Whitlock: Wanted: More Offense

[FloridaMan88]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Welbourne will be a better RG than Shields, who was a shell of his former self.

That is a joke right?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KCChiefsfan88

That is a joke right?

Will Shields was a 34 year old guard who gave up six sacks and battled chronic back problems.

It's not a decline.

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by KCChiefsfan88

Whitlock is repeating what I have been harping on all offseason that the Chiefs have done virtually nothing to upgrade the primary reason for the team's downfall in the playoffs which is their offense and if anything the offense is now WORSE than the offense that took the field in that playoffs game vs the Colts.

What? You have to score points to win? Well that sure worked well under DV didnt it?

Herm know the secret to winning.. You run the ball, control the clock, punt, play defense and try not to outscore your opponents on the road...

DV and scoring points.. PFFF! Whatever.... Bring on run, run, incomplete, punt and lets play defense!

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by KCChiefsfan88

if anything the offense is now WORSE than the offense that took the field in that playoffs game vs the Colts.

[keg in kc]

When you have 7 picks (and really, only the first 3-4 rounds count, in my book, and we didn't have a 4th), and absolutely no control over what other teams take, you can only do so much. Like it or not.

And I can guarantee you this: if we'd taken Staley or another OT, we'd be seeing the same article, but it would be about how we'd reached for a tackle and neglected necessary defensive picks.

In the end, this all boils down to what Vermeil did from '01 to '05. It's going to take 3-4 years to recover from that, because there is not a core of young talent on the roster. We have very few homegrown players.

[Chiefnj]

Bad first round draft picks set teams back 3-4 years.

To make up for Sims and Siavii Herm has had to bring in 5 guys - Reed, Edwards, Boone, McBride, and Tyler.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj

To make up for Sims and Siavii

You forgot about Freeman, he was also a 2nd rounder.

And Eric Downing. He was technically a 3rd, but he was our first pick that year.

[keg in kc]

Frankly, the team may have overachieved to hit 9-7 last year, with the injuries on the offensive line.

I liked Vermeil when he was here, and still like him, but damn if he didn't leave this team in even worse shape than he found it. And that's saying something when you look at the drafts from before he got here.

We've probably lost a decade of Chiefs football to bad drafts, essentially from one head coach, although the decline started in the mid-90's.

Think about that.

A whole decade.

[Chiefnj]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Frankly, the team may have overachieved to hit 9-7 last year, with the injuries on the offensive line.

I liked Vermeil when he was here, and still like him, but damn if he didn't leave this team in even worse shape than he found it. And that's saying something when you look at the drafts from before he got here.

We've probably lost a decade of Chiefs football to bad drafts, essentially from one head coach, although the decline started in the mid-90's.

Think about that.

A whole decade.

I think 1996 was the last excellent draft in KC. 1997 they got Tony g, but that was about it. Since then it has been poor to average. Plus, when you have a lot coaching changes you get more turnover and it is difficult to tell if players would have developed or not.

[chiefsfan1963]

No questions all you guys have good points against DV tenure here, but I believe CP should get more of the criticism and the responsibility during those 5 years. I truly believe this franchise will truly be better off with new blood in the Front Office. The right GM could have enhanced DV strength's by not letting his weaknesseses get in the way of him bringing a Championship or 2 to KC. A better GM and his staff would have done better in the drafting the right players and forecasting our needs due to aging players. If I was a GM the past 5 years for KC I would have done what ever I could do to maintain the finest OL in the league. Each of my line man would be evaluated in terms probability of retiring or being injured, and I would have been constantly filling the well with top draft prospects and free agency moves. Some one like Roaf and Shields could have easily retired 3 years ago given their age. I would be paranoid after I had lineman more than 6 years that possiblity of retirement could happen at any time no matter what they say.

I'm sorry but the GM and his Front Office bare most of the responsibility here not DV. DV brought us the finest O this franchise has ever seen, and all we needed was a Top 20 D and we would have at least 1 SB during his tenure. We would have been better off with a GM who has a sense urgency and something to prove rather than a GM who has been here for 20 years and is an OLD DOG and doesn't want to learn new tricks or shake the boat.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefsfan1963

No questions all you guys have good points against DV tenure here, but I believe CP should get more of the criticism and the responsibility during those 5 years. I truly believe this franchise will truly be better off with new blood in the Front Office. The right GM could have enhanced DV strength's by not letting his weaknesseses get in the way of him bringing a Championship or 2 to KC. A better GM and his staff would have done better in the drafting the right players and forecasting our needs due to aging players. If I was a GM the past 5 years for KC I would have done what ever I could do to maintain the finest OL in the league. Each of my line man would be evaluated in terms probability of retiring or being injured, and I would have been constantly filling the well with top draft prospects and free agency moves. Some one like Roaf and Shields could have easily retired 3 years ago given their age. I would be paranoid after I had lineman more than 6 years that possiblity of retirement could happen at any time no matter what they say.

