View Full Version : Chief Concerns

Tribal Warfare
07-26-2001, 04:37 PM
I believe that the DT position is weakest part of the team. The evidence is quite clear, Dan Williams is always hurt, John Browning is undersized and injury prone.The rookies are projects that could either be a boom or bust ordeal.

Clint in Wichita
07-26-2001, 05:40 PM
I think DBs are the weakest, simply because they are more crucial to a team's success than DTs.

I'd rather have Charles Woodson and Champ Bailey than Warren Sapp and Trevor Pryce. I think Baltimore proved that all you need out of your DTs is a ton of immovable flab that won't commit penalties...if the rest of your D is solid. Without decent DBs, nothing else on D matters, as the Chiefs proved to a certain extent last year.

I think losing Glock HELPS the d-line...at the very worst it's a non-factor.

Nate Hobgood-Chittick's best season is nearly on par with Glock's best as a Chief.

Pitt Gorilla
07-26-2001, 06:25 PM
You said Hobgood-Chittick. HEHEHEHE

Clint in Wichita
07-26-2001, 07:14 PM
It's like he got married...and took his husband's last name!!

07-26-2001, 07:52 PM
I'll have to disagree Clint. I think you've got it backwards. Baltimore proved that defense all begins with the defensive line.

Goose and Adams destroyed the inside running game. This forced teams to try and run outside, which allowed Ray Lewis to persue and kill. When they tried to pass, Goose & Adams pushed the pocket and forced the QB into the DE's or quick throws. This means that McAlister and company had far less time that they had to cover.

Offense begins with the ability to run the ball and that begins with the Oline. Defense begins with the ability to stop the run and that centers on the DT's and their ability to control the line. And that is why I think our DT's are far and away our biggest weakness.

07-26-2001, 11:01 PM
I agree with ck_IN on this. DL is the frontline of the war in the trenches, if you cannot stop the opposing OFF at the line of scrimage then most battles will be lost. DT is the weakest position IMHO.

07-27-2001, 05:42 AM
I think you should have added another choice. 5) All of the above.

07-27-2001, 06:39 AM
I agree that Clint has it backwards.

The modern NFL rules are designed to favor the offense. Receivers no longer have to catch the ball; they simply have to act like they were interfered with and the referees oblige with yellow showers. Oscar McCaffrey has made a career of faking interference and crying for flags.

If the WR gets off the line without being mugged and the QB gets the pass off when he wants, you have already lost the battle.

The way to defense the passing game with the current crop of referees and skewed rules to to attack it in the backfield. Disrupt the QB's rhythm. Mangle the WRs for those precious [5] yards. Crush the pencil neck over and over and over again until he starts doing his "Boy George" imitation.

The CBs are backups to the DL when defending the passing game. If the passing D burden falls on the CB, the DL did not do its job properly.

Add to that the fact that the CBs should have next to no impact in rushing defense, and it seems clear that the DL is much more important than the CB.

Thinks anyone crushing QBs is important.

07-27-2001, 07:44 AM
The defensive backfield is a mess right now. I still think the Derrick Thomas loss has really hurt the entire defense. While he didnt do much in big games (none of the Chiefs really has), he did command double teaming most of the time while rushing the passer. No other Chief gets that attention. His ability to rush the passer and draw two blockers allowed the Chiefs more flexibility and less talented in the secondary. Now, the QB has a lot of time to throw. No cornerbacks can cover forever.

Carl Peterson wasnt expecting and didnt have a plan to replace Dale Carter. Say what you want about Carter, but as a Chief, he was one of the best cover guys in the NFL. Since then, the secondary has been a joke. Stop gaps like Carlton Gray and Ray Crockett arent the answer. I like the fact that the Chiefs are going with younger guys (probably not by choice), but in the short term, this is the teams weakest position.

Running back is second weakest. Thats another position where you have someone new almost every year. Lets see.... Greg Hill, Bam Morris, Donnell Bennett, Kimble Anders. You cant keep interchanging players at this position. You must find someone and stick with him.

07-27-2001, 09:02 AM
I tend to agree 100% with the defensive tackle philosophy.

The corner back position by default is a reactive position. When you are depending on reaction to stop an offense, especially a good offense, you’re already putting yourself at a disadvantage.

Stopping the running game, forcing your opponent to pass then being able to get into the backfield and disrupt the timing of the passing plays is far superior to depending on DBs to cover WRs waiting for the pocket to collapse.

