Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10536512)

Well, Sutton came from the Jets. One only has to watch the Jets for about 2 quarters before they get it.

The Jets run about as many defensive sets as any team ever has. They employ both 1 and 2-gap. They run 3-4, they run 4-3 under. The coaching staff has borrowed from pretty much ever stop they've been at and they have experience with New England's style as well as the earlier Parcell's method.

And I'd MUCH rather have Donald than Hageman.

Originally Posted by OldSchool (Post 10536472)

False. Devito played less than 40% of the defensive snaps last year and he was our "starting" LDE 5-tech.

Jackson played a little more at 45% of the snaps, he had a few more opportunities in sub packages than Devito did before our coaches decided that he sucked at pass rushing.

We spent a hell of a lot more time in sub packages than we did in our "base" 3-4 defense, and even then our DEs didn't always line up as true 5-techs.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10536512)

Well, Sutton came from the Jets. One only has to watch the Jets for about 2 quarters before they get it.

Originally Posted by bob sutton

we’re trying to incorporate many of the things we did in New York. Again, it’s got to be tailored a little bit to the personnel here. But I think the transition will be good because it’s 3-4 based but it has a little bit more multiple than what I had done in New York before or the same that Romeo had run here. It will be a great starting point, a great jumping off point because a lot of the players have the characteristics that we’re looking for and we might just move it in a little bit different direction.”

Originally Posted by article

The Chiefs are still a 3-4 defense, as they were in 2012 under former coach Romeo Crennel. But instead of being static up front, they've turned into shape-shifters – adjusting to offensive looks, trying to change the scrimmage line on every snap and utilizing a variety of personnel packages.

Originally Posted by article

Sutton said opponents have been negating his blitz schemes, in part, by throwing the ball quickly or protecting the quarterback.

Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10536672)

its not exactly the same as the jets

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10536680)

I never said it was.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10536680)

In fact, everything you posted supports exactly what I said.

Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10536693)

you sure as hell implied it.



Sutton has said before that this is not the Jets defense but the chiefs defense.





you, nor anyone else, has provided evidence how many snaps (or percent of plays) that the chiefs use a 5-tech. you make ASSUMPTIONS based on the snaps of players (devito/jackson) that no other player also plays a 5-tech position for any number of plays. You make the ASSUMPTION that the chiefs dont use a 5-tech in a sub package formation. I showed that it is possible to be in a sub package formation and use a 5-tech. Heck, for that matter, what percent of plays do the chiefs use a 3-tech for the 2013 season?

Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10536693)

you sure as hell implied it.

Originally Posted by OldSchool (Post 10536722)

Then wouldn't it make sense for the team to draft Donald and then line him up primarily at 3-tech vs trying to force him into the 5-tech role

Originally Posted by OldSchool (Post 10536722)

So, again, why wouldn't you draft the most dominant interior pass rusher available in this draft again?

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10536741)

The Jets have borrowed concepts from half a dozen different teams over the years, depending on where their coaches have come from.

I was talking about philosophy. You're fixated on scheme.

Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10536749)

I wouldnt force him to play 5-tech.

1. I havent seen how often the chiefs use a 3-tech, and wouldnt want to use a first round player whose role will be limited to only a few snaps.

2. Donald cant (and shouldnt) line up as a 3-tech on downs 1-3 in a 3 or 2 man front. He would be a liability in the run game. An offense that doesnt substitute its players (which is becoming popular) would limit the ability of the chiefs to sub him in or out.

Thus I dont want to devote premium picks on a player who is limited on what he can do and may be limited in how many snaps he can play.



because he may not fit the chiefs scheme, and the chiefs are not changing their scheme for him. The chiefs have already gone on record that their scheme is not changing for the 2014 season.

I dont try to force square pegs into round holes.

Originally Posted by OldSchool (Post 10536767)

Yeah, a guy who led all of college football in TFL is a liability in the run game. ROFL If anything he would improve our ability to stop the run.

Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10536764)

you compared the chiefs defense with the jets (whether is was scheme or philosophy it doesnt matter). you said



whether scheme or philosophy the chiefs defense is not exactly the same as the Jets. Thus, one may not "get it" by only watching 2 quarters of the jets.

Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10536792)

4 man front: 285 end, poe (350), Donald (285), 300 end = 1220

Originally Posted by planetdoc (Post 10536792)

pitt runs a 4-3 defense. the chiefs employ a 3-4 base defense.

A 4 man front has more fatties at the LOS than a 3 man front which makes it easier to defend the run.

Here is an example of the weight difference for a typical NFL defenses:
3 man front: Donald (285), Poe (350), walker/devito (305) = 940lbs
4 man front: 285 end, poe (350), Donald (285), 300 end = 1220

the defensive line is lining up against 5 x 300lb offensive lineman = 1500 lbs.