PDA

View Full Version : ****ing Q&A w/ DV - 09/20/04


ENDelt260
09-20-2004, 05:52 PM
Q&A with Dick Vermeil
Sep 20, 2004, 6:40:01 PM

DICK VERMEIL: “Eddie Kennison has a moderate strain behind the knee and that’s why he came out of the ballgame. It bothered him a little bit prior to that and he tried to play. When he went on the deep pattern it didn’t pull or anything but he had to pull up.

“Priest Holmes has a sore ankle. After the ballgame I talked to him and was concerned about his knee because I saw him get it bent back. But it turned out this morning that his ankle was a little sore as the end result. It’s nothing serious but it may cost him to miss some time during the week…hopefully, not the ballgame.

“I’ve been through all three phases of the game and there were periods in the game where we played like a very good football team and there were periods where we did not. Therefore, you get beat by another good football team.

“I thought defensively we did some very, very good things. We gave them a 17-yard run on the second run of the ball game and then they never got another one the rest of the half. Then we had a breakout run in the second half that has sort of been part of our MO. But I feel that we’re gaining on the defense overall within the scheme.

“Offensively, we’re still having trouble converting third down situations which is sort of surprising to me. But we weren’t great at third-and-seven plus last year, but we were pretty good. It only takes a few to be much better when you break down third down situations.

“I look at those two fourth down situations. I’ve won games when I’ve gone for them and I’ve lost games because I’ve gone for them in the past. I lost one here one time right before the half in the Oakland game going for it and didn’t make it. I think I made a mistake. I should have more confidence in my offensive line to make one yard. The rule of thumb is when you’re down there early in the ball game and you’re playing a good football team make sure you get three points. I should have shown more confidence in my football team and let them try to make it. I think that wears you out sometimes emotionally, too. If I had it to do over again I would have done it the other way. Sometimes you can have too much experience. I second-guess myself and we could have possibly put on 10 points.

“Being 0-2 isn’t something we’ve been for a while. In 2001 we were 0-2 and went to the Redskins and won big. But our expectations are so much higher now, so it hurts a little bit more. But I do believe after looking at the defensive tapes that we’re getting closer. A lot of people played better this week than they did the week before. That third quarter drive they converted three third-down situations that we’ve got to find a way to stop. I think we’ll eventually get to a point where we can be more efficient.”

Q: Overall offensively are you able to put your finger on why you haven’t been able to operate as efficiently?

VERMEIL: “After two games we’re playing two better defensive teams than we played last year after two games. That’s part of it. I’ve had some concerns and I still have them. We’re not as functionally coordinated in scheme right now – sort of bouncing around. I think that’s because people have seen us within the scheme. That helps them.

“For a while there (vs. Carolina) you can’t execute the play-action passing game better than Trent Green did it. He did a real nice job. But we’re not in rhythm with ourselves as an offensive team right now. I think that’s the blend of the run with the pass and the coordination of them. Then we turn it over twice in the second half. Normally when you get two turnovers and score on defense you should win the football game.”

Q: If you were in the same situation are you going to go for it on fourth down?

VERMEIL: “I’m not going to say that because every game has its own profile and personality. Right now as I look at the tapes and see it as it was, yes, but when it happens you have no idea how the rest of the game is going to be or how you’re going to play. Carolina had a great profile of playing three point or less games and winning last year that I wanted to make sure we got three points.”

Q: What will you do at wide receiver this week without Kennison?

VERMEIL: “I’m not sure yet. Wait to see a little more of a report on Eddie Kennison. But probably Dante Hall would step up and take his place.”

Q: And then get a guy up from the practice squad?

VERMEIL: “Not necessarily. Just have to wait and see. Samie Parker is still questionable.”

Q: But if Sammie’s not ready, then do you go outside or to the practice squad?

VERMEIL: “I don’t know. I can go with three receivers. Some people only suit up three game day.”

Q: Was Richard Smith a disappointment yesterday?

VERMEIL: “He made a mistake. He dropped the ball. But maybe that’s to be expected. It always disappoints you when he drops one and it disappoints you when he makes a mistake.”

