Chiefs Real Talk: The Defense - Page 3

DenverChief · 12-16-2013, 05:16 PM

So I was having a conversation with a fellow Chiefs fan the other day that has had the opportunity to watch some game film from since the San Diego game. I just wanted to get some good football opinion on what he said because it makes sense to me.

Basically Earlier in the season we were screaming that our offense was vanilla and we weren't doing many "dynamic" things. In week 11 and 12 we saw a different offense, more dynamic plays and Alex throwing down the field. There were some theories that the reason the offense was so vanilla was that we weren't trying to give up the whole playbook right away.

Starting in week 12 we saw a huge departure of the defense we had come to love in the first 11 weeks. Granted some of the departure could have been due to injuries (Hali/Houston) but what interests me the most is that my friend has said that we are not blitzing or stunting as much as we were earlier in the season. I'm wondering if we are going "vanilla" on defense so that there will be less game film on what we will really do come playoff time? I know conspiracy theory, but I think it makes sense, as long as we know we can do what we did in the Raiders game and not have another San Diego game.

I didn't get a chance to watch the game yesterday, I get it Lewis is a terrible safety I have been saying that all year too, however I think that the lack of blitzing and stunting has left our secondary even more exposed than normal.

So what do the CP experts think?

DenverChief · 12-16-2013, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

I think there's a number of factors.

1) Injuries.
2) Inserting a rookie (Cooper) in to the starting lineup.
3) Changing Flowers's responsibilities.
4) Playing better offenses.
5) Lewis playing much worse the 2nd half the season.

I wouldn't disagree with any of those - and like I said I haven't had the opportunity to watch as much game film as my friend has but he claims that he has notices a decline in blitzes/stunts and the defense hasn't been as "dynamic" since the bye week

ModSocks · 12-16-2013, 05:44 PM

What they need to do is put Flowers back on the outside and let Berry actually play Safety and not LB. Take your lumps and bruises with our Nickel DB but at least QB's might think twice before simply throwing it up.

milkman · 12-16-2013, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I like the Milkman theory. These guys are just gassed because they have played so many downs. Especially Poe who has fallen off.

Sorry, that's probably not as sexy a theory.
Posted via Mobile Device

When the defense was applying consistent pressure, these DBs were getting the job done.

As the playmakers in the front 7 wore down, QBs and receivers have been getting the time to make plays.

Flowers and Smith are getting burned as consistently as Cooper.
Cooper was just as easy scapegoat.

DenverChief · 12-16-2013, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmya

ESPN guys this morning said he has always been a safe ccoordinator but really relies on man to man which can be exposed very easily. They also showed film of the chiefs blitzes and discussed how he rarely sends more than 5......good oline coaches can handle most 4 or 5 man blitzes.

Interesting because "safe" is the word I was searching for, it's almost as if we are playing more "prevent" or "safe" defense instead of the attacking style defense that got us to 9-0

ModSocks · 12-16-2013, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

When the defense was applying consistent pressure, these DBs were getting the job done.

As the playmakers in the front 7 wore down, QBs and receivers have been getting the time to make plays.

Flowers and Smith are getting burned as consistently as Cooper.
Cooper was just as easy scapegoat.

Neither of them are getting burnt nearly as much as Cooper. How could you say that with a straight face?

I agree that they aren't getting pressure that they use to, but hell, look at the 3 games they lost....the QB's were getting the ball out so fast that the Pass rush didn't even have time to get to them.

The first Denver game was unreal. I remember seeing Houston getting a clean shot at Manning and he STILL got the ball out before he could get there.

DenverChief · 12-16-2013, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

When the defense was applying consistent pressure, these DBs were getting the job done.

As the playmakers in the front 7 wore down, QBs and receivers have been getting the time to make plays.

Flowers and Smith are getting burned as consistently as Cooper.
Cooper was just as easy scapegoat.

I completely respect your football opinions, but don't you think there is something a little more to it?

beach tribe · 12-16-2013, 05:52 PM

Part of it, a BIG part is the lack of aggression on D.

