SB champions in the salary cap era...

Chris Meck · 01-09-2007, 03:14 PM

'been thinking...

In the NFL there are some common factors between successful teams and champs that get overlooked a lot by fans that just want to can the coach and get a new QB every year.

1. It seems to me that consistency is a major key to franchises that are successful year in and year out.

The Steelers, who have been to 6 SB's and won 5 have had TWO coaches in almost 40 years. They're rarely bad, usually pretty good, and occasionally brilliant.

In the nearly 20 year span in which San Fran was dominant or at least very good, they really had 3 head coaches (Walsh, Seifert, and Mariucci)but the same systems in place. They won 4.

Consistency. Changing systems requires different talents and different players to run them. It requires time for the entire squad to learn a new system, instead of just a few at a time. Pick a coach, pick your systems, and stick with them. In KC right now, defensively for example, we have the remnants of players chosen for four very different defensive schemes. All those changes have made fielding a strong defense impossible-and now a top flight offense has gotten too old. There's a lesson here. Pick a good coach. Pick a solid system, and stick with them.

2. You have to strike gold in the late rounds of the draft with a pro bowl player or two at a premium position. With the salary cap, you cannot field a BALANCED championship caliber team without finding some diamonds in the rough. Even then, you have a window to get it done before the big contracts start rolling in.

Exhibition one: Terrell Davis. 6th round. It was Elway's team, but it was Davis that won 'em two rings.

Exhibition two: Tom Brady. 5th round pick. Now he's getting paid, and while they're still good (consistency) they're well short of dominant.

Exhibition three: Kurt Warner. scrap heap. Probably could've got it done with Green (who wasn't a big dollar guy at the time) but that's the way it played out. Maybe the ultimate system guy.

There are more, but that's enough to make the point.

3. If you must be dominant in one area, defense is the area that can get you a ring.

See the 2202-2005 Chiefs, and Manning era Colts. The Ravens won one with NO offense, and Pittsburgh won last year because the defense played well and the conservative offense hid weak points like a rookie QB. Tampa Bay, same difference. As good as Brady is/was, it was New England's defense that put them in those SB's, IMO. Other people must feel the same way, as most of those coaching staffs are now leading other franchises.

4. The way to build successful football teams is from the line out. NO blocking makes any QB and RB combination look like shit. No pass rush, penetration, or control of the line of scrimmage makes any defensive system look like shit. Show me any team with a dominant front four and a good offensive line and I'll show you a perennial play-off team. I chuckle at the draft every year when bad teams draft QB's, RB's, and WR's when they are weak at the line. Why are the Raiders so bad? Because WR was not a problem area, but that's where they've spent their money for years. The Lions? same thing. Hell, we haven't had top flight WR's for years, and we were the number 1 offense in football. Why? Because we had a dominant offensive line. Now Roaf is gone, Shields is done, we're very average on the line and we go 3 and out 7 straight series in a play-off game. It's not even that Green can't get it done anymore (although that may be true) or the receivers suck (which is pretty much true) or that Solari needs to be a better play-caller (also true). It's that for four years, we could do whatever we wanted because our line was good enough to dominate and impose their will. 3 perennial pro-bowlers out of 5. If only one of the DT's we drafted would've worked out...

So, how do I think this relates to Kansas City...

well, I think we're headed in the right direction defensively. I think we should stick with the cover 2 system and continue to gather the correct personnel to run it. You've got to keep your young ascending players and let the old guys walk. I think we're 3 guys away, personally, two DT's and one OLB. It's possible that we're 2, and that Fox is an answer at LB. Herm's had luck in the past with late round CB's, and I hope that trend continues, because Law and Surtain will need replacing soon.

Offensively, we need to free up money and concentrate on the line. We don't need new coaches and new systems and a flashy new FA wide receiver with a big price tag. We don't need Trent Green if he's gonna cost us $8 million a year. Let him walk, re-sign Huard for less than half for a year and let Croyle be your #2. We need to rebuild that offensive line, and we need to do it with draftees and young-ish FA's. OT is a premium position (particularly LT), but G and possible C are not. This can be done. A dominant offensive line, LJ, and a top 5 defense is a Super Bowl. I'm on the fence with Gonzales as he's such a useful target and would be for Huard and then Croyle in '08. Depends on the OT market, I guess.

I don't know that I'd draft anything but DT's and Offensive linemen this year. Seriously. Nobody's going to be successful anyway if those positions are not shored up.

Those are my thoughts, and I'm sticking to them.