Q: How much has the unsettled situation on offense been with the wide receivers missing?

VERMEIL: “It hasn’t been unsettled. We know who they are. They just missed training camp and it affects their stamina. Yesterday it hurt us. Gradually allowing the right tackle to grow into playing the position as it was played a year ago is unsettling. You do things within your scheme and what you call and how you run your offense overall. That’s some of it too, but John Welbourn did some things better yesterday and he did some things that have to be done better. We’ve got to be patient.”

Q: When did you know that Priest was hurt? Did you find out today when you came in?

VERMEIL: “This morning.”

Q: Why wasn’t he in the game at the end yesterday?

VERMEIL: “Just left him out because it was the kind of stuff that we were doing that Derrick Blaylock can do and do well in the kind of situation in the game.”

Q: Is it an ankle twist, is it a sprain?

VERMEIL: “Just a slight sprain, just a slight swelling. Nothing to do with a high ankle sprain or anything like that.”

Q: Do you expect him to play on Sunday or is that yet to be determined?

VERMEIL: “I don’t know. I just got the report today and I know that it’s not a serious ankle sprain. I don’t know how long it takes him to recover. John Tait used to get an ankle sprain and play on Sunday. But every guy’s a little bit different and every ankle’s a little bit different.”

Q: Is Priest the kind of guy who maybe could go all week without practicing and then play?

VERMEIL: “He could, he could do that. He could work late and go. But we’ll be prepared to go without him if he can’t go. It’s not serious, it’s just how quickly he can mend.”

Q: Is the diagnosis process over with? Have the doctors looked at it?

VERMEIL: “Yeah. Mild soreness (reads a long medical evaluation). Moderate swelling.”

Q: So his knee’s bad too?

VERMEIL: “No, it was just sore from getting bent back. But it’s fine.”

Q: Who plays for him assuming Priest doesn’t play?

VERMEIL: “Blaylock would and then Larry (Johnson) would get ready to go.”

Q: What packages do you have that don’t involve Priest?

VERMEIL: “Nothing.”

Q: Then why wasn’t he in the game? I’m not sure I understand why he wasn’t in the game….

VERMEIL: “Because we didn’t want him in the game at the time. Is that a good enough answer? It had nothing to do with his injury because I walked right up to him and asked him and that’s the only thing I can tell you. The truth. That’s why he wasn’t in the game. The situation in a game like that down by 11 we just left him out of there.”

Q: Can you describe the difficulty that Trent’s having getting any timing down not being able to work with his receivers in training camp?

VERMEIL: “That has nothing to do with it. That has nothing to do with it. He’s in rhythm with our wide receivers when we throw them the ball. One got knocked down; one got picked off. Smith dropped one. Dante dropped one on a quick out. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen him sharper in a first quarter throwing very, very difficult balls. Sometimes defenses take things away from you. There were a few times I think he forced the ball downfield which are low percentage completions and maybe a little higher risk of interceptions. He could have checked it down and put the ball in the hands and let the guy advance it from the line of scrimmage.”

Q: As you look at the film do you see receivers getting good separation or is it not where you want it yet?

VERMEIL: “I don’t know if there is ever as much separation as I would like. But this was not a big time man-to-man coverage team. They play a lot of three-deep zone, double zone. It really wasn’t that kind of a problem.”

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2004/09/20/qa_with_dick_vermeil/

Saulbadguy
09-20-2004, 05:54 PM
Q: Why wasn’t he in the game at the end yesterday?

VERMEIL: “Just left him out because it was the kind of ****ing stuff that we were ****ing doing that ****ing Derrick Blaylock can ****ing do and do well in the kind of ****ing situation in the game.”

Jeez...Dickie V is kinda upset.

Bob Dole
09-20-2004, 05:55 PM
Bob Dole distinctly heard the word "****". Where is the word "****" in this ****ing transcript?

The Bad Guy
09-20-2004, 05:56 PM
“I thought defensively we did some very, very good things. We gave them a 17-yard run on the second run of the ball game and then they never got another one the rest of the half. Then we had a breakout run in the second half that has sort of been part of our MO. But I feel that we’re gaining on the defense overall within the scheme.