I'm sorry but the GM and his Front Office bare most of the responsibility here not DV. DV brought us the finest O this franchise has ever seen, and all we needed was a Top 20 D and we would have at least 1 SB during his tenure. We would have been better off with a GM who has a sense urgency and something to prove rather than a GM who has been here for 20 years and is an OLD DOG and doesn't want to learn new tricks or shake the boat.

Blah, blah, blah.

Vermeil gets 100% of the credit for the offense and Carl Peterson gets 100% of the blame for the defense, according to you.

[chiefsfan1963]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Blah, blah, blah.

Vermeil gets 100% of the credit for the offense and Carl Peterson gets 100% of the blame for the defense, according to you.

No I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is give peace a Chance.

Just kidding.

Anyway, my point is no question DV blew it on building a D, but he was clearly good at producing a decent O arguably the best in franchise history. All he needed was a Top 20 D. A better GM would have made that happen. We need new blood in the Front Office. Until this happens we won't be able to turn the page and start a new chapter.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefsfan1963

No I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is give peace a Chance.

Just kidding.

Anyway, my point is no question DV blew it on building a D, but he was clearly good at producing a decent O arguably the best in franchise history. All he needed was a Top 20 D. A better GM would have made that happen. We need new blood in the Front Office. Until this happens we won't be able to turn the page and start a new chapter.

The GM gave said coach COMPLETE control over personnel. Why didn't HE fix the defense? Why does that become Carl's job?

[keg in kc]

I'd agree with that.

Although I think you could even argue that the '96 draft wasn't more than average, itself. Woods was never a legitimate pro bowl calibre player, but he did start, so that's a success. Tongue was shipped off relatively quickly. Browning was a career complimentary player, but at least he spent his career here. Horn did nothing here. Donnie Edwards (who I've never been a fan of) was probably the best of the bunch, and he was shipped off, as well.

The thing that gives me hope is that 3-4 years of good drafting can build the foundation for a decade of success. Hopefully last year was the beginning of that.

[HolyHandgernade]

Well, here's my take, and as some of you know, I predicted a 5-11 to 6-10 season for us before the draft.

I was actually quite pleased. My feeling is that the thinking goes along these lines:

1. Our defense is closer to being an elite unit than our offense is.
2. Our offense needs a serious upgrade at either WR or OL

So the Chiefs use their #1 on the best offensive player, whether it be WR or OL in their estimation, and then do what they think is necessary to potentially bump the defense into that elite range (top 8). Since the offense is going to have some growing pains anyway, their best chance for success rides on the defense.

Although they won't say it publically, privately, I think they know this is going to be a rough year regardless of what strategy they employed in this draft. This means they might be drafting high next year and you are much more likely to get that impact OL or CB at the top of a draft as opposed to the bottom where you can still get a quality WR. Add in another free agent and the Chiefs look to be contending again after a short dropoff (unlike the catastrophic ones the Chargers and Raiders went through).

I prefer to trust the Herm associated draft team. Last year's draft I thought was really good:

1 20(20) Tamba Hali DE Penn State
2 22(54) Bernard Pollard S Purdue
3 21(85) Brodie Croyle QB Alabama
5 21(154) Marcus Maxey CB Miami (FL)
6 17(186) Tre Stallings OG Mississippi State
6 21(190) Jeff Webb WR San Diego State
7 20(228) Jarrad Page S UCLA

I'm sorry, but that's throwing darts right there, especially if Brodie pans out. I also think that we can do a good job of developing and teaching the offensive line, especially if we avoid the injuries and give it a chance to gell. So, it may not be as bad as people think. Certainly not as good as it was, but how many offensive lines boast three pro bowlers (two of which are possible HOF'ers)?

I hate to say it, but I may be hedging from my initial prediction. I still think our schedule is a killer for this particular team, but my long term view of this team is actually improving.

-HH