PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Shouldn't Sweat Wide Receiver Quandary


ThaChop
06-29-2001, 03:32 PM
New commentary at....

http://kcchopper.homestead.com/KCChopper.html

Take care! Go Chiefs!!!

KCJohnny
06-29-2001, 07:22 PM
Just in case anyone is interested, this column is unadulterated positive homerism from yours truly.
No griping against DV and plenty to cheer about.
KCJ
Former homer-in-chief
:)

MrBlond
06-29-2001, 11:16 PM
KCJohnny,

Great article. I hate to lose Sly but of all the offensive skill position starters, he was the most expendable. If he rehabes hard and comes back 100% next year it will be like a bonus #1.

Logical
06-29-2001, 11:34 PM
I read it KCJ, nice article.

keg in kc
06-29-2001, 11:49 PM
Yep, not a bad read.

One thing you didn't mention, John, that also may be pertinent to the situation is the fact that Al Saunders has also served some time (successfully I might add) as a wide receiver coach. He and Joiner should really provide a beneficial environment for our young receivers (and Alexander as well, he has some issues that still need to be addressed IMHO).

It's really going to be interesting to see how this whole situation plays out during training camp. We could have a real sleeper come on the scene.

KCJohnny
06-30-2001, 09:39 AM
Kyle,
I did mention that in the WRbC paragraph. I also mentioned the potential contributions of Charlie Joiner to a WR youth movement.

Personally, I favor the 2-TE sets (aren't you all shocked???) with pass catching TEs on both sides and Richardson as the Zebra back. I think that Gonzo and TR are so darned dangerous that we could get away with murder deploying only 2 WRs on most downs and maximizing pass protect. If this happens, people will come crawling out of the woodwork suggesting that this was their idea all along (NOT!) and that ole KCJ was deceived.

KCJ
Still looking for power to play its part

kcred
06-30-2001, 10:04 AM
KCJ -

Glad you found those homer-colored glasses again, was beginning to worry about you. At this point, I have to agree with you on the WRs, and the 2 TE sets, but only because no one has yet proved themselves on the field. I am not sure this situation would be any different with Morris on the field. He needed a lot of work, and in the minicamps, I did not hear a lot of praise coming from DV, aimed in his direction. Right now, with virtually no cap space left, I don't see signing anyone, however, I do believe CP and DV will be watching the waiver wires. I also still think there is a major cut coming, either Williams or Bush to free up some space. I don't think we even have enough space for the few draftees we have left, so something, maybe restructuring, maybe releasing someone, is inevitible. Good read anyway.

milkman
06-30-2001, 10:23 AM
Johnny,
So you understand me, I am not against maulball as a concept, when utilized properly.
Coaches like Lombardi, Knoll and Parcells used the maulball concept to win championships, because they, first and foremost played to
win

That is the difference. To me Martyball was not about about maulball alone. It was about Marty playing maulball with the idea to play the game not to lose

The fact is, I actualy prefer maulball, when it used as an aggressive offense like the coaches mentioned above, so if we see the 2 TE set with T-Rich and the power running game, I would love it, because I know that it will stil be an aggressive attack.

And I promise, I won't claim to have been the one to suggest the idea.
I will claim to endorse it, though.

keg in kc
06-30-2001, 11:51 AM
Okay John, my mistake, I must've missed it. I'll take your word for it.