Enough of this BS. How do you some very, very good things and give up 184 yards rushing?

Vermeil knows as much about defense as I do about rocket science.

Douche Baggins
09-20-2004, 05:57 PM
Enough of this BS. How do you some very, very good things and give up 184 yards rushing?

Vermeil knows as much about defense as I do about rocket science.

Carolina averaged 2.7 yards a rush in the first half.

Anyway, we're f*cked.

Michael Michigan
09-20-2004, 05:58 PM
Q: What packages do you have that don’t involve Priest?

VERMEIL: “Nothing.”

Q: Then why wasn’t he in the game? I’m not sure I understand why he wasn’t in the game….

VERMEIL: “Because we didn’t want him in the game at the time. Is that a good enough answer? It had nothing to do with his injury because I walked right up to him and asked him and that’s the only thing I can tell you. The truth. That’s why he wasn’t in the game. The situation in a game like that down by 11 we just left him out of there.”

****


Nice message to send to the team.

Down 11 in the middle of the 4th.

Quit.



:cuss:

The Bad Guy
09-20-2004, 06:01 PM
Carolina averaged 2.7 yards a rush in the first half.

Anyway, we're f*cked.
I care about the end result. If you get C all semester and tank the final and fail the class, then you have failed.

I don't want to hear about the great things the defense did. I don't want Vermeil sugar coating anything anymore. His loving, ass-kissing approach to this defense makes me sick. Your defense gives up an average of 175 rushing yards per game this year and all he wants to do is talk about what he saw that was right.

That approach doesn't work. He tried it last year and it sucked.

I wish Gunther would crack the god damn whip and start treating these idiots like the underachieving bastards they are.

Baby Lee
09-20-2004, 06:04 PM
Enough of this BS. How do you some very, very good things and give up 184 yards rushing?

Vermeil knows as much about defense as I do about rocket science.
Umm, the nature of the game of football is segmented. Individual plays are played until completion, then the respective units regroup and go at it again.
It's not that hard a concept, really TBG.

Raiderhader
09-20-2004, 06:06 PM
Q: Overall offensively are you able to put your finger on why you haven’t been able to operate as efficiently?

VERMEIL: “After two games we’re playing two better defensive teams than we played last year after two games. That’s part of it. I’ve had some concerns and I still have them. We’re not as functionally coordinated in scheme right now – sort of bouncing around. I think that’s because people have seen us within the scheme. That helps them.

“For a while there (vs. Carolina) you can’t execute the play-action passing game better than Trent Green did it. He did a real nice job. But we’re not in rhythm with ourselves as an offensive team right now. I think that’s the blend of the run with the pass and the coordination of them. Then we turn it over twice in the second half. Normally when you get two turnovers and score on defense you should win the football game.”


Well at least he ****ing knows what large ****ing portion of the ****ing problem is.

Let's just hope he grabs AS by the neck and tells him to get his act in gear or else....

Baby Lee
09-20-2004, 06:07 PM
I care about the end result.
There is a difference between whether or not you care about the end result and whether or not you understand the game.
If you see flashes of brilliance, followed by a breakdown, you treat that condition much different than seeing nothing of redeeming value.

The Bad Guy
09-20-2004, 06:08 PM
Umm, the nature of the game of football is segmented. Individual plays are played until completion, then the respective units regroup and go at it again.
It's not that hard a concept, really TBG.No shit it's segmented. I don't care about hearing about the right things they may have done a fraction of the time if one play is done the right way and the next is done poor. Obviously there is a problem there if they know how to do it the right way and screw up the next. The make-shift Panthers line managed to come out on top if they controlled the ball for 10 minutes more than the Chiefs and had twice as many rushing yards.

I'm just sick of hearing the good things this defense did when they can't stop anyone.

But what does Vermeil expect? He didn't do one tackling drill in training camp, and coincidentally the defense can't tackle to save their lives.

Raiderhader
09-20-2004, 06:10 PM
I care about the end result. If you get C all semester and tank the final and fail the class, then you have failed.

I don't want to hear about the great things the defense did. I don't want Vermeil sugar coating anything anymore. His loving, ass-kissing approach to this defense makes me sick. Your defense gives up an average of 175 yards per game this year and all he wants to do is talk about what he saw that was right.

