This not a revamped D, DV has as much to do with it than you care to admit!
 

Last time I checked the majority of the players on D were here last year.

Given that DV was not here this past off season, you can't predict which players he would or wouldn't have drafted. Also CP would have had input so Hali probably would have been drafted and potential the other rookies that made the roster as well.

Law would have also been pursued and acquired given our prospects in being a playoff team.

The D was a work in progress and DV was big part of it.

Now that he and AS are gone all their naysayers are coming out claiming the D is great now they are gone. Not fair.

I'm happy the D is finally turned the corner, but don't give all the credit to Herm. Give his DV some credit for leaving some kind of solid base to work from.

Unfortunately, DV and AS left with our O's keys and we can't get it out of the garage.

If DV/AS were still here we would be 2-0 going into our bye week.

What reason could you possibly have to validate living another day?...

so DV is also the reason the O fell apart then
the backups are his

Are you stupid?

That would seem logical, wouldn't it.

Exactly!!!

No DV/AS are not here to run it.

Ever stopped to think about why they aren't here?

Not quite true. This year's D has more talent than any D during the Vermeil-era. Even compared to last year, this year's D has the likes of Ty Law, Tamba Hali, James Reed, Ron Edwards, Pollard/Page.

1963 was happy with our season last year.

You can shoot all the conjecture you want about who we would have drafted, but the fact remains that none of them would have seen the field. Vermeil did not play rookies. Period. So even if he was on the roster, Hali would not have started; Hicks would have. Page wouldn't have been playing for Knight or in the nickel packages. Odds are he wouldn't have even made the roster, as a 7th round pick.I'm not sure how you can say that. Law came primarily because Herm was here, from everything I've seen.

Lenny Walls would not have been here, certainly. Because his biggest fan, David Gibbs wouldn't have been coaching here. And make no mistake, he was a big part of today's game.It's not about Vermeil being gone, it's about Vermeil's pack of Robinson leftover defensive coaches being gone. We have a new LB coach, Don Blackmon. We have a new DL coach, Tim Krumrie. Again, David Gibbs is the new DB coach.

That's the reason things have changed, as much or even more than Herm's arrival and imput on defense. All the stooges are gone.You sound like Proctor about 5 years ago saying the success of our fancy new offense was all due to Gunther.

It was as reeruned then as it is now.We've gone from the realm of discussion to fantasyland now. You realize that Vermeil never won a game in Denver? Ever? With any team, here or elsewhere?

Not likely...

LMAO

It's good to see that you get progressively dumber every season.

DV would be 2-0? Dick Vermeil never won a ****ing game in Denver. He really never even came close, but he would have won with our backup QB that hasn't played a down in 5 years?

He would have won with Damon Huard? Is that what you really think?

Vermeil had NOTHING ever to do with our defense. Ever. He's said on numerous occasions that he had nothing to do with the defense - that it wasn't his thing.

Posts like yours truly piss me off because they have ZERO basis.

Our O-keys took off with Trent Green's head injury last week and Willie Roaf. I guess you must have forgotten last year's whopping 10 points with your boys Al and Dick and they had the luxury of Trent Green.

Herm deserves the credit for this defense turning around. They are 100x more fundamentally sound than any Dick Vermeil defense.

What about Buffalo last year against the vaunted Bills defense?

Were they there to run it then?

Seriously, find a clue somewhere.

Keg, I am pretty sure DJ played last year as rookie every game. Not sure I follow this point.

I think DJ was the exception not the rule, Unfortunatly there was no one better then DJ on why he got so much playing time... Hell during todays game they were talking about how he said he was lost and slow because he did not know the plays but now he does so he can go full speed agian...(paraphrased)

If DV was still here Hicks would be starting and we would not have our interior Linemen REed and edwards playing... The fact with Herm is the best players will start and get the playing time opposed to hoping that your starters will come around(warfield,hicks,woods) to their potential...

Hey DV frustrated me with his loyalty to some veterans as much as anyone else. I just thought that statement was not factually correct. I also think with Hicks having an injured shoulder Hali would probably be starting this year, but probably some of the other rookies would not be getting the chance they are getting this year.

Fixed your post.

I think I should have thought out my screen name a little more.

:shake:

Have you bothered to watch Al Saunders offense in Washington this year? Hell, their playcalling was far worse than KC's, esp. last night. DV/AS are gone and that's not really a bad thing. I was proud of our defense yesterday for the first time in a loooong, loooong time.

The statement may not be a 100% factually correct, but the basic premise is spot on. Vermeil did not like to play rookies. He openly admitted as much plenty of times.

Vermeil may have been present for the drafting of some of these guys, but I'm not sure I'm willing to give him much credit for this defense. At best, it's taken 6 years to get a defense in here (if we're for real this year) so even if Vermeil shares some of the credit, he shares even more of the blame for it taking as long as it did.