We have got to attack the QB from all angles with more than 4 men.
It gets us burnt occasionally but not pressuring theQB gets us burnt EVERY ****ING TIME.

When we CREATE pressure we gets sacks and turnovers. I can live with getting burned a few times to get those. Like I said, we are getting burned anyway.
This recent plan looks like its straight out of Romeos briefcase.

milkman · 12-16-2013, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Neither of them are getting burnt nearly as much as Cooper. How could you say that with a straight face?

I agree that they aren't getting pressure that they use to, but hell, look at the 3 games they lost....the QB's were getting the ball out so fast that the Pass rush didn't even have time to get to them.

The first Denver game was unreal. I remember seeing Houston getting a clean shot at Manning and he STILL got the ball out before he could get there.

No they aren't, because Cooper is being targeted more.
He's a rook, teams are more inclined to do that.

But if we were to look at percentages, both Flowers and Smith would be getting burned at the same rate compared to targets.

**notorious** · 12-16-2013, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Part of it, a BIG part is the lack of aggression on D.

We have got to attack the QB from all angles with more than 4 men.
It gets us burnt occasionally but not pressuring theQB gets us burnt EVERY ****ING TIME.

When we CREATE pressure we gets sacks and turnovers. I can live with getting burned a few times to get those. Like I said, we are getting burned anyway.
This recent plan looks like its straight out of Romeos briefcase.

They are getting burned, anyway.

DenverChief · 12-16-2013, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Part of it, a BIG part is the lack of aggression on D.

We have got to attack the QB from all angles with more than 4 men.
It gets us burnt occasionally but not pressuring theQB gets us burnt EVERY ****ING TIME.

When we CREATE pressure we gets sacks and turnovers. I can live with getting burned a few times to get those. Like I said, we are getting burned anyway.
This recent plan looks like its straight out of Romeos briefcase.

Thats my take - it was mentioned earlier by onthewarpath that our defensive struggles started in week 8 when we gave up 293 passing yards and 2 TDs to Campbell with only one sack and one turn over. IMO even though he passed for almost 300 yards we still held them out of the endzone.

11 drives =
6 punts
2 TDs
1 FG
1 Downs
1 End of game

thats pretty good defense

O.city · 12-16-2013, 06:00 PM

I dunno if you guys were listening this morning, but Louis Riddick had a good take on why our DBs are having problems now, especially Cooper.

He's not altering his technique at all in regards to what he does at the LOS. It's press man, every play. He doesn't ever press and run, or bail, it's always the same thing. Like a pitcher throwing a fastball, and a fastball only.

I think our entire DB is struggling with that.

**Easy 6** · 12-16-2013, 06:01 PM

He's been getting targeted and toasted quite a bit, but i'm still excited about Coopers future, he was a low round pick who only started playing corner his junior year, he's bound to be picked on... but he's big, fast and has some nice picks/deflections under his belt, they'll get his technique issues ironed out.

And of course our safety issues aren't doing him any favors, either.

ModSocks · 12-16-2013, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

Thats my take - it was mentioned earlier by onthewarpath that our defensive struggles started in week 8 when we gave up 293 passing yards and 2 TDs to Campbell with only one sack and one turn over. IMO even though he passed for almost 300 yards we still held them out of the endzone.

11 drives =
6 punts
2 TDs
1 FG
1 Downs
1 End of game

thats pretty good defense

His point is that it was a sign of things to come. Which it was. I would take it a step further actually and look at the Texans game.

OTWP's point is that the writing was on the wall long before it was exposed. It just took a quality starting QB to truly expose it.

milkman · 12-16-2013, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

I completely respect your football opinions, but don't you think there is something a little more to it?

There is more, such as teams recognizing Lewis as the real weak link, but the lack of pressure due to fatigue is the primary reason.

And your friend is wrong.

This defense has been blitzing more, overall, since the bye than before.

chiefzilla1501 · 12-16-2013, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Part of it, a BIG part is the lack of aggression on D.