We've actually had several threads which talk about the value of using the dual tight-end set (Parker and myself seem the biggest proponents), but not only as a power set. There are so many options other than the interior run, sweep by a fullback or screen pass which were so oft used in the past. Some ideas I have: Since we now have an athletic line, we can use the I formation in the way that the Cowboys used it in the early 90's, with traps, sweeps and, in general, more flexibility than just interior power running (although they did that too...). Because we have two good pass-catching backs we could line up in the I with two TE, put Holmes in motion leaving T-Rich alone in the backfield giving Green receiver targets of Gonzo and TE2, Alexander and Holmes (now WR2). Using the same set from above, either Gonzo or TE2 could go into motion after and line up in the slot, giving us, essentially, a singleback formation with 3 WR. Here's a real tough one: Line up in the I formation with 2 TE. TE2 (I'll say Ricks for this example) goes into motion and lines up outside opposite of Alexander. Gonzo goes into motion and lines up in one slot, Holmes lines up in the other. Now, from a 2 TE I formation, you have, in essence, a singleback formation with 4 WR. There would be great flexibility from this set because T-Rich would have the benefit of good blocking on the outside for a screen pass or a run, and the defense would be spread for an interior run or a trap. And, of course, you could use this for a passing formation too. You could also move T-Rich and have an empty backfield, all from the I formation. Singleback would be the same deal, with the potential running the play from the set as is, or moving from the 2 WR, 2 TE set to a 3 WR, TE set or a 4 WR set, or even move the back and have a 5 WR set, all using motion.It's a lot of motion, obviously, but the intention is to create mismatches that favor us, and, furthermore, it leaves the defense guessing, not knowing what to expect when 2 TE are in the game. We'll still have the option of the power run, but we'll also have, and hopefully use, the option of outside runs, screens for long gains and a variety of passes. Not something you'd want to every down - it has to be something they think about, not necessarily expect - but if you do motion like this a couple of times a game, its effect will be felt by the defense both that week and throughout the season.

AGGRESSION!!! Attack the defense!

Rausch
06-30-2001, 02:31 PM
It remains to be seen weather or not he's up to task, but Horne may yet provide valuable hands to a 3 wide formation. We might be able to go with DA, Snoop, Horne, and Gonzo out of a four wide while splitting out Gonzo as # 4 wr. Or, keep in Gonzo to block, or split out Holmes/Richardson for a amalgamation-5 wide.

Basically inserting Horne instead of TE2....Thoughts?

Logical
06-30-2001, 03:17 PM
Brad,

I like you ideas, for that matter Keg had some good thought only he was being conservative saying only about two plays a game. You could do it 10-15 plays a game as long as it was mixed in. Stram did these types of thing clear back in the late 60s and early 70s.

Variety and planning the possibities become almost endless. This is why I bid a fond farewell to Jimmy Raye, we would not even be thinking such thoughts if he was still here.

NaptownChief
06-30-2001, 03:27 PM
I haven't seen or heard anything to this angle yet but I think Derrick Blaylock getting coverted may not be completely out of the question...He is suppose to have pretty good hands to go along with his blazing speed...So I suppose it is possible he could be used in the Az Hakim type role.

Pitt Gorilla
06-30-2001, 03:33 PM
Baber; Give him a shot.

KCJohnny
06-30-2001, 05:18 PM
Brad,
Once again, we agree!
I love Horne's speed and elusiveness and he will get real estate if the Chiefs can just get the ball into his hands.
KCJ

Warrior5
06-30-2001, 05:28 PM
Great article - well done!
When you get a breather between jumps, I'd be interested in reading another article on your take of the secondary.

KCJohnny
06-30-2001, 05:38 PM
WILCO, sir!
KCJ

keg in kc
06-30-2001, 05:49 PM
Jim,

It's the particular plays I described that I'd want to see used sparingly, not the twin TE formation itself. I think it's a good formation in terms of flexibility and a good change-of-pace from the singleback formation. What I don't want to see is use of the set predominantly as a passive power formation. I want an aggressive offensive team regardless of personnel on the field and whatever formation they might be lined-up in. We have the weapons to use it (whereas a team like St. Louis has weapons geared more toward the singleback set) and we'd be foolish not to get the most out of those weapons. If Ricks, Dunn and/or Baber can play tight end well, then use them, just like we'll be using T-Rich.



Brad,

I was discussing the personnel for the formation, not talking about any worries with the WR. The twin TE formation, in my mind, is just another tool at our disposal. I have no doubt that we'll be fine at WR. I think that Morris will be missed, but I think someone will step up, be it Minnis, Horne, Ricky Hall, Dave Klemic or someone we've never heard of. And I hope they do the same sorts of things I was discussing, shifting formations, etc.




