PDA

View Full Version : Vermiel:"I keep hearing about Tony Richardsons limitations but I just don't see them"


DaWolf
05-14-2001, 11:06 PM
Some interesting comments from DV regarding Gonzo, Cat, and the RB's...

Q: (TE) Tony Gonzalez has played basketball competitively the last couple of summers. How do you feel about him playing basketball in the off-season ?
VERMEIL: "I think it would be really good if you were making a living playing in the NBA. I think it's good conditioning; it's good. I'd rather have him here. You can't make (the off-season program) mandatory."

Q: Didn't you have a similar issue with your quarterback Tony Banks when you coached in St. Louis ?

VERMEIL: "No."

Q: What do you want to get accomplished between now and when you go to River Falls for training camp ?

VERMEIL: "I'd like to have the offensive and defensive schemes ingrained so when we get to River Falls it won't be new. You can go out and act and respond rather than come up to the line of scrimmage thinking about what you're supposed to do. That takes a lot off your intensity and quickness."

Q: Is this an awful lot like your first year coaching in St. Louis ?

VERMEIL: "It's identical, exactly the same situation."

Q: What's your role with the team in your on-field practices this time of year ?

VERMEIL: "What I try to do is provide them with an organization, scheme ... long-range planning in an environment and atmosphere in which they enjoy working and in a frame of mind to be coached. That's my number one responsibility."

Q: How far is this team from being in Dick Vermeil's image ?

VERMEIL: "It'll be a while but whether it's Marty Schottenheimer, Gunther Cunningham, or me, we all want certain things in our football players. Our emphasis is on quickness and speed in everything we do."

Q: Did you miss the camp settings when you were out of football for the year ?

VERMEIL: "Oh yeah, that's why I'm back here. It's fun to be out here; this is what it's all about"

Q: What has to happen to take pure athletic ability and turn it into production ?

VERMEIL: "Sometimes it's a need. If you're someplace on a roster where they already have four great (players) you don't get as many reps to prove yourself, the opportunity isn't defined well enough. Playing experience, exposure, getting the coaching and the opportunity in game days especially in pre-season (all weigh into the equation)."

Q: (LB) Mike Maslowski says he's more comfortable playing inside than outside. Is that a guy who can win the inside linebacker position ?

VERMEIL: "I think he's very competitive in there but (LB) Marvcus Patton doesn't carry a white flag. Marvcus Patton is a serious professional football player; he takes his craft very seriously and prepares for the season. If it does happen it will be because Maz has been intense in his competition and preparation."

Q: Any thought on (WR) Sylvester Morris and his rookie year. Have you talked with him directly regarding the demands of his job and the expectations the team has for him ?

VERMEIL: "He didn't come out of a major, major college program. The high-pressure football is now and, overall, you'd probably have to say he handled the pressure pretty well last year. He got banged up but no rookie reports to an NFL training camp as well prepared to compete as (he) does (his) second year. Now they're in the off-season program.

"Sylvester obviously has some talent or they wouldn't have drafted him in the first round but he's got a lot of rough edges. Fortunately, we've got (wide receivers coach) Charlie Joiner and (offensive coordinator) Al Saunders here to help him. But he's got a lot of work. It takes time. He's not a fast-twitch guy and has got to add that to his profile as a receiver. We do everything in our pass offense as fast as we can do it off the line of scrimmage, run through breaks. We're not a chop step, cut-type team. He can do that but it's not his habit right now. He wants to learn."

Q: Impressions of (RB) Priest Holmes ?

VERMEIL: "Priest Holmes is a player. The best way to evaluate Priest Holmes is with the ball in his hand on game-day. He's a game-day-type guy. He is best evaluated in his contribution during the game both as a player in contribution to the scheme and also in his leadership.

"I keep hearing about (RB/FB) Tony Richardson's limitations but I just don't see them."

ChiefGator
05-14-2001, 11:10 PM
Indeed! I was about to post this exact same topic, with the similar title. Interesting that Vermiel just volunteered that last line. It almost seems like that interview was edited. If not, I would say the DV is gushing with praise for TRich. Despite bringing in PHolmes, he continues to say that TRich will get alot of carries. This is music to my ears. And somehow I am willing to believe THIS coaching staff will actually follow through with action....

