Whitlock: Wanted: More Offense - Page 4

siberian khatru · 05-01-2007, 06:26 AM

http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/89730.html

Wanted: more offense
By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist

In case you forgot, when last we saw our Chiefs, the final score was 23-8, the Chiefs didn’t get a first down until late in the third quarter, Larry Johnson rushed for 32 yards, and the Indianapolis Colts fielded one of the league’s worst defenses.

Carl Peterson, Herm Edwards and Bill Kuharich should have been forced to re-watch KC’s playoff loss in the hours leading up to the draft. Maybe then they would have been reminded of what they needed to do over the weekend.

Kansas City’s offense needs a major injection of youth, talent and energy. Somehow that has all been forgotten this offseason. So after signing two free-agent linebackers, the Chiefs reluctantly settled on a wide receiver in the first round of the draft and then settled on a Turk and a Tank, two defensive linemen, in the second and third rounds.

Am I the only one who remembers Indianapolis? Am I the only one who remembers that Dick Vermeil went overboard trying to build an offense and that Herm promised to build a complete team?

Am I the only person who thinks it is absolute lunacy to hand Larry Johnson any more contract leverage?

Let me be the first to label this offseason a failure. I don’t mind climbing out on limbs. I’ll be the first to apologize if I’m wrong. But from my view, the Chiefs played this thing all wrong.

They did not do near enough to fix their decaying offense. Will Shields retired. Trent Green is on his way out. Larry Johnson wants Peyton Manning money. The Chiefs never replaced Willie Roaf or Tony Richardson. Eddie Kennison is old.

And let’s see, a little more than three months after the most embarrassing offensive performance in the history of the league, the Chiefs take a flier on Sylvester Bowe or Dwayne Morris or SlyBowe.

Hey, I’m not down on Dwayne Bowe, the receiver out of LSU. I was happy about his acquisition. I called it a great pick at the time. But the Chiefs needed to do more on the offensive side of the ball.

They should have taken an offensive tackle in the second round. Who? I don’t know. If there was no tackle worthy of a second-round pick, I’d have taken another receiver. In the third round, they should have selected Louisville running back Michael Bush, a sure-fire top-15 pick had he not broken his leg. The Raiders took Bush with the first pick of the fourth round. He might be the steal of the draft.

Right now, if Larry Johnson holds out in a contract dispute, Brodie Croyle and Damon Huard should sue Peterson, Edwards and Kuharich for negligence.

It is impossible to develop a young quarterback (Croyle) without the proper complementary surrounding talent. It appears Croyle is going to get Schottenheimered, which is quarterback death caused by neglect.

Dick Vermeil put on a five-year clinic on how to develop a quarterback. You pamper quarterbacks. Peterson didn’t pay attention, and Herm spends his free time fantasizing about 9-3 field-goal shootouts.

Did anyone notice that the Colts drafted a receiver in the first round and an offensive tackle in the second? The Colts are constantly giving Manning new toys to play with.

Croyle and Huard got Bowe and upgraded life-insurance policies. Meanwhile, Herm and Gunther Cunningham got a Tank and a Turk to maneuver, and a new kicker.

If Johnson is a no-show, the Chiefs won’t score a touchdown this season. Not an offensive one. Even with Johnson, the KC offense is still highly suspect. Bowe is not a burner. He won’t open up passing lanes for Tony Gonzalez. In fact, Bowe is likely to crowd Gonzalez’s zones. Best-case scenario, Bowe is a T.J. Houshmandzadeh, the Bengals receiver who plays opposite speedster Chad Johnson.

The Chiefs don’t have a Chad Johnson. They don’t have a dominant offensive line, either. They have a top-flight, 31-year-old tight end and a punishing, overworked, hard-to-like running back who wants a $30 million signing bonus. That’s it.

The Chiefs made five key acquisitions this offseason: two linebackers, two defensive tackles and a receiver.