Just a little about me - I say I am a fan of aggressive offense, but that does not mean I'm a fan of the high-flying circus to the east. I believe the way to win consistently is by moving the chains and eating time off the clock, but, that said, there are more ways of doing than than by power running. I believe in the concept of the extended handoff, and I believe in the idea that the offense we're instilling will work to get the ball into the hands of our playmakers. I don't want to see forced "home run" shots; I want to see a balanced, creative offense that uses every weapon to the best of its ability. I want to see an offense that creates mismatches and then exploits them. I want to see an offense that finds weaknesses in the opponents' defenses and attacks them. Most importantly, I want an offense that is able to take significant minutes off the clock as well as score at least 24 points each and every game.

A lot of people are pointing to our defense as our weakness, and maybe rightfully so. If that is indeed the case, and our "D" is our Achille's Heel, then we must have an offense that makes this defense better. I hold the opinion that the St. Louis offense's success actually made their defense worse last season because, as much as they scored, they did not control the clock (this argument is valid for the Chiefs too, although we didn't score...). Despite leading the league in offensive yardage, as well as scoring nearly 34 points per games, the Rams had the ball, on average, just under 31 minutes per game. That just doesn't cut it in my humble opinion.

Hopefully we've learned from that (and from watching our own team last year...)

Be creative. Use singleback formations with multiple WRs. Use singleback with multiple TEs. Use the shotgun with varied formations. Use the I, offset I and pro formations. Use it all, I say and attack. That doesn't mean only 80 yard TD plays are good, at least not in my book. That doesn't mean plowing into the center of a stacked defensive line for the first 6 plays of the year, either. That means moving downfield in 5, 10, 15 and 20 yard chunks, changing formations and keeping the defense on their toes. Make them work and wear them down. Control the clock, put the ball in the endzone and win.

keg in kc
06-30-2001, 06:02 PM
Just a quick addendum to my last post, a few statistics:

Kansas City: 582 pass plays (60%), 383 running plays (40%), 27:36 average time of possession.

St. Louis: 587 pass plays, 383 running plays, 30:54 average time of possession.

Striking similarity.

You could have called us "Rams Light" last season I think (less scoring, tastes great ;)).

Hopefully the new coaching staff with (re) instill the idea that a balanced offense is a good thing. In other words, don't mistake my love of aggression for a "pass-pass-pass" mantra.

I want to see something more like 435 runs (45%) and 535 passes (55%).



(Just for reference, here's the St. Louis 1999 stats)

St. Louis: 530 pass plays (55%), 431 running plays (45%), 31:50 average time of possession.

Time of possession is only slightly better, but I like the balance more. Maybe a little more rushing would be even more beneficial. In any event, as I said in my previous post, I'm not exactly a fan of the St. Louis system in terms of how they attack. Time of possession is still an important part of football in my mind.

milkman
07-01-2001, 08:24 AM
Just have to love the way you pimp yourself Johnny.
The line in your article that encourages us to "remember, you heard it here first."
No mention of the fact that Kyle (Keg), Jim (Logical) and others have been talking about this stuff for some time now.

Get over yourself. Don't jump on board, and then proclaim yourself to be the driver

KCJohnny
07-01-2001, 08:49 AM
Not so fast, milkman.
When I quoted the two TE approach, in was in reference to Raye's offense, not what might occur if Al Saunders takes his cues from Chiefsplanet.com. I LOVE the two TE offense, and not just because of the power inside running, but because we have a TE who is unstoppable (Gonzo) and a deep threat WR (DA) who exploits the 8-man fronts with his ability to get behind coverage. I doubt Green will have the play action skills or get the respect Elvis did, but DA still should demand respect even on running downs in a 2 TE formation. Of course, Green may be throwing from a shotgun formation on 3rd and long, and the element of surprise is greatly diminished with that IMO.

All said, I know you guys have mentioned that Coryell was known to use 2 TE sets sometimes, but VERY few of you were mentioning that when Vermiel first came here talking Rams this and Rams that.