Mark

keg in kc
05-14-2001, 11:28 PM
It's kind of nice to see things I (and others) have been trying to tell folks all along in print and straight from the proverbial horse's mouth. Maybe folks will pay more attention to it coming from DV's mouth...

[edit:]I suppose I should clarify by saying that I mean that I've promoted the idea that T-Rich is a quality back, and I've also promoted the idea that he will have a significant role in this offense. We may run a system like St. Louis or Washington or Dallas or even San Diego, but our players will dictate changes to fit the positives they bring to the lineup. We have both a top tier TE and a top tier FB (IMHO) here, two things St. Louis never had to take advantage of, and take advantage we will. I really see a dangerous offense, able to attack in a number of ways, and we have both speed and size, whereas the Rams (the name most oft mentioned...) have only speed. We can attack inside, outside, and everyone on the roster can catch.

It's gonna be fun. ;)

redhed
05-15-2001, 12:50 PM
I don't think we've seen but a shade of T-Rich. Hopefully with these new coaches, we soon will. I've always thought T-Rich was misused; he never got to touch the ball enough when Kimble was here and contributing, and the RBbC never allowed him to get in a groove.

I'd like to see T-Rich have the ball thrown to him a little more, too. The guy has great hands, and the YAC #s would be good too.

DaWolf
05-15-2001, 01:01 PM
Frankly I just hope he does get used. It was a shame to see our stupid coaching staff over the last 8 years allow Kimble Anders' running skills waste away while they tried out such losers as Bam Morris, Harvey Williams, Rashaan "The Truth" (the truth is he sucks) Shehee, etc...

Baby Lee
05-15-2001, 01:11 PM
Q: Is this an awful lot like your first year coaching in St. Louis ?

VERMEIL: "It's identical, exactly the same situation."


I could've gone my whole life without hearing that comparison. St. Louis was the dregs, the absolute dregs, pure shiite, no bright spots, all is black, when Vermiel took over.

KCPHILLY
05-15-2001, 08:25 PM
He's simply pointing out the coaching process of re-educating schemes and evaluating players is the same. He's already stated that the CHIEFS are a much more talented squad than what he was faced with in ST.LOUIS or in PHILLY when he took over there. That's why he says we are "fine tuning" rather than "rebuilding".

Brock
05-15-2001, 08:28 PM
Actually, stl had a lot of talent when Vermeil took over. They also had a lot of bad characters, and letting Bettis leave wasn't the smartest move they could have made.

KCPHILLY
05-15-2001, 08:31 PM
If you notice, every time he praises a player he doesn't hesitate to praise another guy. He's letting everyone know there are no "safe" jobs. Having said that, DV knows talent when he sees it and no doubt sees that TRICH is a baller who's going to get his touches in this offense.

tommykat
05-15-2001, 08:39 PM
I too am willing to believe this coaching staff will follow through and this is going to be quite a year indeed. T-Rich has tremendous talent and watch out HE will shine this year.


I also think Cat has a lot of talent. Given the chance and with the coaching staff as V stated I think he too is going to be an awesome player. Good to see some football notes again....:D

DaWolf
05-16-2001, 01:09 AM
Brock,
I thought they got rid of Bettis before they moved to St Louis. Either way, he was gone much before Vermiel...

NaptownChief
05-16-2001, 09:09 AM
That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of Cat to me...Sounds like a guy that is hoping he turns out but he has some serious questions and doubts...

I have said it before and I still believe that Minnis and possibly Ricks will move ahead of Cat on the depth chart by mid-season...Starting to think the Cat might be of the pu$$y variety...:D

Lets hope not...

Cormac
05-16-2001, 09:25 AM
The kid has brilliant hands and leaping ability and excellent overall athleticism. He may not be the quickest guy on the field, and he tends to run poor routes (which he can be coached out of by Joyner).