Attack, dictate the tempo and make QBs cry for their mommy’s.


07-27-2001, 09:32 AM
DL is my primary concern...DT more specifically.

We're great at DE - Hicks and Clemmons are outstanding on the corners of the line. These two could combine for 25-30 sacks - but <i>only</i> if they are afforded the opportunity by inside pressure.

Our defensive backfield will be solid. We have the best safteies in the AFC IMO in Wesley and Woods. Dennis, Bartee, Warfield, Williams and Crockett are good players. Crockett brings experience and guidance to our young, athletic CBs. I just hope we start the younger guys. We're not as strong as we have been in previous seasons(see: Hasty & Carter), but I think we're in better shape here than many others believe...

IF our DT rotation can apply pressure up the middle and can stuff the gaps - forcing RBs outside(lateral to LOS), our D will be surprisingly good. If our DTs are blocked-out of plays as they have been in the previous 3 seasons, we're in trouble.

07-27-2001, 10:36 AM
I will remain concerned with the RB position until I am proven otherwise. I don't think it could get much worse.

07-27-2001, 01:49 PM
You're very good at reminding all of us that the Chiefs have NOT won a playoff game since '93. Now you've stated that D.T. didn't do much in big games...There is some truth to that but just look at what he did in the last Chiefs playoff win. It was against the Oilers in the Astrodome and I was there. D.T. played HUGE in that one! How could you have forgotten, since that game is ALWAYS on your mind? A great example of remembering only what you want to remember...;)

Baby Lee
07-27-2001, 02:12 PM
Gaz - while I love QB crushing, I have to agree with Packfan [shudder] that Carter was an underappreciated facet that made those crushings possible in the mid'90's. DT and Neil were BOOKENDS. Their speed and timing got them the jump on their competition and thus assured that they would be able to forge a path to the QB, but they were taking a circuitous route [that awe-inspiring arc from corner of the line of scrimmage to the QB's "5 o'clock" blind spot, where DT's swiping forearm wreaked its havoc]. With the occasional exception in a motivated Saleamua [or the rare motivated Glock] we weren't a 'blow up the middle immediately' type of QB crushing machine.

Neil and DT's path to the QB was aided by the split extra second Carter consistently gave them.

07-27-2001, 02:16 PM
Saleamua, Maas and Phillips were awesome DTs for us! We used to get great middle pressure from those guys.

07-27-2001, 09:01 PM
DB to me is our biggest weekness. At least on the defensive line the Chiefs have some experience mixed in with some potential. Look at the quarterbacks the Chiefs face this year. For instance, Payon Manning, that guy is gonna pick our young DBs apart. I'm as optimistic as they come but I see our D getting burned on a lot of deep routes.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-27-2001, 09:18 PM

I see your point, but you have to have adequate (understatement, BTW) DL play in order to "save" your CBs from getting burned. If you can get a pass rush going, your DBs won't be left out on an island. So therefore, IMO, or DL is our biggest concern.

07-28-2001, 10:25 AM
This is very unpopular, but I'll say it again: we are going to miss Chester.
The Chiefs had the NFL's 3rd most sacks last year (51) and 40 of those were by the F4. That means the Chiefs were dropping the pencil neck in the backfield w/o the benefit of multiple blitz packages. Why? Because McGlockton's angry 330 lbs were collapsing the interior of the OL creating opportunities for Clemons and Hicks (24 sax). Most of you will conventiently forget Chet's contributions to this excellent QB-crushing effort just because we won't get as many offside calls. But we probably won't get 40 sax by the F4 next year, which means we WILL blitz, which means the middle WILL get exposed, which means teams will continue to dink on us. Personnel wise, the DBs are weakest (allowed a franchise record 25 TDs last year and just lost our best cover man), and will really miss the pressure from the league's 3rd best sack crew this fall.

Wandering a little bit from the backfield to talk defense:cool:

07-28-2001, 12:50 PM
If I read it right they put DW on the unable to perform list at this mornings practice. And the rest of the D line put the blocking sled through the fence. Bye Dan!

PhilFree :cool:

California Injun
07-28-2001, 02:41 PM

As difficult as this is for me to admit....

...I (gasp!) actually (cough, hack, wheeze!) agree with your take on losing Glock as it affects the front four getting heat on the QB.

But then our DBs should rack up a ton of INTs as they will be tested all season. Conversely, they will be giving up a ton of TDs so us fans have to be very patient while they learn their chops.