If you think I am too self aggrandizing (what I was said was meant to be humorous) then write your own column, I'm sure Tha Chop will post it.

Kyle:
I attribute the poor TOP for the '00 Chiefs to the inability to run the ball effectively during the games where Richardson was relegated to FB only duties.

KCJ

milkman
07-01-2001, 09:24 AM
When you discuss the 2 TE offense, it is in reference to how it might be used in the Vermeil/Saunders offense.
This is something that Kyle and Jim have discussed almost from the day that Saunders was named as OC in KC.

I never suggested that V/D would take their cues from the planet, only that Kyle/Jim were hypothesising the use of the 2 TE set almost from the outset.

I'm not a writer, nor do I care to be. I'm just a poor blue collar worker with a passion for the Chiefs and football.

I'll leave that to the people with the writing skills like Kyle and Jim.

milkman
07-01-2001, 09:29 AM
One other thing Johnny.
DA has been a deep threat in KC only because Raye didn't heve the smarts to utilize his RAC ability.
In Saunders offense, DA will get a lot more catches in shorter routes that will utlize his talent.
We just might see DA finally achieve his full potential, and be the playmaker that he could have been when he was brought to KC.
His talent has been wasted by the previous staff.

KCJohnny
07-01-2001, 10:40 AM
Derrick Alexander averaged 17.8 ypc in '00, that may the most in the AFC. Some of those routes were slants and short out patterns. And DA was also used in reverses running the ball, even for TDs. I don't believe that DA was wrongly used by Jimmy Raye; 78 recs for 1,391 yds and 10 TDs.

You seem to believe that everything is better just because it is not Gun/Raye/Kurt/Stock. We'll see. Those guys are going to have to deal with their own share of bad bounces, regardless of how superior they may be in your mind.

Go Chiefs!
KCJ

milkman
07-01-2001, 01:49 PM
I sure as heck don't remember a lot of slants from DA.
And I DO believe that everything is better, because these guys are superior to The Three Stooges.

NaptownChief
07-01-2001, 01:54 PM
Without question Milk...I have never seen any aspect of football handled as poorly as those guys handled our running game last year...

keg in kc
07-01-2001, 02:32 PM
John, concerning what Red Eyes has been saying about your end quote that "you heard it here first," I think I should clarify what I think he's trying to say. In your last article, you revealed to all your belief that this offense would be a "hybrid", stating you coined the phrase; I have stated in no uncertain terms since the day Dick Vermeil was brought on board, and on all three bulletin boards, that the players here would dictate that our version of the Coryell system would be a hybridization of powerball and what we saw in St. Louis in '99 and '00. You actually argued that I was wrong at the time, as well.

Furthermore, regarding the usage of the twin TE formation, Parker and I have been discussing that here on the Planet since at least June 11, which was the first day that the public was informed of Ricks' move to tight end. I believe that I also posted about that on the Park on at least one occasion. So Red Eyes is absolutely correct when he states that you're talking about things that have been said before. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to take any credit for anything, it really doesn't matter to me, but it is not exactly accurate when you state that you're the origin of ideas that have been thrown around on the boards for weeks and even months. I'm not criticizing, I like your articles, I'm just pointing out that I do understand what the Milkman is saying...

I attribute the poor TOP for the '00 Chiefs to the inability to run the ball effectively during the games where Richardson was relegated to FB only duties.

I'd say you're half right. However, the Chiefs TOP in 1999 was only 30:20 per game when they ran the ball 521 times and threw only 502. That's not the sort of dominating TOP that I want to see, either...

As for Raye, I'd say there's no real point in discussing him. I think he's one of the worst offensive coordinators in the NFL and you don't, so it's probably best that we leave it at that... ;)

KCJohnny
07-01-2001, 02:48 PM
Kyle:
I am ADVOCATING a certain approach that I believe builds on the strengths of the '99-00 Chiefs, not PREDICTING that approach will be employed, which is what you and Parker are doing. You seem to possess an innate confidence in Dick Vermiel that I do not at this time share. Reading Warner's bio last week, I discovered (according to Warner) how close Vermiel came to losing his team, the very thing you all criticize Cunningham for.