Chris

Simplex3 · 01-09-2007, 03:21 PM

Hammock Parties · 01-09-2007, 03:26 PM

Consistency is the key...that's why Herm needs to be here for a long, long time. At least five years and preferably 10.

crazycoffey · 01-09-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplex3

.

Good one

**J Diddy** · 01-09-2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplex3

.

that's some funny shit right there, I don't care who you are

Hammock Parties · 01-09-2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

A dominant offensive line, LJ, and a top 5 defense is a Super Bowl.

Warrior5 · 01-09-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

A dominant offensive line, LJ, and a top 5 defense is a Super Bowl. I'm on the fence with Gonzales as he's such a useful target and would be for Huard and then Croyle in '08. Depends on the OT market, I guess.

If you have those pieces in place, the organization won't have to flash big $ to get quality FAs. They'll want to come play for a team that has the foundation in place for a championship.

Unfortunately, I don't think the Chiefs will be able to build that foundation for at least a year, so patience and a logical plan are in order.

siberian khatru · 01-09-2007, 03:50 PM

All good, but No. 4 is the money graf.

siberian khatru · 01-09-2007, 03:52 PM

BTW, I'm prepared to be mediocre at best next year.

I think this is at least a 2-year project -- and that assumes we get Year 1 (this offseason) right. We have so many holes to fill that I don't think we can get all those players in one offseason.

wutamess · 01-09-2007, 03:54 PM

Great Quality post.
Followed with stats/examples.

Chiefnj · 01-09-2007, 03:57 PM

"We don't need new coaches and new systems and a flashy new FA wide receiver with a big price tag."

I have to strongly disagree with the coaching and systems part of your opinion. The playcalling and lack of adjustments at times this year were putrid. Herm is not a Super Bowl caliber coach.

**Baby Lee** · 01-09-2007, 03:59 PM

Consistently applied and taught approach
Diamonds in the rough
Dominant D
Build the lines first

I have no truck with this analysis.

Man Law!!!

KCJohnny · 01-09-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Consistently applied and taught approach
Diamonds in the rough
Dominant D
Build the lines first

I have no truck with this analysis.

Man Law!!!

Funny, ya got people denouncing this formulae as "Martyball" on other threads. Fact is, Marty had us right there just about every season.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 01-09-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

...that's why Herm needs to be here for a long, long time. At least five years and preferably 10.

And that's why you're a fucking moron

**Baby Lee** · 01-09-2007, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

Funny, ya got people denouncing this formulae as "Martyball" on other threads. Fact is, Marty had us right there just about every season.

Shhh!! People might start calling me a Marty fan.