That approach doesn't work. He tried it last year and it sucked.

I wish Gunther would crack the god damn whip and start treating these idiots like the underachieving bastards they are.


Just because that is the approach taken in public does not mean it is the approach taken behind the scenes.

Just something to think about.

Baby Lee
09-20-2004, 06:13 PM
I don't care about hearing about the right things they may have done a fraction of the time if one play is done the right way and the next is done poor.
That's perfectly fine, . . . as a fan's take. As a take of someone denigrating the football knowledge of an NFL coach, it's sh!t. Plain and simple.

That's brilliant, ignore anything any player might be doing right. Go into the practice facility with the red ass, yelling "you're all sh!t, and can't do anything right. There's nothing to be improved upon. . . . Matter of fact, hand me my blowtorch. I'm burning this whole thing to the ground."

The Bad Guy
09-20-2004, 06:24 PM
That's perfectly fine, . . . as a fan's take. As a take of someone denigrating the football knowledge of an NFL coach, it's sh!t. Plain and simple.

That's brilliant, ignore anything any player might be doing right. Go into the practice facility with the red ass, yelling "you're all sh!t, and can't do anything right. There's nothing to be improved upon. . . . Matter of fact, hand me my blowtorch. I'm burning this whole thing to the ground."

Vermeil has been fluffing the defense since they were blistered against the Broncos last year. Obvioulsy 10 months later, his approach still doesn't work. I don't want him to yell you're all shit, I want some blame being put on this unit. I think it's pointless to keep building up this defense only to watch them fold on Sundays.

I just don't put much faith in Vermeil's ability to recognize good defense. He's had 4 years here to turn the thing around, and when you finish in the low 20s in defense all four years that tells me he doesn't know the defensive side of the ball.

Douche Baggins
09-20-2004, 06:31 PM
Vermeil has been fluffing the defense since they were blistered against the Broncos last year. Obvioulsy 10 months later, his approach still doesn't work. I don't want him to yell you're all shit, I want some blame being put on this unit. I think it's pointless to keep building up this defense only to watch them fold on Sundays.

I just don't put much faith in Vermeil's ability to recognize good defense. He's had 4 years here to turn the thing around, and when you finish in the low 20s in defense all four years that tells me he doesn't know the defensive side of the ball.

Are you saying you want a new head coach?

Logical
09-20-2004, 06:34 PM
There is a difference between whether or not you care about the end result and whether or not you understand the game.
If you see flashes of brilliance, followed by a breakdown, you treat that condition much different than seeing nothing of redeeming value.I suppose the interceptions could be flashes of brilliance but those are the only two flashes I saw yesterday. The offense was even worse. The team is foundering thus far with no bright spots and barely any illumination.

Wile_E_Coyote
09-20-2004, 06:35 PM
That's perfectly fine, . . . as a fan's take. As a take of someone denigrating the football knowledge of an NFL coach, it's sh!t. Plain and simple.

That's brilliant, ignore anything any player might be doing right. Go into the practice facility with the red ass, yelling "you're all sh!t, and can't do anything right. There's nothing to be improved upon. . . . Matter of fact, hand me my blowtorch. I'm burning this whole thing to the ground."

ROFL JC Johnny is back

jspchief
09-20-2004, 06:41 PM
That is the biggest pile of lies I think I've ever heard. He's lying about the defense. He's lying about why Holmes sat. He's lying about Green's play. He's lying about our WR separation.

It's all bullsh*t. He needs to quit babying his players and call some people out for poor play. He needs to light some fires, not sugarcoat. It's no wonder the team has no heart right now, they're being coached by Stuart Smiley.

Raiderhader
09-20-2004, 06:45 PM
Good grief, I'd hate to work for some of you people.

The Bad Guy
09-20-2004, 06:50 PM
Good grief, I'd hate to work for some of you people.

If you accepted mediocrity like Vermeil does on defense then I would never hire you in the first place:p

Raiderhader
09-20-2004, 07:04 PM
If you accepted mediocrity like Vermeil does on defense then I would never hire you in the first place:p


Once again, just because you see something in public does not mean it is the same behind closed doors.