I am advocating, not predicting that DV/AS will do this; in fact, my voice was not the only one heard in the early days of the changeover questioning what the role of Tony Gonzales would be. Even Saunders himself was quoted as mentioning 4-wide sets, shotgun formations, etc... and now the drift seems to be gravitating more towards building on what DID work over the past two seasons in KC.


I make no claims whatsoever of originality. The phrase 'you heard it here first' is intended to be bombastic and self-aggrandizing in a humorous way. In fact, you are perfectly welcome to write your own columns and stake a claim for your ideas.

You are gravely mistaken about the '99 Chiefs. before you jump on them for TOP, consider these two accomplishments:
(1) they were the #1 red zone scoring team in the NFL;
(2) they had the worst average starting field position in the league.

Seeing they started deeper in the hole than any other team and still wound up scoring 390 points, rushing for 2,089 yds and still held the ball longer than their opponents (8th toughest schedule that year), the TOP is not a real good indicator of the strengths of that offense. That being said, there were too many 3-and-punts for my liking.

I hope the Chiefs go for a lot of two TE sets, but I would like to see Tony Richardson shine in that formation as well. I think he has proven that he can get it done (1,165 all purpose yds last year) and has the comprehensive skills to be the everydown back, at least in that formation.

KCJ

keg in kc
07-01-2001, 03:08 PM
I'm also advocating and not predicting, you need to read what I say a little more carefully, since I use words like "this is what I want to see". I have no idea where you're reading that I have an innate confidence in Vermeil since I have never said that nor even indicated it to the best of my knowledge. I think you must hallucinate on the board, because a few posts ago you talked about how people have been talking "rams this and rams that" all over the board, and that hasn't happened either. In fact, most people here have quite an active dislike for St. Louis, and the team is rarely mentioned unless to prove a statistical point (usually one negative towards the Rams). I'm giving Vermeil a chance to succeed, but I have no idea whether he actually will or not. That's the level of my "inate confidence" in him.

Moving on.

The Chiefs may have scored 390 points in 1999 but they were unable to score 20 points in half of their games. Their point total for the year was inflated because they scored 30 or more in 7 games (while scoring 26 in one other, and were held to 19 or less in the other 8). That sort of inconsistency is a hallmark of the Raye offensive "system" for the past two years and was clearly evident in 2000 as well, where the team scored 20 points in 8 games, and 17 or less in 8 games. Good offensive squads will score 21 or more points in 11 or 12 games per year, not 8. Furthermore, yardage is useless if the ball is not put in the endzone.

rushing for 2,089 yds and still held the ball longer than their opponents

They held the ball for a whopping 20 seconds more than their opponents. Where I live they call a comment like that "grasping at straws".

(8th toughest schedule that year)

I've said this a hundred times already, so I guess this makes 101: the strength of schedule is absolutely useless when you're talking about the performance of a single element of the team, i.e. the offense or the defense. If you want to indicate that the defenses they played were tough, than find a way to prove that - strength of schedule doesn't do it, it only deals with the record of the teams we played and has absolutely nothing to do with how their offense or defense performed over the season. For example, having Denver and St. Louis on the schedule last season makes it more difficult in terms of SoS, but in actuality they were, arguably, the two worst defenses in the league. That, however, isn't evident in the SoS.

KCJohnny
07-01-2001, 03:21 PM
Wrong!
Denver's run D was ranked 1st in the AFC when we ripped them for 264 yds.
StL was undefeated when we handed them their hinies in Arrowhead.
And the person I alluded to mentioning Rams this, Rams that was Dick Vermiel and Al Saunders.

If SoS didn't mean anything, the NFL would not track it as an official stat, and certainly those people in Vegas would disregard it.

