View Full Version : It is obvious that a defensive scheme
10-05-2000, 03:28 PM
needs to be created to stop the Ram offense.
-crap....meant to make this a reply to Red's thread
Tight man to man needs to be there to stop the slant. We definitely need to funnel everything to the perimeter. Make Warner throw the fades and posts. We need to make sure our linebackers and safeties put some serious hits on anybody coming across the middle. If it takes an early late hit or personal foul, then so be it. The heavier linebackers will have to ride the pines...they are simply too slow. Thus, having 6dbs is a great idea. I like Red's idea. But will any defensive coordinator have the courage to try something different?
[This message has been edited by KCatMU (edited 10-05-2000).]
10-05-2000, 03:36 PM
I hate to say it, but IMO here's what you need to actually STOP the Rams, not just hold them under 40 pts.:
3 Pro Bowl caliber DBs, plus 2 more that could start for most teams in the NFL.
A defensive line that performs the way KC's did in the 2nd half vs. Seattle.
At least one, preferably two LBs that can keep up with Faulk.
A running game that can put up 200+ yards, and a passing game that can put up around 250 yds.
That MIGHT net you a 28-24 victory.
Clint in Wichita
10-05-2000, 03:40 PM
The most important aspect is having a pass rush, IMO. Warner has never felt any pressure. Only against Tennessee and Tampa did he struggle. And you have to be able to control the ball like Clint said...
10-05-2000, 03:42 PM
I forgot to add that you can hope the Rams shoot themselves in the foot when they happen to be playing your team.
10-05-2000, 03:46 PM
What do you guys think about playing Larry Atkins at Line Backer that week? I'm for trying anything to beat these guys. Heck maybe we should play a 3-4, add Atkins to Linebacking corps.
Just a Thought
10-05-2000, 03:50 PM
Another strategy is this: we give their receivers an inside cushion, we need to have Wesley playing closer to the line, spying for the slant patterns that will inevitably come. This way, he can support the run as well as stop the slants.
The corners will be giving enough cushion that they don't get beat deep. They just need to make sure they funnel the receivers to the inside. That would leave a safety to roam, preventing anything deep. The weakness to this is the curl. However, at least that would slow down the Rams attack.
10-05-2000, 03:57 PM
I think Stills is gonna have to play a LARGE role in that game if we are going to win. He's quick enough to hang with Faulk, strong enough to get to Warner, & has adequate coverage skills to drop into coverage. We are certainly required to throw some unorthodox defensive packages at St. Louis. The question is, does Kurt & Gun have the sack to do it?!?! A traditional 4-3 isn't going to beat the Rams! We're going to have to throw our current defensive schemes out the window & throw some funky things their way. I think if we confuse the hell out of Warner combined with soiling the back of his jersey sufficiently, good things will happen for the Chiefs.
10-05-2000, 04:01 PM
How about this:
3 down linemen (Clemons, Glock or DW, Hicks)
2 LBs (Edwards, Patton)
6 DBs (Hasty, Dennis, Warfield, Woods, Atkins, Wesley)
Move Atkins back & forth from OLB to SS depending on the situation, or just to confuse the defense.
10-05-2000, 04:22 PM
I've not seen much more than Rams highlights this year but I'm wondering if we can play outside coverages to force everything to the middle of the field. Camp Atkins & Wesley near the middle of the field 15-20 yards off the ball and let them unload on anyone coming across....
10-05-2000, 04:24 PM
The Rams CAN be beat, but I can only hope that the Chiefs will be the ones to do so. Seattle lost to them by, what, three points? And Denver played them close IN St Louis. At Arrowhead, if our team brings their A game, for the WHOLE game (for the first time this season, minus San Diego) we could win. We can't kill our own momentum with penalties, and we can't ignore their biggest weapon --Faulk-- by concentrating solely on Warner and the passing game.
10-05-2000, 07:52 PM
I like Clint's plan in #7. But I still think that whatever scheme is used, you need to bump their receivers at the LOS at the snap to disrupt the timing of their routes, and to slow them down.
[b]The SitCom must die!!</B>
10-05-2000, 09:17 PM
No way would I play bump in run with our young secondary. Give them a huge cushion and make sure the CB tackles. Wrap them up, don't go for the strip or kill. Bend but don't break. Play a 2 deep. Force Faulk to beat us running the ball. I'd rather have them slowly march downfield and force them to punch the ball in from inside our 10 yard line where they can't spread out our D too much, rather than gamble and give up the long ball.
IMO the most important thing that we will need to do is get our running game going. Like it or not, we'll need to control the clock.
10-05-2000, 09:29 PM
I agree with Chiefnj. We need to do something that will slow them down so that they are not scoring from 50+ yards out. If we can get them inside our 20, we can shorten up our D and allow more field goals. If we can give up 3 field goals and 3 TDs we win against their D at home.
By the way, remember the game in Denver in '98. As I recall we had them confused with whatever we were doing on defense and it took them the whole game to figure it out. Gun was the DC then, as the head coach now what makes us think he won't throw some different looks out on defense?
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.