We have got to attack the QB from all angles with more than 4 men.
It gets us burnt occasionally but not pressuring theQB gets us burnt EVERY ****ING TIME.

When we CREATE pressure we gets sacks and turnovers. I can live with getting burned a few times to get those. Like I said, we are getting burned anyway.
This recent plan looks like its straight out of Romeos briefcase.

I just don't know what kind of pressure we're expecting. You have two guys in Devito and Jackson, who are pretty invisible in the passing game. Poe looks a little gassed. So basically, of your core 5 guys who are going to rush the passer most of the time, only one of them can really create pressure. 2 when Houston gets back. I mean... we saw what happens when Zombo does anything but rush the passer. He got clowned in coverage yesterday.

And if you blitz a guy like Peyton or Rivers, they can easily just throw it to Cooper or at the spot where Kendrick Lewis should be, but never will be.

The problem is that our dominant performance the first half of the year misled us. This defense has a long ways to go talent-wise. I don't agree with people who think that blitzing more is some kind of magical cure-all.

12-16-2013, 05:16 PM
DenverChief MVP Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Rocky Ford Casino cash: $6039867	Real Talk: The Defense So I was having a conversation with a fellow Chiefs fan the other day that has had the opportunity to watch some game film from since the San Diego game. I just wanted to get some good football opinion on what he said because it makes sense to me. Basically Earlier in the season we were screaming that our offense was vanilla and we weren't doing many "dynamic" things. In week 11 and 12 we saw a different offense, more dynamic plays and Alex throwing down the field. There were some theories that the reason the offense was so vanilla was that we weren't trying to give up the whole playbook right away. Starting in week 12 we saw a huge departure of the defense we had come to love in the first 11 weeks. Granted some of the departure could have been due to injuries (Hali/Houston) but what interests me the most is that my friend has said that we are not blitzing or stunting as much as we were earlier in the season. I'm wondering if we are going "vanilla" on defense so that there will be less game film on what we will really do come playoff time? I know conspiracy theory, but I think it makes sense, as long as we know we can do what we did in the Raiders game and not have another San Diego game. I didn't get a chance to watch the game yesterday, I get it Lewis is a terrible safety I have been saying that all year too, however I think that the lack of blitzing and stunting has left our secondary even more exposed than normal. So what do the CP experts think?
Posts: 16,116

12-16-2013, 05:44 PM	#32
ModSocks Needs more middle fingers Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Diego Casino cash: $4344563	What they need to do is put Flowers back on the outside and let Berry actually play Safety and not LB. Take your lumps and bruises with our Nickel DB but at least QB's might think twice before simply throwing it up.
Posts: 64,172

12-16-2013, 05:52 PM	#37
beach tribe Keep doubting J MFing Houston Join Date: May 2007 Location: ft.lauderdale Casino cash: $4848036	Part of it, a BIG part is the lack of aggression on D. We have got to attack the QB from all angles with more than 4 men. It gets us burnt occasionally but not pressuring theQB gets us burnt EVERY ****ING TIME. When we CREATE pressure we gets sacks and turnovers. I can live with getting burned a few times to get those. Like I said, we are getting burned anyway. This recent plan looks like its straight out of Romeos briefcase.
Posts: 21,429

12-16-2013, 06:00 PM	#41
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $2834064	I dunno if you guys were listening this morning, but Louis Riddick had a good take on why our DBs are having problems now, especially Cooper. He's not altering his technique at all in regards to what he does at the LOS. It's press man, every play. He doesn't ever press and run, or bail, it's always the same thing. Like a pitcher throwing a fastball, and a fastball only. I think our entire DB is struggling with that.
Posts: 81,175

12-16-2013, 06:01 PM	#42
Easy 6 pie is never free Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: the drivers seat Casino cash: $3817775	He's been getting targeted and toasted quite a bit, but i'm still excited about Coopers future, he was a low round pick who only started playing corner his junior year, he's bound to be picked on... but he's big, fast and has some nice picks/deflections under his belt, they'll get his technique issues ironed out. And of course our safety issues aren't doing him any favors, either.
Posts: 91,576