Furthermore, not everyone agrees with you that the defense is to blame. Not everyone agrees with you that this defense is not making improvements. That is YOUR point of view.

DV sees good things and bad things, and he and his coaches will address both of these aspects with their players at the appropriate time. If you ignore the good things the players do and simply berate them all the time you will lose their respect. Just as is the case with any employer. Vermeil's job is to COACH, and that is what he is doing. He has a proven track record of turning teams around, including our own, and I am willing to give him the benifit of the doubt and assume that he has at least as much an idea about the game and the job as you and I, if not more so.

And considering he is the HC and making the big bucks, and you and I are not, he probably does know the game and the job better than we do. Does that mean that as a fan I am not going to question some of his decisions? Of course not. But until the team definitivley starts showing a regressing trend, I am not going to question his over all ability to do his job.

tk13
09-20-2004, 07:11 PM
The funny part is (Chiefs fans don't know or believe this), but until he came to KC Dick Vermeil had never really had a bad defensive team. All 7 years in Philly, and the first couple years in St. Louis, DV's defenses were better than his offenses. Only in 1999 (in his 10th season as a head coach)...the Rams blew up did the offense do better than the defense... and that Rams defense was still 4th in the league. That's one of those "assumed" fallacies because the Rams defense went to crap, but that was only after DV left. Actually until he came to KC, Dick Vermeil had never, ever coached a football team that did not finish in the top 20 in either defensive yards or points allowed... for his career DV has had 6 top ten defenses and 5 top ten offenses (using points scored/allowed).

Raiderhader
09-20-2004, 07:15 PM
The funny part is (Chiefs fans don't know or believe this), but until he came to KC Dick Vermeil had never really had a bad defensive team. All 6 years in Philly, and the first couple years in St. Louis, DV's defenses were better than his offenses. Only in 1999 (in his 10th season as a head coach)...the Rams blew up did the offense do better than the defense... and that Rams defense was still 4th in the league. That's one of those "assumed" fallacies because the Rams defense went to crap, but that was only after DV left. Actually until he came to KC, Dick Vermeil had never, ever coached a football team that did not finish in the top 20 in either defensive yards or points allowed... for his career DV has had 6 top ten defenses and 5 top ten offenses (using points scored/allowed).


Yet he knows nothing about the defensive side of the game. :rolleyes:

I'm not ready to start doubting the man yet. He has turned around three different teams and taken two of them to the big dance. It is only a matter of time before he takes the third......

FloridaChief
09-20-2004, 07:16 PM
The funny part is (Chiefs fans don't know or believe this), but until he came to KC Dick Vermeil had never really had a bad defensive team. All 6 years in Philly, and the first couple years in St. Louis, DV's defenses were better than his offenses. Only in 1999 (in his 10th season as a head coach)...the Rams blew up did the offense do better than the defense... and that Rams defense was still 4th in the league. That's one of those "assumed" fallacies because the Rams defense went to crap, but that was only after DV left. Actually until he came to KC, Dick Vermeil had never, ever coached a football team that did not finish in the top 20 in either defensive yards or points allowed... for his career DV has had 6 top ten defenses and 5 top ten offenses (using points scored/allowed).

Not EVERY Chiefs fan is ignorant of this.

the Talking Can
09-20-2004, 07:33 PM
Q: Then why wasn’t he in the game? I’m not sure I understand why he wasn’t in the game….

VERMEIL: “Because we didn’t want him in the game at the time. Is that a good enough answer? It had nothing to do with his injury because I walked right up to him and asked him and that’s the only thing I can tell you. The truth. That’s why he wasn’t in the game. The situation in a game like that down by 11 we just left him out of there.”
-------------------------

they didn't want the best RB in the league in the game?

shaneo69
09-20-2004, 08:09 PM
Q: Then why wasn’t he in the game? I’m not sure I understand why he wasn’t in the game….

VERMEIL: “Because we didn’t want him in the game at the time. Is that a good enough answer? It had nothing to do with his injury because I walked right up to him and asked him and that’s the only thing I can tell you. The truth. That’s why he wasn’t in the game. The situation in a game like that down by 11 we just left him out of there.”

"Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them"

go bowe
09-20-2004, 08:26 PM
The funny part is (Chiefs fans don't know or believe this), but until he came to KC Dick Vermeil had never really had a bad defensive team. All 7 years in Philly, and the first couple years in St. Louis, DV's defenses were better than his offenses. Only in 1999 (in his 10th season as a head coach)...the Rams blew up did the offense do better than the defense... and that Rams defense was still 4th in the league. That's one of those "assumed" fallacies because the Rams defense went to crap, but that was only after DV left. Actually until he came to KC, Dick Vermeil had never, ever coached a football team that did not finish in the top 20 in either defensive yards or points allowed... for his career DV has had 6 top ten defenses and 5 top ten offenses (using points scored/allowed).:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

thanks for injecting a little reality into the conversation...

PastorMikH
09-20-2004, 08:28 PM
I am wondering more and more about Phil's comment in one of the 200 "is Priest hurt" threads this morning concerning Priest expressing disatisfaction with plays and either decided to sit or being told to sit as a result. The more I read, the more I think Phil has a point.

stevieray
09-20-2004, 08:35 PM
I suppose the interceptions could be flashes of brilliance but those are the only two flashes I saw yesterday. The offense was even worse. The team is foundering thus far with no bright spots and barely any illumination.

Last year this squad had only forty neg yard tackles. They have 17 in two games.

I think alot of people could be eating crow by years end, Gun won't settle for guys who take themselves out of plays or keep tackling without wrapping up. He told us it would take a few games.

Chief Roundup
09-20-2004, 08:52 PM
Q: Then why wasn’t he in the game? I’m not sure I understand why he wasn’t in the game….

VERMEIL: “Because we didn’t want him in the game at the time. Is that a good enough answer? It had nothing to do with his injury because I walked right up to him and asked him and that’s the only thing I can tell you. The truth. That’s why he wasn’t in the game. The situation in a game like that down by 11 we just left him out of there.”
-------------------------

they didn't want the best RB in the league in the game?

I read it as they gave up. Coaches and players.

stevieray
09-20-2004, 08:56 PM
I read it as they gave up. Coaches and players.
I read it as making sure you don't lose Priest for the year. Blaylock has shown he can make plays. I wonder if he felt like he was giving up.

:)

go bowe
09-20-2004, 09:00 PM
I read it as making sure you don't lose Priest for the year. Blaylock has shown he can make plays. I wonder if he felt like he was giving up.

:)yes, i think it had a lot more to do with trying to keep priest healthy...

and it looked like a good move to me...

htismaqe
09-22-2004, 12:35 PM
Q: As you look at the film do you see receivers getting good separation or is it not where you want it yet?

VERMEIL: “I don’t know if there is ever as much separation as I would like. But this was not a big time man-to-man coverage team. They play a lot of three-deep zone, double zone. It really wasn’t that kind of a problem.”


Looks like DV saw the same thing I did from the stands.

We had guys open in their zone all day. They just can't catch.

stevieray
09-22-2004, 01:21 PM
Bob Dole distinctly heard the word "****". Where is the word "****" in this ****ing transcript?


Priest Holmes has a sore ankle.

BigRedChief
09-22-2004, 02:12 PM
I read it as they gave up. Coaches and players.

What he said.

ChiefsOne
09-22-2004, 02:18 PM
Vermeil has been fluffing the defense since they were blistered against the last year. Obvioulsy 10 months later, his approach still doesn't work. I don't want him to yell you're all shit, I want some blame being put on this unit. I think it's pointless to keep building up this defense only to watch them fold on Sundays.

I just don't put much faith in Vermeil's ability to recognize good defense. He's had 4 years here to turn the thing around, and when you finish in the low 20s in defense all four years that tells me he doesn't know the defensive side of the ball.


Do you think he should come out publicly and stay they suck? Who know how much yelling he and Gunther do behind closed doors and at practice. I am sure he has a way of getting his point across, maybe just too late to do it now.

I remember in pre-season him saying these guys would get it done or he would find someone that would.