Edwards: Hali, Edwards, Reed, playing Page, Ty Law, good scheme that limits big plays.

Vermeil: Ryan Sims, Siavii, Kendrell Bell, schemes that bend over to the passing game.

We should have given DV a few more years.

Evidently FIVE YEARS OF CONTINUOUS FAILURE wasn't enough to convince some people...

And SEVENTEEN YEARS OF CONTINUOUS FAILURE by our GM, Carl Peterson isn't enough to convince some people either.

:clap:

Like who?

You'd be hard-pressed to find even ONE person here that likes Carl Peterson.

Some of us are just smart enough to know he's not the root of all evil...

yea DV was resposible for this defense did you see how many sacks had yesterday i cant even count them on my hand WOW, or how many times siavii stuffed the run HOLY SHIT DV THANKS FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THIS DEFENSE

So
DV=Roaf
AS=Welbourne?

Some of us are smart enought to know that if you are CEO, President and GM of an organization for 17 years that continues to fail, that, by definition, you are the root of the problem and need to be removed.

Your point about Derrick Johnson is correct. But overall, DV didn't like to let rooks play, even if they were better than the vets.

Example:
Hicks would not be starting this year even if he was 100% healthy right now.

If DV were here and even if they also had drafted Hali, Hicks would be starting right now if he was healthy.

IMO, Gunther needs a defensive minded head coach to help guide him and give him some direction. He wasn't going to get that guidance from DV.

Would the offense have put more points on the board the last two weeks if DV and AS were around, probably. Would the defense has played as well the last two weeks if DV was still around, probably not.

Would the Chiefs be better than 0-2 if DV/AS were still around? I have no idea. Maybe Green stays healthy against Cincy and they win a shutout, but the D would probably come up short in Denver. It doesn't matter, DV and AS are gone. It's all on Herm and Solari now.

I think you are onto something there. It would explain Gunthers success under Marty, his failure under DV and his apparent rebirth under Herm.

A Vermeil defense would have given up 250 yard rushing. A 9-6 loss in Denver is a breath of fresh air, after the rotten egg farts the Chiefs have laid there the past few years.

Does the buck stop with Peterson? Nope. There's an owner above him that seems to care more about money than wins. If you want a scapegoat, you can start with Lamar.

That being said, Peterson is a failure. Nobody will dispute that. However, it grows tiresome when Peterson gets blamed for stupid shit right down to the color of socks the players wore...

The fact that he bascially played one rookie in five years proves my point pretty well, I'd say. Vermeil goes for vets over rookies. That's a fact, not open for much dispute.

Unless AS has changed a lot this offseason, Green would have got killed against Cinci after 10 consecutive seven step drop passes.

I give Gun more credit than that. I believe he's exceptionally good at game planning. I think he needs good talent evaluators and position coaches around him though. I do believe he was hamstrung by inheriting Grob's coaches and personnel decisions.

Yep. Sounds about right to me.

IF DV were here we'd see Hicks out there all the time, wow he also drafted crappy while he was here, herm is the reason this defense has gotten alot better, he instilled competition and they have improved their game!

That depends on your definition of failure. I'm not defending Carl here, but he's filled the seats and made quite a bit of money for the Chiefs.

To most of us fans, the only measure of success for Carl is winning playoff games, and eventually a SB or three. Obviously, the Hunt's definition of success is hovering just above a losing record and teasing fans with enough wins to keep selling tickets for next year.

But we keep filling Arrowhead, and Carl keeps cashing in on our hope of finally getting over the hump...

Who's the real dummy?

I haven't read all the other posts, but if you think coaching has nothing to do with it, your and idiot.

While I'm not all down on DV, the fact is, without Herm, Gun would still be using DV's coaches.

I don't give Gun that much credit. Even back with Marty the defense, although good ,wasn't consistent. Up one year, down the next. From 1 to 11 then 1 to 22 in points against. Then as head coach it was 13th and 19th. I think if was "exceptionally" good at gameplanning there would have been more consistency - especially with the talent he was given.

I agree he was hamstrung by inheriting GRBOS players, but Gun was the guy who said he would change things with his scheme alone. It didn't work. He said he would change things if he had his special players. It didn't work. It wasn't until Herm's arrival and hands on approach that the D has finally shown some real promise.

Do you think it may have had something to do with DV's loyalty being gone? Herm has no ties to players that don't perform. Players were afraid for their jobs.

Good question. Are you asking if I associate the better play from the defense to the fact that players are afraid of losing their jobs? If so, not really.

I don't think the bubble players improved much, in fact most of them lost their starting jobs - Sims, Dalton, Hicks. Perhaps Wesley improved.

I'm not sure there was much DV loyalty to defensive players. There was a big turnover in guys during those 5 years. There were a lot of free agents that came and went and stayed.