He has all the tools to be a very good NFL WR. I hope he doesn't let his injuries and possible lack of confidence push him down the depth chart. My bet is that as soon as he gets a TD or two under his belt early in the season, he'll show that last year's SD game was no fluke.

milkman
05-16-2001, 09:30 AM
Nap,
No way that Ricks moves ahead of Sly on the depth. VD's comments may or may not be a ringing endorsement of Sly, but my money says Ricks will be cut by the end of TC.
VD's comment about T-Rich should add fuel to the speculation that Holmes and T-Rich will share the load. We may see the end of the RBbC, but could be looking at a 2 man running board.
This is a good thing, since I just don't believe that Holmes is physically capable of handling the load alone.

htismaqe
05-16-2001, 12:55 PM
Holmes can't handle the load?

Where'd you get that idea? During the one season he was a starter he carried the ball 233 times (more than any KC ball carrier since the Nigerian nightmare.) He also had 2 games where he carried the ball more than 30 times.

I think he can handle the load just fine...

milkman
05-16-2001, 02:41 PM
Parker,
233 carries averages out to 14-15 carries a game. Can he carry the ball 25-26 times a game. With his size, I seriously doubt it. He would likely wear down about the 10th game of the season and be less effective through the latter stages of the season. From the sound of VD's comments about T-Rich, we won't have to find out.

NaptownChief
05-16-2001, 03:22 PM
Milk,

To this point Sly is almost a clone of Ricks...Tall receiver with all the tools, small school product...Late 1st to early 2nd round picks...SD thought so much of Ricks that they traded a #1 pick to move up and get him at the beginning of the 2nd round...Ricks showed great promise early, on sheer talent alone but was very raw...This is almost the mirror image of Sly....Moved into the starting lineup as a rookie, started 9 games, put up 450 yards and scored a couple of TD's...He was their go to receiver.

That raw potential didn't develop and SD let him go....

htismaqe
05-16-2001, 03:24 PM
Size doesn't mean all that much. Many undersized backs carry the ball alot. Priest is pretty elusive, so it's not like he's getting pounded every play.

Last year, as the 2nd running back behind Jamal Lewis, he registered 3 games over 15 carries, including one game with 22 carries against the Steelers.

In 1998, as the starter he had 8 games over 15 carries, including 4 over 20. In addtion, he had 5 games where he had more than 5 receptions during that same span. In one game in 1998 he had 36 rushes AND 6 receptions...

I would say at this point, he's proven he can handle the ball more often than, say, Tony Richardson, but both have suffered greatly from a RBBC commitee system more than any actual shortcomings they may have.

Addendum:

His carries per game doesn't look nearly as bad as you make it sound, when you consider the number of games he started.

Year G GS Rush RuYd Rec RecYd
2000 16 2 137 588 32 221
1999 8 4 89 506 13 104
1998 16 13 233 1008 43 260

milkman
05-16-2001, 04:09 PM
Parker,
By season's end I hope to say that you were right. I'd love to see a KC RB get 300 carries. But I'm betting that he gets fewer than 250 carries.
That would be more than any back since Okoye, as you have already pointed out, but still not the carries that a true feature back gets.

htismaqe
05-16-2001, 04:18 PM
Baby steps, my man, baby steps...

I would be OVERLY happy with a scenario that saw Priest getting 230 rushes and 50 catches and TRich getting about 130 rushes and 35 catches. Of course, if Priest were to get Marshall Faulk-like touches, I'd be ecstatic, but it won't happen that fast. I do think he's capable of that, however, just untested.

As Chiefs' fans, we should be pretty familiar with the idea of an untested running back...

htismaqe
05-16-2001, 04:59 PM
I didn't gather from Vermeil's comments that he would be better suited playing somewhere else, just that he's got alot to learn.

I personally think he'll be a fine receiver in this offense once he learns the system. He's got skills and he's alot faster than some people think...

htismaqe
05-16-2001, 05:00 PM
Personally, I think Priest is ALOT more durable than Charlie Garner. I'm SO glad we didn't sign him. Mostly because Priest will be starting his 5th season this year, and Garner his 10th(?)...

DaWolf
05-16-2001, 05:16 PM
The only concern I have about Holmes is why Baltimore didn't feel he was good enough. Maybe it was because they felt Lewis was just too good to pass up on, or maybe it was something else. I haven't seen enough of Holmes to formulate any opinion on him.

