Chiefs sign LB Damien Wilson

[pugsnotdrugs19]

Chiefs intend to sign former Cowboys’ SLB Damien Wilson, per source.

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) March 12, 2019

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BossChief

Cut Ragland and sign Zach Brown.

It looks like they might have room for both.

As I see it here, the defense looks like they're trying to get MORE heavy into sub-packages.

People are freaking out over the 'starting LB corps' of Wilson, Ragland and Hitchens...and maybe that's fair, but I gotta believe that unit's gonna be on the field maybe 10-15% of the time and in fairly obvious run situations only. Or maybe a little more play against teams that seem hell-bent on controlling the clock against us.

Because Ragland and Wilson should be pretty credible run defenders in a 4-3. And if you got someone like Brown, you could have an 'intermediate' package that puts Brown in there instead of Ragland while trying to keep Ragland fresher to keep pounding downhill.

Meanwhile in Nickel situations you can use DoD and Hitchens, or if you added Brown you could mix those 3 guys around depending on offensive personnel.

I'm not sure there's any sense in worrying ourselves about the starting LB corps at the moment because it probably just doesn't matter that much. Now with more teams going to the hurry-up, we could get stuck in some unfavorable packages and that's why I'd like to see Brown brought in on a short-term deal as a happy medium that shouldn't get terribly exposed regardless of what's being run.

But I don't think that Brown means you have to get rid of Ragland. And I don't think that Ragland is completely without value if you are trying to have a situational 'heavy' package.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

It looks like they might have room for both.

As I see it here, the defense looks like they're trying to get MORE heavy into sub-packages.

People are freaking out over the 'starting LB corps' of Wilson, Ragland and Hitchens...and maybe that's fair, but I gotta believe that unit's gonna be on the field maybe 10-15% of the time and in fairly obvious run situations only. Or maybe a little more play against teams that seem hell-bent on controlling the clock against us.

Because Ragland and Wilson should be pretty credible run defenders in a 3-4. And if you got someone like Brown, you could have an 'intermediate' package that puts Brown in there instead of Ragland while trying to keep Ragland fresher to keep pounding downhill.

Meanwhile in Nickel situations you can use DoD and Hitchens, or if you added Brown you could mix those 3 guys around depending on offensive personnel.

I'm not sure there's any sense in worrying ourselves about the starting LB corps at the moment because it probably just doesn't matter that much. Now with more teams going to the hurry-up, we could get stuck in some unfavorable packages and that's why I'd like to see Brown brought in on a short-term deal as a happy medium that shouldn't get terribly exposed regardless of what's being run.

But I don't think that Brown means you have to get rid of Ragland. And I don't think that Ragland is completely without value if you are trying to have a situational 'heavy' package.

[Mecca]

If you look at Wilsons contract numbers, that is a 1 year prove it type contract.

[Oxford]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

It looks like they might have room for both.

As I see it here, the defense looks like they're trying to get MORE heavy into sub-packages.

People are freaking out over the 'starting LB corps' of Wilson, Ragland and Hitchens...and maybe that's fair, but I gotta believe that unit's gonna be on the field maybe 10-15% of the time and in fairly obvious run situations only. Or maybe a little more play against teams that seem hell-bent on controlling the clock against us.

Because Ragland and Wilson should be pretty credible run defenders in a 4-3. And if you got someone like Brown, you could have an 'intermediate' package that puts Brown in there instead of Ragland while trying to keep Ragland fresher to keep pounding downhill.

Meanwhile in Nickel situations you can use DoD and Hitchens, or if you added Brown you could mix those 3 guys around depending on offensive personnel.

I'm not sure there's any sense in worrying ourselves about the starting LB corps at the moment because it probably just doesn't matter that much. Now with more teams going to the hurry-up, we could get stuck in some unfavorable packages and that's why I'd like to see Brown brought in on a short-term deal as a happy medium that shouldn't get terribly exposed regardless of what's being run.

But I don't think that Brown means you have to get rid of Ragland. And I don't think that Ragland is completely without value if you are trying to have a situational 'heavy' package.

One constant in all of the "packages" is the DLine and Safeties in that order. This makes me think the first pick for the Chiefs will be a DE, with safety/corner in round 2.

Also, you ever notice how the Chiefs are watching for players out of the league (injuries usually) for a year or so that have fallen off the radar? I wonder how many possible signees or players they like are on their "list"?

[Bronco_buster2]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

It looks like they might have room for both.

As I see it here, the defense looks like they're trying to get MORE heavy into sub-packages.

People are freaking out over the 'starting LB corps' of Wilson, Ragland and Hitchens...and maybe that's fair, but I gotta believe that unit's gonna be on the field maybe 10-15% of the time and in fairly obvious run situations only. Or maybe a little more play against teams that seem hell-bent on controlling the clock against us.

Because Ragland and Wilson should be pretty credible run defenders in a 4-3. And if you got someone like Brown, you could have an 'intermediate' package that puts Brown in there instead of Ragland while trying to keep Ragland fresher to keep pounding downhill.

Meanwhile in Nickel situations you can use DoD and Hitchens, or if you added Brown you could mix those 3 guys around depending on offensive personnel.

I'm not sure there's any sense in worrying ourselves about the starting LB corps at the moment because it probably just doesn't matter that much. Now with more teams going to the hurry-up, we could get stuck in some unfavorable packages and that's why I'd like to see Brown brought in on a short-term deal as a happy medium that shouldn't get terribly exposed regardless of what's being run.

But I don't think that Brown means you have to get rid of Ragland. And I don't think that Ragland is completely without value if you are trying to have a situational 'heavy' package.

I keep thinking about what is the best philosophy for a team to best KC. What would you do to beat KC? The Patriot's probably executed the plan perfectly in the first half, granted KC missed a few opportunities offensively, but for the most part, New England kept our offense off the field and put together long drives.

I would think most teams, if they have the resources, will want to run the ball, slow the game down, and keep the Chief's offense on the sidelines. We have to stop the run. But we have to also capitalize on 3rd and longs as well.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Bronco_buster2

I keep thinking about what is the best philosophy for a team to best KC. What would you do to beat KC? The Patriot's probably executed the plan perfectly in the first half, granted KC missed a few opportunities offensively, but for the most part, New England kept our offense off the field and put together long drives.

I would think most teams, if they have the resources, will want to run the ball, slow the game down, and keep the Chief's offense on the sidelines. We have to stop the run. But we have to also capitalize on 3rd and longs as well.

Score early.

It's the only viable strategy I can see. If you can do that via running the ball and milking the clock, so be it. But you can't just take 5 minutes off the clock trying to take the air out of the ball and then punt. If the Chiefs get up 10 on you, you're in a lot of trouble.

Well, I mean unless Orlando Scandrick just decides to not switch onto his man and !@#$ing Mike Williams is allowed to hurl defenders to the ground while making catches. Then I guess you can come back against us...

But yeah, score early by hook or by crook. I don't think it matters if you do it in the air or on the ground. Then keep plays in front of you defensively and force the Chiefs to execute for 8-9 plays rather than simply cut your throat with a big one.

Essentially I'd do to the Chiefs what the Chiefs tried to do to everyone else.