Rewatch the Indy playoff game and ask yourself whether the offseason strategy makes any sense at all.

htismaqe · 05-01-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastorMikH

I agree on the offense. I have been troubled for some time at our lack of concern for the offensive side. Other than Bowe, our best move to improve the O was to let Black go.

We need some O Linemen desparately. Also, if things go like they appear, we will have a career backup and a kid with no NFL game experience as our only QBs. We have 3 Probowl RBs, one with a HUGE ego and contract demands, one that can't stay healthy, and one that won't make up his mind if he wants to play or retire.

Granted, I like what Herm has done with the D, but I fear we are heading in the complete opposite direction that DV took us - all D, no O.

At this point, even with salary cap space that would be freed up with Green gone, who's out there that can be a legit upgrade on the OL? And if I'm over-reacting on our OL, someone explain to me how the OL will be solid the the players we have on the roster now.

Contrary to popular belief, DV didn't concentrate on the offense. 80% of all acquistion under DV was on the defensive side of the ball. He struck gold with Green, Holmes, and Roaf. The rest of his acquisitions were pretty mediocre, or worse.

el borracho · 05-01-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I've come to the conclusion that the "offensive line at all costs" people have their fingers in their ears. I would suggest you don't post this anymore, it's a waste of your time. If they haven't read this and digested it by now, they're not going to. They're not interested in reality.

Well, the reality is we had more needs than picks. No matter what we drafted this team was still going to have holes. In fairness to the mob I guess we could have had one of the top two C prospects instead of McBride. Whatever. We have Niswanger and, anyway, I'm not going to cry about not getting a new C.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned that really could have helped our draft look better would have been a 4th round pick as we could have gotten a decent G prospect there. How much better would our draft have looked if we had gotten Beekman in the 4th?

trndobrd · 05-01-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastorMikH

Fixed your post.

Sheesh...some people just demand everything from a player.

Hammock Parties · 05-01-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trndobrd

Always the glass is half empty.

With Parker? Yes (finally, I defended the guy longer than anyone).

Bowe will get open.

trndobrd · 05-01-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Contrary to popular belief, DV didn't concentrate on the offense. 80% of all acquistion under DV was on the defensive side of the ball. He struck gold with Green, Holmes, and Roaf. The rest of his acquisitions were pretty mediocre, or worse.

The same "just get someone, anyone" attitude DV had on the defense, is what Whitlock is suggesting Herm do on offense.

philfree · 05-01-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Their biggest free agent acquisition was a left tackle. They DID address it, in the best way possible.

How people miss this just makes me shake my head. I guess people think some rookie O linemen would put us over the top in 2007. They have the right to be wrong I guess. I mean I'm sure we could have filled the shoes of Roaf and Shields withh a couple of rooks.

PhilFree

PastorMikH · 05-01-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messier

Oh the line played horribly too. But man you could just see Trent didn't have it, the last four games of the season you could see it.

This is a dead horse by now, but I'll still weigh in with an observation. When Huard threw the ball, the recievers made some spectacular catches. When Green threw the ball, they seemed to drop perfect catches. Don't get me wront, Green threw some bad throws. He may be through and it probably is time to move on, but no QB will be any good if the recievers drop balls that they should catch.

htismaqe · 05-01-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el borracho

Well, the reality is we had more needs than picks. No matter what we drafted this team was still going to have holes. In fairness to the mob I guess we could have had one of the top two C prospects instead of McBride. Whatever. We have Niswanger and, anyway, I'm not going to cry about not getting a new C.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned that really could have helped our draft look better would have been a 4th round pick as we could have gotten a decent G prospect there. How much better would our draft have looked if we had gotten Beekman in the 4th?

McBride is going to start Day 1. Period. He may go back to the bench when Allen comes back, but he's going to contribute immediately.

On the other hand, Casey Wiegmann says he wants to play 3 more years. Why would we draft a slightly undersized center (Kalil) to replace a slightly undersized center that says he's not going anywhere?

trndobrd · 05-01-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

How people miss this just makes me shake my head. I guess people think some rookie O linemen would put us over the top in 2007. They have the right to be wrong I guess. I mean I'm sure we could have filled the shoes of Roaf and Shields withh a couple of rooks.