As far as Cat, dude came out of a small school and missed all of training camp last year. He took his place in Jimmy Raye's offense and seemed to play most of the year by ear. I don't know how well he was coached last year. I anticipate once he gets acclimated to this offense, he'll do fine. He just needs to master some techniques and refine himself. He isn't going to be a Derrick Alexander type, but he will play a role in the offense and can be a threat downfield and in the red zone. Saunders just needs to take the players here and adapt the system to them. We're not going to be exactly like St Louis. For one, we don't play on turf. Dallas used the same system and Irvin seemed to do fine in it. It'll just take fine tuning by our coaches to fit everyone in, while at the same time adapting them to how things should be done more effectively...

HC_Chief
05-16-2001, 05:21 PM
<table width="100%" border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0><tr><td><b>RB</td><td><b>Height</td><td><b>Weight</td></tr><tr><td>Priest Holmes</td><td>5-9</td><td>205</td></tr><tr><td>Duce Staley</td><td>5-11</td><td>220</td></tr><tr><td>Marshall Faulk</td><td>5-10</td><td>211</td></tr><tr><td>Emmitt Smith</td><td>5-9</td><td>209</td></tr><tr><td>Charlie Garner</td><td>5-9</td><td>187</td></tr><tr><td>Terell Davis</td><td>5-11</td><td>210</td></tr></table>

Priest Holmes is <i>definitely</i> not 'TOO SMALL' to be an every-down back. That argument is invalid.

milkman
05-16-2001, 05:41 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by htismaqe
Baby steps, my man, baby steps.

Thanks Dr. Marvin.
(Richard Dreyfuss' character in "What About Bob?)

milkman
05-16-2001, 05:44 PM
HC,
Which of those RBs, aside from Smith in his earlier years, has been consistently durable?

HC_Chief
05-16-2001, 05:49 PM
Durability is not the issue. ALL RBs take a beating - it's the negative byproduct of the profession. Donnell Bennett is 6'+ and over 240lbs - how durable was he?

The ability to 'carry the load' is NOT dependant upon being 6'+, 225lbs+. The best RBs in our league are roughly the same size as Holmes. The best RBs in NFL history are about that size.

Priest Holmes <> too smal. That argument is invalid.

milkman
05-16-2001, 05:59 PM
HC,
We are not going to come to an agreement on this. As defensive players have gotten bigger, RBs have gotten bigger.
30 years ago, a RB Holmes' size would have been the norm, or even considered big. Now he is small in comparison.

This is more than likely the main reason that he lost his starting job in BMore. Lewis was more suited to the power running attack that they were forced to use because of their deficiency at QB.

DaWolf
05-16-2001, 06:05 PM
I though Garner got a 4 year deal for between $10-12 million while Holmes signed a 5 year, $9 mil deal, so I don't think it's accurate to say Garner was cheaper.

Also, in relation to Garner's durability, the thing the Niners had to do every week was allow Garner to skip practices during the week so his body could heal up for gameday. And even with that, his production over the last 8 games of the season slipped significantly from what he did at the beginning of the season.

Also looking at his game log last season, he only had 4 games where he carried it 20 times or more (and surprisingly, only 3 100 yard games).

We'll see what Holmes brings to the table. He and TRich should provide a good combo.


BTW, if anyone is interested, there is a nice chat with Priest Holmes where he discusses himself and football a bit. Kinda interesting to read...

http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/chat/2000/nfl/holmes091800.htm

Zebedee DuBois
05-16-2001, 06:14 PM
At this point, I am not worried about personel on the Offense. I think we have people who can do the job - if the work to their potential. I would have been happy with TRich if we had not gotten Holmes - and if Holmes falters, TRich will still be there. I think we have a lot of potential in the recieving corps as well.

I am still not all warm and fuzzy on the Defense people. Well- maybe I am fuzzy. :D

milkman
05-16-2001, 06:47 PM
I'll say this about all the changes being made. I am one of those that hasn't really boarded the VD, AS, GR bandwagon, but realize that even though this isn't the HC, and coaching staff I would have preferred, I do like some of the changes.
Adding Preist Holmes, and teaming him with T-Rich to share the load strikes me a as potentially formidable duo.
Using an attacking style on both sides of the ball for a change is an exciting prospect.
If any of the draft picks pan out, even I will admit that we could be in for an entertaining and wild ride in the upcoming seasons.

