, either.

Sure, Robinson may be a disappointment. His aggressive style may surrender long gainers hand over fist. Our CBs may not be good enough to play man coverage. We may overestimate Edwards as a blitzing LB. Those things could happen, but I am more than willing to take that chance for the opportunity to see some fearless, ruthless, merciless QB-crushing.

As long as I see fear in the eyes of the QBs, the Defense is doing something right.

xoxo~
Gaz
Slowly recovering from Stooge-inflicted pain.

keg in kc
04-26-2001, 09:09 AM
Gaz, I'm not arguing with you (since I agree...) but how did Robinson lose the Titan game?

Tough to hold the "D" responsible when they only gave up 14 points in regulation...

The defense gave up 20 points (or more) against Indy, Denver, Oakland (twice), St. Louis, San Francisco, Buffalo, New England and Atlanta. That's nine games (ouch...), out of which we won two, Denver and St. Louis. Now, the defense didn't lose all those games, the inept stooge offensive plan was responsible for a couple of those, but still, it's inexcusable...

The Titan game, IMO, was a Raye trip-up, or a Gun trip-up, as demonstrated by the 4 downs from inside the 5...


The stooge effect can be seen in just about every loss:

Indy - Raye and Schott loss.
Tennessee - Raye loss.
Oakland - Raye and Schott loss.
Oakland - Schott loss.
San Francisco - Raye and Schott loss.
Buffalo - Schott loss.
San Diego - just plain ugly.
New England - Schott loss.
Atlanta - almost as ugly as SD.

Ahhhhh, but now the grass is green and the sky is blue. ;)

KCJohnny
04-26-2001, 09:42 AM
Brother Gaz:
I know this is a sore subject, but what about the 54 sacks by the (Kurt led) Chiefs last year? 40 of those were by the F4. That is actually very good for any team.
BTW, look for a drop off in that # with Chester gone.
KCJ
:)

ptlyon
04-26-2001, 09:49 AM
Also the number of first downs due to offside penalties...

Otter
04-26-2001, 10:00 AM
KCJ,

I come in peace but I do have a question. You seem to be convinced that last years coaches did a good job.

Since it was not the coaching, what was the problem with the Chiefs last year?

Gaz
04-26-2001, 10:02 AM
Kyle-

Schottenheimer lost the Titans game by going to a pure prevent defense after we had knocked McNair out of the game. In came the backup. We did not attack him, we did not take advantage of the fact that he had been sitting on his butt the entire game.

Schottenheimer went to the prevent defense and allowed the Titans to march down the field and score with very little effort. We went to OT and lost.

IMO, that loss was entirely due to the Stooge’s lack of spine. Our Offense was not spectacular, but it was good enough to win. We were ahead when McNair was removed from play. Then came the DESPISED prevent D.

BTW, the Spineless Stooge did the same thing against NE the year before and only the intervention of a friendly goalpost prevented a loss for the R&G.

xoxo~
Gaz
Getting all worked up again.

Gaz
04-26-2001, 10:08 AM
KCJohnny-

Schottenheimer sent our DL racing upfield and our LBs dropping downfield, leaving a HUGE hole in the middle. Teams exploited that chasm all year long, both with passes underneath and RBs and QBs slipping past the incoming Linemen.

I was pleased with the sacks, but dismayed by Schottenheimer’s inability to develop a compete plan.

Simply pushing blindly upfield is not enough. There has to be a coherent plan behind it. There was no coherent plan that I could see behind the Stooge’s scheme.

xoxo~
Gaz
Has very little good to say about Schottenheimer as DC.

Gaz
04-26-2001, 10:13 AM
Kyle-

Holding the Titans to 14 points was not a great accomplishment. Thier O was even worse than ours.

That game was in our hands until the Prevent reared its ugly, ugly head.

xoxo~
Gaz
Frothing at the mouth again.

KCJohnny
04-26-2001, 08:29 PM
Otter:
No, the coaching was below the level of Marty's high-percentage field chess standards. The decision-making was not as sharp as the top teams and the game-planning was off/on. Once teams figured out that KC was going to throw it on every down, they sent in dime packages with the same tenacity as they sent in the 8-9 man fronts in 1999. The 1999 Chiefs were more balanced (51/49% run/pass) and were savage in taking the ball away from opponents (#2 in NFL).

I was not alluding to any coaching genius on the Gunther led Chiefs sideline, just pointing out legitimate accomplishments (54 sacks, only one 100 yd rusher in the last 8 games, emergence of Maz). I used to get hate mail for doing that. Now, in an effort to please everyone and conform to BB standards, I have openly complained and criticized the team's off season moves.

Bottom line: There was a leadership deficit on the 2000 Chiefs and the head coach has to own up to that. I would that Gunther would have led a more balanced life. Football is a heckuva career, but a dismal religion.

KCJ
Damned if I do and damned if I don't

Zebedee DuBois
04-26-2001, 08:46 PM
KCJohnny,
You seem to be in a funk. ;)
My prescription is an opening day KC victory!
I could use one myself! :D

Otter
04-26-2001, 09:40 PM
KCJ,

That made alot of sense and shed new light onto your thought process.

Thanks for the reply.

