Worrisome Things... - Page 4

Gaz · 09-13-2005, 06:26 AM

Okay, the euphoric afterglow has subsided somewhat, so it is time to look at the Bad Stuff.

I have read some posts bemoaning the yardage we gave up to the Jets. Feh. Yardage means nothing. Just another playtoy for stat monkeys who have no idea what a standard deviation is or what it means. Fugeddaboutdit.

Offense disappeared in the 2nd half. So what? We were up by 17 and went conservative. Personally, I think that was a mistake. You should always firewall the throttle. However, the O did not disappear; Vermeil and Saunders put on the brakes. Well, maybe they just took their foot of the pedal and coasted. Again, not a concern.

Injuries. Ah, there’s the rub. It was a very costly victory. Four starters out. Yow.

In order of importance:

1. Surtain-
You do not mess with concussions, but I sure hope he is up for playing this weekend. I do not believe anyone is going to shut down the Raiders passing game by CBs smothering the WRs. However, the idea of McCleon, Sapp & Washington as the starting CB package makes my dangly bits shrivel up.

2. Sims-
I feel for this guy. First, the elbow injury. And then just when he seemed to be giving the game we thought we had drafted, another injury. Come to think of it, I feel for the fans more than for him. Stinking holdout bastage! The lack of pressure in the interior is going to hurt us. A lot. Hopefully, the Chiefs are looking for a widebody they can sign for the interim. We are woefully thin at DT already.

3. Roaf-
No one is going to replace Roaf, but at least we have some depth with which we can plug the Roaf-sized hole. The toss sweep play needs to be put aside for this week. It is simply not going to be as effective without Big Willie in there. Musical Linemen, anyone?

4. Richardson-
I love the way Richardson plays the game. I love seeing him pancake those Linebackers. But his loss is not as impactful [is that a word?] as the rest. Cruz is no Richardson. But he will have to do. The loss of Richardson indicates more Johnson and less Holmes to me. What do you think?

xoxo~
Gaz
Putting aside the rose-colored glasses.

RedThat · 09-13-2005, 08:54 AM

If the Raiders game planning is going to evolve around chucking the ball up in the air several times a game, if Im the Chiefs, Im going to seriously consider playing a lot of prevent defense. This game should involve plenty of DB play.

Mecca · 09-13-2005, 08:56 AM

Well the problem with that prevent idea is well. You don't exactly know when they are going to chuck it up. I don't want to be giving up easy 15 yard chunks as they go right down the field cause we're scared of them bombing it out to Moss.

htismaqe · 09-13-2005, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Well the problem with that prevent idea is well. You don't exactly know when they are going to chuck it up. I don't want to be giving up easy 15 yard chunks as they go right down the field cause we're scared of them bombing it out to Moss.

Moss is going to get his, you can't really stop him.

Concentrate on stopping Jordan, Porter, etc.

Going prevent would be super-dumb IMO...

RedThat · 09-13-2005, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Moss is going to get his, you can't really stop him.

Concentrate on stopping Jordan, Porter, etc.

Going prevent would be super-dumb IMO...

What if we were up 21-0? Let's say mid-way through the 3rd quarter? It all depends on the situation, I dont think it would be wise to play it the whole game though. Im scared of Lamont Jordan, he can run. And, if we go prevent all the time, I'll place my bets, and wouldnt doubt that the Raiders will be running draw plays up the middle.

Mecca · 09-13-2005, 09:08 AM

Jordan looked gassed and unimpressive in the Pats game. I'm not exactly sure he's use to being the feature back after being a backup for 4 years.

We just played a very good game against a good running team and the leading rusher from last year. Jordan needs to be stopped with our front 7 this week.

RedThat · 09-13-2005, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Jordan looked gassed and unimpressive in the Pats game. I'm not exactly sure he's use to being the feature back after being a backup for 4 years.

We just played a very good game against a good running team and the leading rusher from last year. Jordan needs to be stopped with our front 7 this week.

We'll see what happens this week when he plays against the Chiefs. I agree we played a very good game against a good running team. Chiefs defense usually plays well at home, and against the run. It'll be interesting to see how this defense plays on the road, thats where our problems are, always on the road.
We sucked year after year playing defense on the road, Im hoping to see a change this week.

ROYC75 · 09-13-2005, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaz

I have read some posts bemoaning the yardage we gave up to the Jets. Feh. Yardage means nothing. Just another playtoy for stat monkeys who have no idea what a standard deviation is or what it means. Fugeddaboutdit.

That's fine and dandy as long as the Defense comes up with a BIG play or the opponet fumbles in the RED ZONE , as was the case on Sunday.
But it won't always be this way.

But lets's keep in mind that with Sims ,Surtain out for a half and Warfield the entire game, we did well.