01-09-2007, 03:14 PM
Chris Meck MVP Join Date: May 2001 Location: midtown KC Casino cash: $1594910	SB champions in the salary cap era... 'been thinking... In the NFL there are some common factors between successful teams and champs that get overlooked a lot by fans that just want to can the coach and get a new QB every year. 1. It seems to me that consistency is a major key to franchises that are successful year in and year out. The Steelers, who have been to 6 SB's and won 5 have had TWO coaches in almost 40 years. They're rarely bad, usually pretty good, and occasionally brilliant. In the nearly 20 year span in which San Fran was dominant or at least very good, they really had 3 head coaches (Walsh, Seifert, and Mariucci)but the same systems in place. They won 4. Consistency. Changing systems requires different talents and different players to run them. It requires time for the entire squad to learn a new system, instead of just a few at a time. Pick a coach, pick your systems, and stick with them. In KC right now, defensively for example, we have the remnants of players chosen for four very different defensive schemes. All those changes have made fielding a strong defense impossible-and now a top flight offense has gotten too old. There's a lesson here. Pick a good coach. Pick a solid system, and stick with them. 2. You have to strike gold in the late rounds of the draft with a pro bowl player or two at a premium position. With the salary cap, you cannot field a BALANCED championship caliber team without finding some diamonds in the rough. Even then, you have a window to get it done before the big contracts start rolling in. Exhibition one: Terrell Davis. 6th round. It was Elway's team, but it was Davis that won 'em two rings. Exhibition two: Tom Brady. 5th round pick. Now he's getting paid, and while they're still good (consistency) they're well short of dominant. Exhibition three: Kurt Warner. scrap heap. Probably could've got it done with Green (who wasn't a big dollar guy at the time) but that's the way it played out. Maybe the ultimate system guy. There are more, but that's enough to make the point. 3. If you must be dominant in one area, defense is the area that can get you a ring. See the 2202-2005 Chiefs, and Manning era Colts. The Ravens won one with NO offense, and Pittsburgh won last year because the defense played well and the conservative offense hid weak points like a rookie QB. Tampa Bay, same difference. As good as Brady is/was, it was New England's defense that put them in those SB's, IMO. Other people must feel the same way, as most of those coaching staffs are now leading other franchises. 4. The way to build successful football teams is from the line out. NO blocking makes any QB and RB combination look like shit. No pass rush, penetration, or control of the line of scrimmage makes any defensive system look like shit. Show me any team with a dominant front four and a good offensive line and I'll show you a perennial play-off team. I chuckle at the draft every year when bad teams draft QB's, RB's, and WR's when they are weak at the line. Why are the Raiders so bad? Because WR was not a problem area, but that's where they've spent their money for years. The Lions? same thing. Hell, we haven't had top flight WR's for years, and we were the number 1 offense in football. Why? Because we had a dominant offensive line. Now Roaf is gone, Shields is done, we're very average on the line and we go 3 and out 7 straight series in a play-off game. It's not even that Green can't get it done anymore (although that may be true) or the receivers suck (which is pretty much true) or that Solari needs to be a better play-caller (also true). It's that for four years, we could do whatever we wanted because our line was good enough to dominate and impose their will. 3 perennial pro-bowlers out of 5. If only one of the DT's we drafted would've worked out... So, how do I think this relates to Kansas City... well, I think we're headed in the right direction defensively. I think we should stick with the cover 2 system and continue to gather the correct personnel to run it. You've got to keep your young ascending players and let the old guys walk. I think we're 3 guys away, personally, two DT's and one OLB. It's possible that we're 2, and that Fox is an answer at LB. Herm's had luck in the past with late round CB's, and I hope that trend continues, because Law and Surtain will need replacing soon. Offensively, we need to free up money and concentrate on the line. We don't need new coaches and new systems and a flashy new FA wide receiver with a big price tag. We don't need Trent Green if he's gonna cost us $8 million a year. Let him walk, re-sign Huard for less than half for a year and let Croyle be your #2. We need to rebuild that offensive line, and we need to do it with draftees and young-ish FA's. OT is a premium position (particularly LT), but G and possible C are not. This can be done. A dominant offensive line, LJ, and a top 5 defense is a Super Bowl. I'm on the fence with Gonzales as he's such a useful target and would be for Huard and then Croyle in '08. Depends on the OT market, I guess. I don't know that I'd draft anything but DT's and Offensive linemen this year. Seriously. Nobody's going to be successful anyway if those positions are not shored up. Those are my thoughts, and I'm sticking to them. Chris
Posts: 17,574

01-09-2007, 03:21 PM	#2
Simplex3 MVP Join Date: Sep 2003 Casino cash: $10004900	. Attached Thumbnails
Posts: 28,527

01-09-2007, 03:26 PM	#3
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4280478	Consistency is the key...that's why Herm needs to be here for a long, long time. At least five years and preferably 10. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 279,172

01-09-2007, 03:50 PM	#8
siberian khatru 21st Century Schizoid Fan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Gates of Delirium Casino cash: $2114950	All good, but No. 4 is the money graf.
Posts: 69,352

01-09-2007, 03:52 PM	#9
siberian khatru 21st Century Schizoid Fan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Gates of Delirium Casino cash: $2114950	BTW, I'm prepared to be mediocre at best next year. I think this is at least a 2-year project -- and that assumes we get Year 1 (this offseason) right. We have so many holes to fill that I don't think we can get all those players in one offseason.
Posts: 69,352

01-09-2007, 03:54 PM	#10
wutamess MVP Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Lee's Summit Casino cash: $5231637	Great Quality post. Followed with stats/examples.
Posts: 8,282

01-09-2007, 03:57 PM	#11
Chiefnj MVP Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Willis, Harris and Davis. Casino cash: $10004900	"We don't need new coaches and new systems and a flashy new FA wide receiver with a big price tag." I have to strongly disagree with the coaching and systems part of your opinion. The playcalling and lack of adjustments at times this year were putrid. Herm is not a Super Bowl caliber coach. __________________ "I always tell (the assistant coaches), 'Make it simple, 'cause I'm stupid,'" Edwards said. "This ain't computer football." Herm Edwards, 3-20-07 Q: Herm, back on December 25th you were asked if Trent Green was your starter going into next season and you said, ‘yeah, why wouldn’t he be?’ Have you changed your mind on that? EDWARDS: No, I have not.” (1-11-07)
Posts: 6,811

01-09-2007, 03:59 PM	#12
Baby Lee Supporter Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $6838598	Consistently applied and taught approach Diamonds in the rough Dominant D Build the lines first I have no truck with this analysis. Man Law!!! __________________ We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics - E.W.
Posts: 95,642