What about the O? - Page 2

Gaz · 03-25-2005, 01:56 PM

We all know our Defense stunk in 2004, but it should not overshadow the fact that our Offense stalled at critical moments in several games.

So, it is Defense, Defense, Defense or do the Offense Homers get a seat at the banquet, too?

xoxo~
Gaz
Thowing the OHo’s a bone.

**Rain Man** · 03-25-2005, 02:12 PM

I certainly wish we would upgrade the WRs and last year I even advocated a WR with the 1st round pick. However, the offense is great as it stands. Let's try to catch the defense up with 8 or 9 new starters.

Hammock Parties · 03-25-2005, 02:15 PM

Complete teams win championships (generally). The Patriots offense could not have overcome our pathetic defense.

Brock · 03-25-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

I thought Kevin Johnson was high on our list of FA WR's?

It's obviously not a high priority.

DenverChief · 03-25-2005, 02:19 PM

Updated: March 22, 2005
Kevin Johnson* Kansas City.com states that Johnson has visited KC.* The Chiefs once tried to trade for Johnson when he played for Cleveland

http://www.fantasytailgate.com/RUMORS.html

When was this I missed it?

DenverChief · 03-25-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock Landers

It's obviously not a high priority.

not priority wise...just on the list of offense upgrades...which should be last after all the defensive needs are met

DenverChief · 03-25-2005, 02:28 PM

My Guess is that if we decide to get Johnson it will be after the draft and a shortt time later Morton will be cut (June 1) IIRC Holmes was an after the draft signing just before June 1

beavis · 03-25-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

My Guess is that if we decide to get Johnson it will be after the draft and a shortt time later Morton will be cut (June 1) IIRC Holmes was an after the draft signing just before June 1

Actually, didn't he sign just before the draft?

Hydrae · 03-25-2005, 02:34 PM

Honestly I think we are okay at WR with the number of young guys we have. (Go ahead, start the flaming).

My concerns on O are the aging of the o-line and the lack of a young QB for the future. Unless anyone seriously thinks Clausen will be our next starting QB?

DenverChief · 03-25-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beavis

Actually, didn't he sign just before the draft?

I have no idea actually...finding that information has proven harder than one would think

SCTrojan · 03-25-2005, 02:44 PM

I think 80/20 defense to offense ratio with the draft. WR is a concern as is FB and a backup QB. Having said that, I think Samie Parker will be a stud, based on how he played in college against some pretty good USC teams. There are also some fairly young OL players on the roster that have some promise.

What scares me most is the lack of a quality backup QB. They need to address it and soon. Trent is nearly 35 and we're just one big hit away from the big, dark abyss of Todd Collins being our starting QB. We have the picks, so I wouldn't mind seeing the QB of the future coming in this year.

Bottom line, though, defense needs to be addressed. CB definitely needs to be upgraded and the LB corps, despite the signing of Bell, still needs to be addressed. Defense should be the focus, but not to the complete disregard of the few holes we have on offense.

tiptap · 03-25-2005, 02:44 PM

The sputtering of the offense was not the lack of fire power at WR. A good route WR would be great but that wasn't the problem. The problem with the offensive personnel was the RT. And the problem with the offense was the greater number of 3-4 defenses faced by the Chiefs. HUH
Two years ago, with Tait at RT, the Chiefs ran to the left one third (33%) of the time, to the middle one third of the time and to the right one third of the time. ONLY the Packers showed this split. Most teams run the middle 50% of the time (defense needs a MLB) and to the left or right 25% of the time (defense bad stopping plays to the left).
Last year we ran to the right 18% of the time making up the difference running to the middle a lot more and some more to the left. We lost options in where we could be successful running. Luckily we had the horses on the left side to make it work.
The second part of my though is that the 3-4 last NFL appearance in the 80's was in response to the Coryell offense and runs outside of tackles out of that offense. (Sound familiar). Teams are moving to the 3-4 to push our running game to the middle. (LJ is a bigger back for that kind of running) But to counter this trend in defense the Chiefs were looking to use the H-back and several TE to put the point of attack in the running game to outside again with the options for passes coming from the strength. That is what Wilson represented. But it will mean that a RT as well as a healthy Wilson and the rest of the TE will be needed. The one other outcome of facing 3-4 more often is that this will put pressure on our very good but a bit undersized Center. Two gap play on defense will be looking to force help from the guards for center in the NT.
RT, healthy core of TE. then only then a WR.

DenverChief · 03-25-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiptap

The sputtering of the offense was not the lack of fire power at WR. A good route WR would be great but that wasn't the problem. The problem with the offensive personnel was the RT. And the problem with the offense was the greater number of 3-4 defenses faced by the Chiefs. HUH
Two years ago, with Tait at RT, the Chiefs ran to the left one third (33%) of the time, to the middle one third of the time and to the right one third of the time. ONLY the Packers showed this split. Most teams run the middle 50% of the time (defense needs a MLB) and to the left or right 25% of the time (defense bad stopping plays to the left).
Last year we ran to the right 18% of the time making up the difference running to the middle a lot more and some more to the left. We lost options in where we could be successful running. Luckily we had the horses on the left side to make it work.
The second part of my though is that the 3-4 last NFL appearance in the 80's was in response to the Coryell offense and runs outside of tackles out of that offense. (Sound familiar). Teams are moving to the 3-4 to push our running game to the middle. (LJ is a bigger back for that kind of running) But to counter this trend in defense the Chiefs were looking to use the H-back and several TE to put the point of attack in the running game to outside again with the options for passes coming from the strength. That is what Wilson represented. But it will mean that a RT as well as a healthy Wilson and the rest of the TE will be needed. The one other outcome of facing 3-4 more often is that this will put pressure on our very good but a bit undersized Center. Two gap play on defense will be looking to force help from the guards for center in the NT.
RT, healthy core of TE. then only then a WR.