PhilFree

But...but...but ....we should have drafted someone. The offense needs help. LJ is asking for too much money. We should have drafted a Pro-Bowl Offensive Tackle...or somebody.

siberian khatru · 05-01-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el borracho

Well, the reality is we had more needs than picks. No matter what we drafted this team was still going to have holes. In fairness to the mob I guess we could have had one of the top two C prospects instead of McBride. Whatever. We have Niswanger and, anyway, I'm not going to cry about not getting a new C.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned that really could have helped our draft look better would have been a 4th round pick as we could have gotten a decent G prospect there. How much better would our draft have looked if we had gotten Beekman in the 4th?

Spot on.

PastorMikH · 05-01-2007, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Contrary to popular belief, DV didn't concentrate on the offense. 80% of all acquistion under DV was on the defensive side of the ball. He struck gold with Green, Holmes, and Roaf. The rest of his acquisitions were pretty mediocre, or worse.

True. However, looking at the people he put on the D side of the ball to evaluate talent, he was destined to fail on that side.

What I see that makes me believe DV concentrated on the O is his constant lifting up of the O players (except for LJ), and his involvement with the O while (what appeared to be) putting the D in someone else's hands completely.

siberian khatru · 05-01-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

How people miss this just makes me shake my head. I guess people think some rookie O linemen would put us over the top in 2007. They have the right to be wrong I guess. I mean I'm sure we could have filled the shoes of Roaf and Shields withh a couple of rooks.

PhilFree

They fear that McIntosh is barely an upgrade over Black. They may be right.

But who were we going to get that was going to beat him out this year? Staley? I highly, highly doubt that.

We'll try to get McIntosh's replacement next year.

donkhater · 05-01-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Contrary to popular belief, DV didn't concentrate on the offense. 80% of all acquistion under DV was on the defensive side of the ball. He struck gold with Green, Holmes, and Roaf. The rest of his acquisitions were pretty mediocre, or worse.

I may be wrong on this, but I thought Casey, Waters, Dunn and Kennison all started playing when DV began.

Waters was probably already here, but I believe Dunn, Weigmann and Kennison were all aquisitions during the DV era. I wouldn't call any of them mediocre.

Even Derrick Blaylock was a solid draft choice under DV I believe.

All of his DEFENSIVE acquisitions stunk, save Derrick Johnson and Jared Allen

Fish · 05-01-2007, 08:33 AM

I'm starting to get the feeling that the Chiefs don't think the OL is going to be nearly as bad as some fans think.

huskerdooz · 05-01-2007, 08:35 AM

The one point I agree with JW is it would have been awful nice to grab Michael Bush in the 3rd rnd. Even if he would have to spend his rookie season on IR. He'd be the same kind of insurance for LJ as LJ was for Priest. As someone pointed out we are building for 08 and 09. To have the chance to grab a top 10 talent at RB in the 3rd doesn't come along very often especially when the alternative was to take another DT with suspect work habits.