Perhaps I'm starting to be swayed by VD's PR savy.

DaWolf
05-16-2001, 07:03 PM
I'll be swayed by wins... :)

htismaqe
05-17-2001, 09:52 AM
I hope he does well as we not only chose him over the proven versatility of Garner, but we paid him more money as well.

From the NFLPA site:

----------Priest Holmes------------Charlie Garner
2005---1,600,000-----------------N/A
2004---1,400,000-----------------4,227,000
2003---1,200,000-----------------3,627,000
2002-----750,000-----------------1,977,000
2001-----448,000--------------------500,000

Most definitely NOT cheaper...

Lewis was more suited to the power running attack that they were forced to use because of their deficiency at QB.

Thinking about Martyball, again? We didn't get Homes to feature him in a POWER running attack. We got him because he's quick, shifty, and can catch the ball. He'll be running inside and out, and he'll be catching passes downfield. He'll be used very similar to how Faulk is used in St. Louis. If we have the necessity for power, TRich will be used.

Holmes is PERFECT for what we're going to use him for, and he's most certainly not too small...

ChiefGator
05-17-2001, 10:32 AM
::cough:: I think you meant.. most definately NOT more expensive?

Have to say I love that contract with Priest. That could go down into the top ten signings by CP if that pans out. A real contract which we won't have a problem meeting. Garner apparently won't last in Raider-town more than two years unless he restructures. His last two years are ridiculous.

Mark

htismaqe
05-17-2001, 10:43 AM
Yeah, I meant Garner wasn't cheaper...

yoswif
05-17-2001, 10:54 AM
The addition of Holmes gives us two high average per touch running backs who can block and catch in the same backfield. By aligning them in a split back formation, defenses cannot focus on a feature back but have to defend both of our high average per touch running backs as if they will be the primary runner on every play. This should give us a high average yard/rushing attempt run offense to go with our 5th ranked in '00' yard/passing attempt pass offense. That means better ball possession and more consistent early game td production, which will help our suspect defense immensely.

TRich and Holmes have about the same average yard per touch potential in this offense, have similar contracts, and have received similar praise from Vermeil. I expect them to get about 250-300 touches each in this offense assuming both enjoy reasonbly good health.

KCinGA
05-17-2001, 04:41 PM
The defense is not as undermanned as many would like to think this year. I, for one, think that the defense will be improved in some areas this year.

First, the departure of Chester McGlockton and Kurt Schottenheimer alone improves the DL and play calling/coaching. Those guys hurt our defense more than anybody else. Second, the development of the younger guys... Wesley, Bartee, Dennis... and the pickup of some veteran talent... Crockett... will help. I wouldn't be surprised if the defense actually improves over last year's numbers. I would love to see us pick up Demarco Farr in the coming months.

Admittedly, the loss of Hasty will hurt, but his departure saved us some cap money and allowed us to make some moves in other areas on the team.

The Holmes/Garner debate could really go either way. I like the Holmes pickup, yet I think that Garner is the more-talented back. Priest will be a nice fit in KC... he'll be successful enough to be our first 1,000-yard back in years! :D

Go CHIEFS!!!

milkman
05-17-2001, 08:08 PM
Not to pick nits with you Parker, but I realize how Holmes is to be used in KC. My post regarding Lewis taking the starting job had nothing to do with Martyball. It was an effort to explain why Holmes lost his job to Lewis. Holmes is not suited for the power running game that was utilized in BMore last season. He is suited for the type if ground attack that VD and AS are planning to use. That is an area that we agree.
Where we disagree is whether Holmes could handle the feature role by himself. Yoswif is correct in his opinion that Holmes and
T-Rich will share the load, IMO.
Since Thunder and Lightening is already in use in NY, I think I may refer to KC's combination as Thunderbolt and Lightfoot.:D

NaptownChief
05-17-2001, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by milkman
[BI think I may refer to KC's combination as Thunderbolt and Lightfoot.:D [/B]

I just hope they don't get dubbed Crash and Burn due to a lack of success cause there will be a major resurfacing of some moaning and groaning that will sound a lot like "DEUUUUUUUUCE"....

milkman
05-18-2001, 08:51 PM
Nap,
If our running duo aren't productive (highly unlikely), you know I'll be using that.