I agree that a strong playoff team should be able to score 21+ points in 11-12 games, but that is not necessarily the standard (witness last year's Champs). In fact, the Chiefs are above the middle of the pack in overall ppg.

I see you elected not to comment on:

You are gravely mistaken about the '99 Chiefs. before you jump on them for TOP, consider these two accomplishments:
(1) they were the #1 red zone scoring team in the NFL;
(2) they had the worst average starting field position in the league.

Special teams were as much to blame for the TOP deficit as well as some quick strike offensive scores: the '99 Chiefs led the NFL in plays from scrimmage of 70+ yds.

KCJ

keg in kc
07-01-2001, 03:42 PM
Uhm, John, I'd be careful before you start throwing "Wrong!"s around. They have a tendency to come back and bite you in the ***. ;)

Denver's run D was ranked 1st in the AFC when we ripped them for 264 yds.

Denver's run defense was ranked 5th in the AFC, not first. Baltimore, Buffalo, Tennessee and San Diego were all ranked ahead of them (link (http://stats1.nfl.com/stats/nfl_stats.asp?stats=18&prevStats=18&conf=0&week=15&sort=desc&sortCol=2)).

Furthermore, Denver's pass defense was ranked 30th, and their total defense was ranked 26th.

Once again, none of these facts are reflected in the strength of schedule statistic, which deals only with a team's overall record. Denver was 10-4 at the time, despite having the 6th worst defense in the NFL.

StL was undefeated when we handed them their hinies in Arrowhead.

St. Louis was ranked 16th in total defense at the time, 6th against the rush and 25th versus the pass. Again, these facts are not reflected in any way, shape or form by the strength of schedule statistic.


I see you elected not to comment on:

You are gravely mistaken about the '99 Chiefs. before you jump on them for TOP, consider these two accomplishments:
(1) they were the #1 red zone scoring team in the NFL;
(2) they had the worst average starting field position in the league.

Those are not stats that I have yet been able verify so there's no way I can comment on them objectively at this point. When I find more information, I will...

keg in kc
07-01-2001, 04:09 PM
You know, I just had the strangest thought.

I think you and I were arguing these same exact points about Denver's defense a few months ago on the Star BB, John, but exactly opposite. I was trying to defend Greg Robinson and you were trying to prove the Denver defense sucked.

Strangeness and an odd deja vu all wrapped-up together. ;)

KCJohnny
07-01-2001, 06:39 PM
LOL Kyle!

You got me on the denver D stat, but I win the war!
Denver's D did stink (I refuse to use that other 's' word) and you have made an excellent argument for it!

I DO remember us arguing the point that between Peter Guinta (DBs coach, last year Ram's DC) and Greg Robinson that our pass D would actually get worse (you were on the side that these 2 pass D wizards would reap an improvement) but I think it was you also who deplored the Ray Crockett signing, so all is forgiven.

For all his faults last year, Kurt's D in the 2nd half of the season allowed less than 100 yds rushing 6 of the final 8 games and the team amassed 54 sacks, 41 by the F4. I don't see the 2001 Chiefs doing any better, but they sure will need pressure from the F4 to help the keystone cops patrolling the secondary.

KCJ
Willing to be wrong about some things...

keg in kc
07-01-2001, 07:22 PM
I think that's about right, although I never, ever called Robinson or Guinta "pass D wizards," I merely pointed out that both have had successful defenses in the past, and both have Super Bowl rings. Denver's D was atrocious against the pass last season, but the fact remains that Robinson had several highly-ranked defenses in his tenure there, which is especially notable because of the limited talent he had to work with. How he will do here remains to be seen, but like I've said all along, after K Schott and the soft zone nightmare, I'm willing to give him a chance; I really don't think we can get very much worse (although starting Ray Crockett is a step in the wrong direction) and we should improve in the take-away department, something we sorely needed in crunch-time last year.

The reason I won't give K Schott any credit for last season's sack total is the fact that 76% of those sacks came from the front 4 while the backers and secondary sat back and got picked-apart week after week. There was no pressure from the quarterback whatsoever due to scheme or blitzing. There are some other reasons, as well, including all the following:We were 16th in the league in take-aways with 29. 21 during the first 8 games was good enough for 4th in the league. 8 during the last 8 games was terrible.