Rausch
04-26-2001, 09:50 PM
Anything other than two deep zones and cushions of 5yrds or more...garbage, especially with a veteran shut-down corner like Hasty out there...yuck...








Of course, we will need a solid and effective rush from the front four or blitzing two guys won't get it done. Either Clemons or Hicks or both need to return to pre-injury form and make good on the potential they displayed early to mid last year...






Warfield doesn't impress me either...Might as well go with last year's rookies and see if coaching doesn't make a difference!

yoswif
04-27-2001, 08:45 AM
Nothing helps a defense more than standing on the sidelines watching the offense move the chains with a consistent, diverse, balanced attack like Dick and Al are planning. Nothing hurts a defense more than 3 and outs, hallmarks of the inconsistent, predictable, unbalanced Marty/Gunther offenses.

KCJohnny
04-27-2001, 10:04 AM
Pass first teams also get their share of 3-and-outs.
1st down pass that is incomplete results in a 2nd and 10.

We'll have to wait and see.

KCJ

yoswif
04-27-2001, 03:25 PM
It doesn't matter whether we run the ball on first down or pass the ball on first down, we need a consistent, balanced offense to move the chains and keep our suspect defense on the sideline. Consistency, measured in yards/attempt, both passing AND rushing. Balance, measured by our rank among NFL teams in yards/rush attempt AND yards/pass attempt. IMO, a consistent, balanced offense would be one that is in the top ten in yards/rush attempt AND yards/pass attempt. The ultimate consistent, balanced offense would be one that leads the NFL in yards/rush attempt AND yards/pass attempt. If we are getting good yards/attempt both running and passing, then it doesn't matter if we run or pass on first down.

KCJohnny
04-27-2001, 06:23 PM
Yoswif:
I agree. I think (barring injury to Green) that the Chiefs will have a top 10, maybe even a top 5 offense. I have never been in favor of 'covering' for a suspect defense, and as a Chiefs fan, I have rarely had to sit through that. My hope is that the Chiefs D will surprise us all with its toughness against the run (Robinson's forte, if you exclude his annual blow-ups; such as 407 yds yielded to the Bengals and 264 to the Chiefs) and be able to hang in there. The problem is, barring a bizzare change of NFL strength rankings, the Chiefs are facing a murderous schedule of talented playoff teams.
KCJ

yoswif
04-27-2001, 07:19 PM
Since both of this years super bowl teams failed to make the playoffs in '99', maybe we're better off playing a bunch of teams that made the playoffs last year. How many teams looked at their schedule this time last year and whined about playing a super bowl team when they saw the Ravens and Giants there? If a team made the playoffs last year it's just as likely they'll bomb next year as make the playoffs again. Seattle and Jax for example.
Playoff teams are the most likely to get raided for free agent talent and top assistant coaches and least likely to have the cap room to replace starters and quality backups with quality free agents.
Will this years free agent defenders in Seattle bomb as bad as Tongue? Is Chester going to have the same impact on team chemistry in Denver he's had on previous stops? We shouldn't automatically assume all of the moves of our opponents are going to be successful anymore than we should assume Trent Green is going to start sixteen games.
All this whining about our schedule is just going to give the coaches, players, and bandwagon fans an excuse to take the season off.

KCJohnny
04-27-2001, 11:33 PM
No one is whining about our schedule. As a team that won 7 games last year, our schedule looks excruciatingly difficult. Even if we play other losing teams, we have a steep hill to climb with so many new faces.

I agree, parity has made the 7-9 teams instant contenders and the 13-3 teams into 7-9 teams. My take so far on the AFC West is that Denver is the favorite and SD will improve dramatically while Seattle has a huge talent improvement though not necessarily a better team. The raiders will fall back to 8-8 (lose a lot of close games again) and the Chiefs will challenge for the title EXACTLY in proportion to their ability to rush the football and STOP opponents rushing.
KCJ

Rausch
04-29-2001, 01:48 AM
I would agree for the most part, but I think that the Chargers and Seahawks will be much better than you give them credit for.


Most people forget that two short years ago (with basically the same team) the chargers were only a touchdown and a field goal from winning the division. They had a better division record than BOTH KC or Seattle...

They also stole one from us, and lost two the Raiders by a combined score of under 10 pts. Now they have a respectable qb with loads of heart(see also No Cannon Gannon) and more than likely a future probowl rb...


Seattle has at worst a respectable qb(better than Kitna) TWO talented rushers, and what seems the makings of a dominant d and offensive line. I'd see the Broncs going 11-5, the Raiders at 11-5 or 10-6, the Chargers at up to 11-5 or 8-8, and the chiefs from 6-10 to an unlikely 10-6...


THis should be the toughest div. in football....

KCJohnny
04-29-2001, 10:42 AM
Brad,
It should be tough. I think Norv will really get max production from the Bolts new offense with Flutie and Tomlinson.

The Hawks have a ton of talent, but I just don't see them getting to the top with Hasselbeck just yet.

The Donx will compete as usual, though I am hoping they step in it again this year like they did in '99.

The Raiders? Nah. Not this year. This year Gannon gets hurt with all that scrambling and the Raiders...well, fade.

The Chiefs? Too many tough non-divisional games. If the Chiefs can win 6 games at Arrowhead, I'll be thrilled.

KCJ