What a very well thought out and excellent post

Idahored · 03-25-2005, 02:52 PM

Holmes was picked up the day before the draft. We traded our first for Green (which we would have used for a RB) and signed Holmes. I remember this well.

|Zach| · 03-25-2005, 02:54 PM

I still think Chris Wilson is going to pan out very well for us.

Hammock Parties · 03-25-2005, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZachKC

I still think Chris Wilson is going to pan out very well for us.

I think he's going to be a big factor in play-action and short-yardage situations. I think what we saw the Chiefs doing with Jason Dunn last year (i.e. Baltimore game) will be Wilson's role.

View Poll Results: Should we focus on the O as well?
Yes. Those stalls are worrisome.	18	62.07%
No. The D stunk so badly they need all the attention.	9	31.03%
Bite me, Gaz...my Ho is none of yo' business.	2	6.90%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

03-25-2005, 01:56 PM
Gaz Defense Homer Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Rancho Gaz Casino cash: $10010793	What about the O? We all know our Defense stunk in 2004, but it should not overshadow the fact that our Offense stalled at critical moments in several games. So, it is Defense, Defense, Defense or do the Offense Homers get a seat at the banquet, too? xoxo~ Gaz Thowing the OHo’s a bone.
Posts: 5,911

03-25-2005, 02:12 PM	#16
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3238491 VARSITY	I certainly wish we would upgrade the WRs and last year I even advocated a WR with the 1st round pick. However, the offense is great as it stands. Let's try to catch the defense up with 8 or 9 new starters. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,521

03-25-2005, 02:15 PM	#17
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4630478	Complete teams win championships (generally). The Patriots offense could not have overcome our pathetic defense. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 278,153

03-25-2005, 02:19 PM	#19
DenverChief MVP Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Rocky Ford Casino cash: $5869867	Updated: March 22, 2005 Kevin Johnson* Kansas City.com states that Johnson has visited KC.* The Chiefs once tried to trade for Johnson when he played for Cleveland http://www.fantasytailgate.com/RUMORS.html When was this I missed it?
Posts: 16,166

03-25-2005, 02:28 PM	#21
DenverChief MVP Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Rocky Ford Casino cash: $5869867	My Guess is that if we decide to get Johnson it will be after the draft and a shortt time later Morton will be cut (June 1) IIRC Holmes was an after the draft signing just before June 1
Posts: 16,166

03-25-2005, 02:34 PM	#23
Hydrae Sandbox: Leander Lasercats Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Austin, Tx Casino cash: $2247000	Honestly I think we are okay at WR with the number of young guys we have. (Go ahead, start the flaming). My concerns on O are the aging of the o-line and the lack of a young QB for the future. Unless anyone seriously thinks Clausen will be our next starting QB?
Posts: 14,689

03-25-2005, 02:44 PM	#25
SCTrojan Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Across the park Casino cash: $6149719	I think 80/20 defense to offense ratio with the draft. WR is a concern as is FB and a backup QB. Having said that, I think Samie Parker will be a stud, based on how he played in college against some pretty good USC teams. There are also some fairly young OL players on the roster that have some promise. What scares me most is the lack of a quality backup QB. They need to address it and soon. Trent is nearly 35 and we're just one big hit away from the big, dark abyss of Todd Collins being our starting QB. We have the picks, so I wouldn't mind seeing the QB of the future coming in this year. Bottom line, though, defense needs to be addressed. CB definitely needs to be upgraded and the LB corps, despite the signing of Bell, still needs to be addressed. Defense should be the focus, but not to the complete disregard of the few holes we have on offense.
Posts: 2,193

03-25-2005, 02:44 PM	#26
tiptap Is this it? Join Date: Jan 2004 Casino cash: $10007847	The sputtering of the offense was not the lack of fire power at WR. A good route WR would be great but that wasn't the problem. The problem with the offensive personnel was the RT. And the problem with the offense was the greater number of 3-4 defenses faced by the Chiefs. HUH Two years ago, with Tait at RT, the Chiefs ran to the left one third (33%) of the time, to the middle one third of the time and to the right one third of the time. ONLY the Packers showed this split. Most teams run the middle 50% of the time (defense needs a MLB) and to the left or right 25% of the time (defense bad stopping plays to the left). Last year we ran to the right 18% of the time making up the difference running to the middle a lot more and some more to the left. We lost options in where we could be successful running. Luckily we had the horses on the left side to make it work. The second part of my though is that the 3-4 last NFL appearance in the 80's was in response to the Coryell offense and runs outside of tackles out of that offense. (Sound familiar). Teams are moving to the 3-4 to push our running game to the middle. (LJ is a bigger back for that kind of running) But to counter this trend in defense the Chiefs were looking to use the H-back and several TE to put the point of attack in the running game to outside again with the options for passes coming from the strength. That is what Wilson represented. But it will mean that a RT as well as a healthy Wilson and the rest of the TE will be needed. The one other outcome of facing 3-4 more often is that this will put pressure on our very good but a bit undersized Center. Two gap play on defense will be looking to force help from the guards for center in the NT. RT, healthy core of TE. then only then a WR. __________________ Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken
Posts: 5,134

03-25-2005, 02:52 PM	#28
Idahored Starter Join Date: Feb 2005 Casino cash: $10004900	Holmes was picked up the day before the draft. We traded our first for Green (which we would have used for a RB) and signed Holmes. I remember this well.
Posts: 152

03-25-2005, 02:54 PM	#29
\|Zach\| For The Glory Of The City Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $5276768	I still think Chris Wilson is going to pan out very well for us.
Posts: 53,446