We were 27th in the league in red zone defense with opponents scoring touchdowns 62% of the time. The first 8 games we gave up 12 touchdowns in 23 trips, "good" enough for 19th in the league at 52%. The final 8 games opponents scored 19 touchdowns on 27 trips. A 70% success rate for opponents in the red zone is just horrific.So while you point out the lack of 100 yard rushers in the last 8 games, I have no real choice but to point out that we did not take the ball away, and the other teams scored nearly 3 out of every 4 trips into the red zone.

We were 2-6 in those last 8 games, as well.

milkman
07-01-2001, 09:45 PM
Keg and Johnny,
While I am on Kyle's side in this debate (or is it the other way on this particular thread), IMO, you both rely entirely to much on stats.

As far as I'm concerned stats are just so much sh1t that can be stirred to support any side of a debate.

I go by what I see on the field.
What I saw on the field last season was a poorly prepared and poorly motivated team that lacked leadership and direction.

This season I expect to see far better from my Chiefs.

Johnny, you point out that Vermeil almost lost the team.
The emphasis in that statement should be on the word 'almost',
because he not only didn't lose the team, but gained their respect and loyalty, and turned them into SB winners, something that Goonther MaGoo wasn't able to do.

This team will be better because MaGoo and the Three Stooges are gone, period.

keg in kc
07-01-2001, 10:50 PM
I go by what I see on the field as well, although I do study stats for two reasons: to help me better understand aspects of the game and because I don't necessarily catch every minute of every contest, nor do I remember games well months after the fact (no tapes to watch...). Also, when I'm in a discussion like this with John, I find it best to speak in "his" terms (stats)...

As for my own opinions of last season, it was 99% coaching; we were an 11-5 team coached down to 7-9, as I've said a number of times. It was one of the most difficult, frustrating and ultimately disappointing things I think I've ever witnessed.

KCJohnny
07-02-2001, 09:42 AM
Kyle you are right about the defense not stopping anyone in the red zone, and that was because of that horrible soft zone. It was so painful to watch Pat Dennis being told play 10-15 yds off his man while the opponents just dinked us to death. I don't consider dennis to be a major talent, but I also think it is grossly unfair to evaluate him in that awful zone that he was forced to play in last year. This year, we should beat Oakland just by taking them on at the LOS instaed of conceding the flat pass.

Milk, you can continue to rail against stats, but I garauntee you that Dick Vermiel and every coach in the NFL depends heavily on them to provide snap shots of what works and what doesn't. Anyway, this is a BB, so we have to pictures to watch, no live action, and that leaves highly subjective memories and statistics.

What I saw on the field was a team that had the talent to go 11-5, like Kyle said, but was failed miserably by the coaching, mostly in the Titans, 49ers and Raiders games. I have reproached myself a million times for my previous endorsement of Willie Shaw, altho I ultimately place blame on Kurt and Gun for allowing that weenie defense to infect the proud Chiefs defense of yore.

KCJ

HC_Chief
07-02-2001, 10:11 AM
Good article KCJ! :D

I like the positive attitude - and I agree with your assessments. We have two excellent receiving RBs(TRich & Priest), and the best TE in the game. Those three targets will equate to a <i>huge</i> portion of our receiving yards this season. DA will most assuredly get his catches and yards - the WRs opposite him will merely take up the slack (30 or so receptions). Minnis, Horne, and ?? will do just fine for what we require of them. :)

KCJohnny
07-02-2001, 10:14 AM
Thanks, HC.
I appreciate your comments. I just decided to do a homer column in case you guys thought I didn't have it in me anymore. The main point of my column was in the opening: the Chiefs had only 1 WR who had ever started and NFL game on opening day last year, and they still finished 5th in the league in passing offense. We are in the same boat now, maybe even better off.

Chiefs will have another 6,000 yd season.

KCJ