Evaluating Coordinators...

[Luzap]

With all the energy being invested in the Gunther good/bad debate, I thought it might be interesting to throw some info/opinions on the table that I'm not seeing expressed...

Injuries and Schedule
The two most important criteria in determining success in the NFL are injuries and strength of schedule. This is my opinion, but it is shared by many respected names in the game. There are aberations, when you get an offensive or defensive squad that is so dominating it rises above any level of competition or can overcome some injuries.

The problem is that to get a squad that dominating, you have to sell out to that side of the ball ~ and there are penalties. The Chiefs offense is a good example of this. Our money has been tied up on the O. The results are arguably the best offense in the NFL. The penalty is a defense that has suffered dramatically. Until 2005, we had not had a significant infusion of talent (read: money) in a large number of years.

Our Defense Hasn't Improved?
Let's look at this in light of Injuries and Schedule.
I think everyone would agree that in 2003 we had very limited talent on the defensive side of the ball. Most would agree that GRob's scheme was outdated. Yet we still went 13-3. The fact that we had a creampuff schedule that year cannot be ignored. Injuries were not much of a factor.

In 2004 we had a much harder schedule, a new DC and defensive scheme to learn, and the same players. We went 7-9. Injuries were not much of a factor on D. WRs were dropping to injuries like flies, but the O was able to overcome it.

In 2005 we had a killer schedule ~ the worst I've seen in years. We finally spent some money and brought in some D talent, but they were all playing in a new scheme. For the first time since 2002, injuries really hurt us. Roaf's missing games handicapped the O immensly. Keyeron Fox/Griffin going down prevented us from swithing in and out of the 3-4 scheme that Gun was starting to use so effectively, and Sims (in what was effectively a contract year and having the best offseason, preseason, and season start to his career) went down in the first game. Yet we still improved our record to 10-6.

IMHO, Gun has done what a DC is supposed to do. He got the most out of what he had, and improved the defense even in the face of huge adversity: injuries and schedule.

There will always be the type of fan that is more invested in defending their own opinion than in exploring the truth/ reality of a situation. I am not here to argue with them. I am writing this for the consideration of those that aren't really sure what to make of Edwards retaining Gun. IMO, it is a no brainer. I am sure that Edwards has defensive minds that he is close to and would love to have here, but you don't roll the dice when you already have a DC that is accomplishing everything you can expect in a tough situation. In other words, Gun has the defense going in the right direction and it would be silly not to see how far he can take it.

Luz
injuries and schedule...

[Hoover]

Thats why I think Indy and the Bengals D is way overrated, they each had a Cream Puff Schedule.

[Johnson&Johnson]

Originally Posted by Hoover

Thats why I think Indy and the Bengals D is way overrated, they each had a Cream Puff Schedule.

Cream Puff? I think you meant Seattle. Which I predict will loose this weekend to the Skins. All you gamblers out there, take the 9pts Skins are getting. If you have balls, then go with my prediction and just take the moneyline which is gonna be around +290.

Just an idea of what cream puff schedule looks like:

Seattle beat:
Arizona 5-11 (twice)
Houston 2-14
Green Bay 4-12
San Francisco 4-12 (twice)
St. Louis 6-10 (twice)
Tennessee 4-12
Philadelphia (after McNabb went down w/out Owens)
Indy (when Indy have already clinched playoff homefield advantage)

Right there are Seattle's 11 wins against "team with crappy records".

[harpes]

Bengals were a fluke. We add 2 DT's and were playoff bound.

[Chiefnj]

Teams that make the playoffs because of a "weak" schedule usually get kicked to the curb in the first round - see Jax.

You have to beat the teams you play. The Chiefs are simply a bad road team. Buffalo was an "easy" game, yet they lost. Eli Manning was very erratic all year. Everyone knew the Giants would have to run the ball to win, yet the Chiefs still couldn't come close to stopping the run in that game.

I also disagree that the Chiefs suffered big adverse consequences because of injuries on defense. Were they really relying on underachieving Sims and an undrafted LB? Just because someone like Fox looked good running around in minicamp in May doesn't mean he was going to be a quality starter. If Allen and Surtain went down, I'd agree but not underachievers and backups.

[Luzap]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

Teams that make the playoffs because of a "weak" schedule usually get kicked to the curb in the first round - see Jax.

You have to beat the teams you play. The Chiefs are simply a bad road team. Buffalo was an "easy" game, yet they lost. Eli Manning was very erratic all year. Everyone knew the Giants would have to run the ball to win, yet the Chiefs still couldn't come close to stopping the run in that game.

I also disagree that the Chiefs suffered big adverse consequences because of injuries on defense. Were they really relying on underachieving Sims and an undrafted LB? Just because someone like Fox looked good running around in minicamp in May doesn't mean he was going to be a quality starter. If Allen and Surtain went down, I'd agree but not underachievers and backups.

I agree with the above highlighted statement.

My point is that even with the schedule, more injuries than previous years, less dominating offense, etc. the record still improved.

I am not trying to make the case that Gun is a Hall of Fame DC, just that he's been doing a good enough job (improving the squad) that it makes sense not to replace him so we can see how far he can take the D.

I also don't think we give coaches in general, and Gun in particular, enough credit for being versatile. He stated he learned a lot under Jeff Fisher, and I'll bet Herm will have a good influence on him also.

Luz
very interested in knowing which assistants we'll bring in...

[philfree]

Originally Posted by Luzap

I agree with the above highlighted statement.

My point is that even with the schedule, more injuries than previous years, less dominating offense, etc. the record still improved.

I am not trying to make the case that Gun is a Hall of Fame DC, just that he's been doing a good enough job (improving the squad) that it makes sense not to replace him so we can see how far he can take the D.
I also don't think we give coaches in general, and Gun in particular, enough credit for being versatile. He stated he learned a lot under Jeff Fisher, and I'll bet Herm will have a good influence on him also.

Luz
very interested in knowing which assistants we'll bring in...

Just a few notes to add. Our D did improve by a whopping 7 points per game and we also played alot of the season with only one of our two starting CBs in the game due to suspension and injury.

I agree with the bold print 100%

PhilFree

[jiveturkey]

Originally Posted by philfree

Just a few notes to add. Our D did improve by a whopping 7 points per game and we also played alot of the season with only one of our two starting CBs in the game due to suspension and injury.

I agree with the bold print 100%

PhilFree

And one starting DT for 90% of the season.

[el borracho]

A few thoughts:
*I would be interested to see how many tackles for loss or no gain the Chiefs had in 2005 versus previous years. It seemed like many more.

*How can anyone point to the 2005 Giants game and blame Gunther's scheme? There were multiple defenders in position who failed to tackle the ball carrier. It was failure to execute that cost us not failure to scheme.

[Mr. Laz]

strength of schedule is sure the biggest excuse anyway.

[Hoover]

So maybe we should let Woods, Wesley, Bell, McCleon, Simms, and Hicks finish what they started too