The question on the Raiders will be wether Collins can P/U the blitz quick enough to beat us.

IMHO, ( barring more injuries ) this defense will only get better as the season goes on.

Big Slick · 09-13-2005, 11:10 AM

How about some non-injury related concerns?

Going in to the game, my biggest concerns by unit were:

Offense - Would it be clicking? No longer a concern.

Defense - Pass D. I know yardage isn't what matters, points are. But pass D is still very much a concern. Pressuring the QB and overall coverage concerns are still there, injuries or not.

Special Teams - PK performance and coverage units. Both were disappointing, stilll a concern.

All that being said, still very optimistic overall, soon to be 2-0!

Gaz · 09-13-2005, 11:18 AM

“Pressuring the QB?”

Good heavens, man, what more do you want? We bashed Pennington brutally. I am the original CRUSH the QB homer and I was pleased with Sunday’s performance.

Yes, ST coverage is still a concern.

xoxo~
Gaz
Afraid any more pressure might have burst Chad like a water balloon.

Big Slick · 09-13-2005, 11:24 AM

Pressure wasn't bad, for sure. But there were plenty of times he had all day back there. And a few of the pressures were due to his inability to take a snap without dropping it...

Saw some good in there, but like you said in an earlier thread (I think it was you!), it's going to take a larger sample size than 1 to allieviate my primary concern - pass rush.

Gaz · 09-13-2005, 11:45 AM

One good outing is not sufficient to change your long-term concerns. Fair enough.

However, I maintain that the QB pressure Sunday was more than adequate. Pennington was clearly rattled. Perhaps I give too much credit to our Defense, but I blame them for ruining Chad’s day.

xoxo~
Gaz
Would be truly satisfied to see that level of Red & Gold presence in the Enemy backfield this season.

Logical · 09-13-2005, 12:18 PM

For the Raiders game I would consider the following

If Surtain is out I would actually go with 3 safeties and Sapp as our defensive backfield. Knight, Wesley, Bartee and Sapp using Woods as a nickel back.

Sims, they really as everyone else has pointed out need to bring in another middle clogging d-lineman or maybe use one of those extra widebodies from the o-line as a DT (being creative wasn't one of them a DT in college?)

Roaf, we just suffer, but I do think that if Sampson comes back we get by better with him and Black than with Black and Bober.

TRich, more one back sets period, more runs with LJ and more swing passes with Priest (even though he has a preference now against being in the passing game).

htismaqe · 09-13-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav

For the Raiders game I would consider the following

If Surtain is out I would actually go with 3 safeties and Sapp as our defensive backfield. Knight, Wesley, Bartee and Sapp using Woods as a nickel back.

Sims, they really as everyone else has pointed out need to bring in another middle clogging d-lineman or maybe use one of those extra widebodies from the o-line as a DT (being creative wasn't one of them a DT in college?)

Roaf, we just suffer, but I do think that if Sampson comes back we get by better with him and Black than with Black and Bober.

TRich, more one back sets period, more runs with LJ and more swing passes with Priest (even though he has a preference now against being in the passing game).

All of those scenarios are not only plausible, but we've done them before to varying degrees.

All of them save your Sims scenario. I really hope we can get Sims back or somehow manage to sign someone...

Hammock Parties · 09-13-2005, 12:41 PM

WTF?

Why would you throw Bartee and freaking WOODS out there at corner?

Logical · 09-13-2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

WTF?

Why would you throw Bartee and freaking WOODS out there at corner?

I am talking about playing only 1 CB and 3 safeties Bartee would be out there as a Safety. When we go to the nickel Woods would play it, Woods did a good job of playing nickel last year early on when Gun tried some different things out.

09-13-2005, 06:26 AM
Gaz Defense Homer Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Rancho Gaz Casino cash: $10010793	Worrisome Things... Okay, the euphoric afterglow has subsided somewhat, so it is time to look at the Bad Stuff. I have read some posts bemoaning the yardage we gave up to the Jets. Feh. Yardage means nothing. Just another playtoy for stat monkeys who have no idea what a standard deviation is or what it means. Fugeddaboutdit. Offense disappeared in the 2nd half. So what? We were up by 17 and went conservative. Personally, I think that was a mistake. You should always firewall the throttle. However, the O did not disappear; Vermeil and Saunders put on the brakes. Well, maybe they just took their foot of the pedal and coasted. Again, not a concern. Injuries. Ah, there’s the rub. It was a very costly victory. Four starters out. Yow. In order of importance: 1. Surtain- You do not mess with concussions, but I sure hope he is up for playing this weekend. I do not believe anyone is going to shut down the Raiders passing game by CBs smothering the WRs. However, the idea of McCleon, Sapp & Washington as the starting CB package makes my dangly bits shrivel up. 2. Sims- I feel for this guy. First, the elbow injury. And then just when he seemed to be giving the game we thought we had drafted, another injury. Come to think of it, I feel for the fans more than for him. Stinking holdout bastage! The lack of pressure in the interior is going to hurt us. A lot. Hopefully, the Chiefs are looking for a widebody they can sign for the interim. We are woefully thin at DT already. 3. Roaf- No one is going to replace Roaf, but at least we have some depth with which we can plug the Roaf-sized hole. The toss sweep play needs to be put aside for this week. It is simply not going to be as effective without Big Willie in there. Musical Linemen, anyone? 4. Richardson- I love the way Richardson plays the game. I love seeing him pancake those Linebackers. But his loss is not as impactful [is that a word?] as the rest. Cruz is no Richardson. But he will have to do. The loss of Richardson indicates more Johnson and less Holmes to me. What do you think? xoxo~ Gaz Putting aside the rose-colored glasses.
Posts: 5,911

