Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun
Buddy, we're CHIEFS FANS.
The best teams we've fielded in the past 25 years have fit your philosophy. And they do shit in the playoffs because they can't open the game up effectively and they can't get to the opposing QB.
Period. Clay's right, virtually every Super Bowl proves this.
You must be able to open the game up on offense, and you must be able to get to the opposing QB.
|
Vermiel's teams could certainly open it up offensively, and Marty's teams could most definitely get to the quarterback. (And there were a couple of Marty teams that could also open it up offensively.)
And as I stated, the Chiefs were #10 in the league in sacking the opposing quarterback. That's not sucking. Thats being in the top 1/3 of the entire league.
However, I don't think that sacking the opposing quarterback should be the sole determining factor in measuring potential success of a team. The Steelers and the Packers were the two best teams in terms of sacking the quarterback in 2010. Both ended up in the Super Bowl. However, the rest of the top ten teams in sacking the quarterback didn't fare so well in terms of playoff success:
1. Pittsburgh Steelers
2. Green Bay Packers
2. Oakland Raiders
2. San Diego Chargers
5. New York Giants
6. Detroit Lions
7. St. Louis Rams
8. New York Jets
8. Tennessee Titans
10. Kansas City Chiefs
Only four of those teams were in the playoffs, one of them being Kansas City.
I'm not saying sacks are bad. I'm just saying that they aren't the end all, be all in determining a playoff team. And that Kansas City wasn't that bad at getting to the quarterback in 2010.
While their pass rush could be better, it's not bad at all and in the top 1/3 of the NFL. They've got some other areas in which they could improve on, substantially so.