The Chiefs Defense: An Absolutely Terrifying Set of Statistics

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by Basileus777

It's a combination of bad drafting/scouting and bad coaches who can't develop talent.

It's ****ing pathetic.

,but Carl has a USFL championship ring.

[Brock]

Vermeil was awesome.

[Chief Faithful]

The whole conclusion is based on false logic. In order for the conclusion to work it requires all 8 years to be bad drafting, but only the first 4 (2001 - 2004) were really bad. This would point to DV being the one to blame. In reality the whole scouting organization top to bottom was sick during the DV years, which is why Carl is to blame.

Results from years 2006 - 2008 show evidence that the problem has been corrected. So who was the positive influence for the corrective change? We all know Herm was picked because he was the type of change Carl wanted, a coach that would play the youth. The corrective change has resulted in improvement in scouting and drafting. Proof positive are the second day picks in 2008 with players like Carr.

We all want to blame Carl and DV for the bad years and rightly so, but I also applaud Carl for the changes made resulting in what appears to be a rebuilding effort moving in the right direction.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful

We all want to blame Carl and DV for the bad years and rightly so, but I also applaud Carl for the changes made resulting in what appears to be a rebuilding effort moving in the right direction.

Not quite so fast there ace.

Just because they are starting on a team thats lost 17 out of their last 18 games doesn't nessesarily make them good picks or decent NFL players.

[Chief Faithful]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Not quite so fast there ace.

Just because they are starting on a team thats lost 17 out of their last 18 games doesn't nessesarily make them good picks or decent NFL players.

You are right that history will tell the full story, but even if we apply your arguement that starting does not absolutely mean a good pick then more time is needed to determine the value of the pick. Thus, the result is the conclusion is premature.

If we consider starting typically, not always, means a good pick while the record is not as consistent a measure. For example, DV didn't start many bad picks while producing a good record during the same period that the Titans started many good picks while producing a bad record. Then the current evidence points to an incorrect conclusion not just premature.

If you add my opinion of what I've seen from the rookies on the field then I say the conclusion is way off built on bad logic.

[StcChief]

so we have been trying to improve since Marty left.... tell me something new...