09-13-2005, 08:54 AM	#46
RedThat Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Earth Casino cash: $10004900	If the Raiders game planning is going to evolve around chucking the ball up in the air several times a game, if Im the Chiefs, Im going to seriously consider playing a lot of prevent defense. This game should involve plenty of DB play.
Posts: 6,666

09-13-2005, 08:56 AM	#47
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-662950	Well the problem with that prevent idea is well. You don't exactly know when they are going to chuck it up. I don't want to be giving up easy 15 yard chunks as they go right down the field cause we're scared of them bombing it out to Moss.
Posts: 115,346

09-13-2005, 09:08 AM	#50
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-662950	Jordan looked gassed and unimpressive in the Pats game. I'm not exactly sure he's use to being the feature back after being a backup for 4 years. We just played a very good game against a good running team and the leading rusher from last year. Jordan needs to be stopped with our front 7 this week.
Posts: 115,346

09-13-2005, 11:10 AM	#53
Big Slick Starter Join Date: Apr 2005 Casino cash: $10004925	How about some non-injury related concerns? Going in to the game, my biggest concerns by unit were: Offense - Would it be clicking? No longer a concern. Defense - Pass D. I know yardage isn't what matters, points are. But pass D is still very much a concern. Pressuring the QB and overall coverage concerns are still there, injuries or not. Special Teams - PK performance and coverage units. Both were disappointing, stilll a concern. All that being said, still very optimistic overall, soon to be 2-0!
Posts: 88

09-13-2005, 11:18 AM	#54
Gaz Defense Homer Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Rancho Gaz Casino cash: $10010793	??? “Pressuring the QB?” Good heavens, man, what more do you want? We bashed Pennington brutally. I am the original CRUSH the QB homer and I was pleased with Sunday’s performance. Yes, ST coverage is still a concern. xoxo~ Gaz Afraid any more pressure might have burst Chad like a water balloon.
Posts: 5,911

09-13-2005, 11:24 AM	#55
Big Slick Starter Join Date: Apr 2005 Casino cash: $10004925	Pressure wasn't bad, for sure. But there were plenty of times he had all day back there. And a few of the pressures were due to his inability to take a snap without dropping it... Saw some good in there, but like you said in an earlier thread (I think it was you!), it's going to take a larger sample size than 1 to allieviate my primary concern - pass rush.
Posts: 88

09-13-2005, 11:45 AM	#56
Gaz Defense Homer Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Rancho Gaz Casino cash: $10010793	Reasonable... One good outing is not sufficient to change your long-term concerns. Fair enough. However, I maintain that the QB pressure Sunday was more than adequate. Pennington was clearly rattled. Perhaps I give too much credit to our Defense, but I blame them for ruining Chad’s day. xoxo~ Gaz Would be truly satisfied to see that level of Red & Gold presence in the Enemy backfield this season.
Posts: 5,911

09-13-2005, 12:18 PM	#57
Logical Screw U if U can't take a joke Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	For the Raiders game I would consider the following If Surtain is out I would actually go with 3 safeties and Sapp as our defensive backfield. Knight, Wesley, Bartee and Sapp using Woods as a nickel back. Sims, they really as everyone else has pointed out need to bring in another middle clogging d-lineman or maybe use one of those extra widebodies from the o-line as a DT (being creative wasn't one of them a DT in college?) Roaf, we just suffer, but I do think that if Sampson comes back we get by better with him and Black than with Black and Bober. TRich, more one back sets period, more runs with LJ and more swing passes with Priest (even though he has a preference now against being in the passing game).
Posts: 31,579

09-13-2005, 12:41 PM	#59
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $850478	WTF? Why would you throw Bartee and freaking WOODS out there at corner? __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 297,290