05-01-2007, 06:26 AM
siberian khatru 21st Century Schizoid Fan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Gates of Delirium Casino cash: $2164950	Whitlock: Wanted: More Offense http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/89730.html Wanted: more offense By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist In case you forgot, when last we saw our Chiefs, the final score was 23-8, the Chiefs didn’t get a first down until late in the third quarter, Larry Johnson rushed for 32 yards, and the Indianapolis Colts fielded one of the league’s worst defenses. Carl Peterson, Herm Edwards and Bill Kuharich should have been forced to re-watch KC’s playoff loss in the hours leading up to the draft. Maybe then they would have been reminded of what they needed to do over the weekend. Kansas City’s offense needs a major injection of youth, talent and energy. Somehow that has all been forgotten this offseason. So after signing two free-agent linebackers, the Chiefs reluctantly settled on a wide receiver in the first round of the draft and then settled on a Turk and a Tank, two defensive linemen, in the second and third rounds. Am I the only one who remembers Indianapolis? Am I the only one who remembers that Dick Vermeil went overboard trying to build an offense and that Herm promised to build a complete team? Am I the only person who thinks it is absolute lunacy to hand Larry Johnson any more contract leverage? Let me be the first to label this offseason a failure. I don’t mind climbing out on limbs. I’ll be the first to apologize if I’m wrong. But from my view, the Chiefs played this thing all wrong. They did not do near enough to fix their decaying offense. Will Shields retired. Trent Green is on his way out. Larry Johnson wants Peyton Manning money. The Chiefs never replaced Willie Roaf or Tony Richardson. Eddie Kennison is old. And let’s see, a little more than three months after the most embarrassing offensive performance in the history of the league, the Chiefs take a flier on Sylvester Bowe or Dwayne Morris or SlyBowe. Hey, I’m not down on Dwayne Bowe, the receiver out of LSU. I was happy about his acquisition. I called it a great pick at the time. But the Chiefs needed to do more on the offensive side of the ball. They should have taken an offensive tackle in the second round. Who? I don’t know. If there was no tackle worthy of a second-round pick, I’d have taken another receiver. In the third round, they should have selected Louisville running back Michael Bush, a sure-fire top-15 pick had he not broken his leg. The Raiders took Bush with the first pick of the fourth round. He might be the steal of the draft. Right now, if Larry Johnson holds out in a contract dispute, Brodie Croyle and Damon Huard should sue Peterson, Edwards and Kuharich for negligence. It is impossible to develop a young quarterback (Croyle) without the proper complementary surrounding talent. It appears Croyle is going to get Schottenheimered, which is quarterback death caused by neglect. Dick Vermeil put on a five-year clinic on how to develop a quarterback. You pamper quarterbacks. Peterson didn’t pay attention, and Herm spends his free time fantasizing about 9-3 field-goal shootouts. Did anyone notice that the Colts drafted a receiver in the first round and an offensive tackle in the second? The Colts are constantly giving Manning new toys to play with. Croyle and Huard got Bowe and upgraded life-insurance policies. Meanwhile, Herm and Gunther Cunningham got a Tank and a Turk to maneuver, and a new kicker. If Johnson is a no-show, the Chiefs won’t score a touchdown this season. Not an offensive one. Even with Johnson, the KC offense is still highly suspect. Bowe is not a burner. He won’t open up passing lanes for Tony Gonzalez. In fact, Bowe is likely to crowd Gonzalez’s zones. Best-case scenario, Bowe is a T.J. Houshmandzadeh, the Bengals receiver who plays opposite speedster Chad Johnson. The Chiefs don’t have a Chad Johnson. They don’t have a dominant offensive line, either. They have a top-flight, 31-year-old tight end and a punishing, overworked, hard-to-like running back who wants a $30 million signing bonus. That’s it. The Chiefs made five key acquisitions this offseason: two linebackers, two defensive tackles and a receiver. Rewatch the Indy playoff game and ask yourself whether the offseason strategy makes any sense at all.
Posts: 69,329

05-01-2007, 08:33 AM	#59
Fish Ain't no relax! Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $1898919	I'm starting to get the feeling that the Chiefs don't think the OL is going to be nearly as bad as some fans think. __________________
Posts: 47,697

05-01-2007, 08:35 AM	#60
huskerdooz Starter Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Can't get there from here Casino cash: $9919885	The one point I agree with JW is it would have been awful nice to grab Michael Bush in the 3rd rnd. Even if he would have to spend his rookie season on IR. He'd be the same kind of insurance for LJ as LJ was for Priest. As someone pointed out we are building for 08 and 09. To have the chance to grab a top 10 talent at RB in the 3rd doesn't come along very often especially when the alternative was to take another DT with suspect work habits.
Posts: 640