New Fox Mock

Coogs · 04-14-2005, 12:01 PM

Check out these pass defense stats for us from last season. You can sort each column by highlighting the column heading, and we are last on damn near every one of them...

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...G/2004/regular

And...

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...G/2004/regular

**Bowser** · 04-14-2005, 12:21 PM

Who's running Fox's mock drafts? Jack Steadman?

ChiefsCountry · 04-14-2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

Who's running Fox's mock drafts? Jack Steadman?

Bobby Betheard.

**HemiEd** · 04-14-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

Who's running Fox's mock drafts? Jack Steadman?

Jack Buck

**Mr. Kotter** · 04-14-2005, 01:05 PM

These guys are clueless....

**CosmicPal** · 04-14-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

Check out these pass defense stats for us from last season. You can sort each column by highlighting the column heading, and we are last on damn near every one of them...

No, we're not:

Passing D:

KC is 8th in the NFL in sacks. We are actually in the top ten in sacks, in the NFL.

We were obviously able to put pressure on the QB, however the biggest problem in the passing D was the fact that we gave up some mighty big plays for KC is LAST in yards per game, 26th in the NFL in INT's, and 30th in the NFL in passing TDs given up.

We obviously need major improvement in the defensive backfield.

Rushing D:

Again, our defensive line is doing mighty okay- they are 12th in the NFL in both rushing yards, and of course- rushing yards per game.

But, again, our defensive gave up the big plays: 27th in the NFL in rushing TDs, and 23rd in the NFL in giving up the big runs, 20 yards or greater.

Our defensive line isn't all that bad. Our linebackers and our defensive backfield is where we obviously need profound improvement- particularly if our offense is going to score 35 points a game. This draft should emphasize the LBs and the DBs, if we are ever going to improve this defense.

Coogs · 04-14-2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicPal

No, we're not:

Passing D:

KC is 8th in the NFL in sacks. We are actually in the top ten in sacks, in the NFL.

We were obviously able to put pressure on the QB, however the biggest problem in the passing D was the fact that we gave up some mighty big plays for KC is LAST in yards per game, 26th in the NFL in INT's, and 30th in the NFL in passing TDs given up.

We obviously need major improvement in the defensive backfield.

Rushing D:

Again, our defensive line is doing mighty okay- they are 12th in the NFL in both rushing yards, and of course- rushing yards per game.

But, again, our defensive gave up the big plays: 27th in the NFL in rushing TDs, and 23rd in the NFL in giving up the big runs, 20 yards or greater.

Our defensive line isn't all that bad. Our linebackers and our defensive backfield is where we obviously need profound improvement- particularly if our offense is going to score 35 points a game. This draft should emphasize the LBs and the DBs, if we are ever going to improve this defense.

Check out the 2nd set of stats I provided. Nearly last in every catagory.

Total Yards - Last
Yards per game - Last
Yards per play - Last
20+ plays - Last
40+ plays - Last
First Downs allowed - 25th
TD allowed - 31st

**CosmicPal** · 04-14-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

Check out the 2nd set of stats I provided. Nearly last in every catagory.

Total Yards - Last
Yards per game - Last
Yards per play - Last
20+ plays - Last
40+ plays - Last
First Downs allowed - 25th
TD allowed - 31st

Coogs, I am not sure what your point is here. I pointed out the same receiving stats in my earlier post. I also pointed out how it is plainly obvious we need help in the defensive backfield, but that we also need better play out of linebackers, and that our defensive line was fine.

Showing the fact that the KC defensive backfield is last/nearly last in all of these categories is irrelevant. They were not getting the job done, we all know that.

We've done two very important things to improve this defense- get a safety to be a proven leader and get a middle linebacker to improve the middle. Now, if we get Surtain and draft a couple of DB's and an attack LB or two- we will be a much more improved defense.

whoman69 · 04-14-2005, 01:17 PM

I need a link for this, because I just went to Fox Sports and they use the Sporting News service and their mock has us taking Erasmus James. It certainly makes no sense for this organization to go to the well again for a DT when we have drafted 6 in the 4 drafts that DV has run for us.

Coogs · 04-14-2005, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicPal

Coogs, I am not sure what your point is here. I pointed out the same receiving stats in my earlier post. I also pointed out how it is plainly obvious we need help in the defensive backfield, but that we also need better play out of linebackers, and that our defensive line was fine.

Showing the fact that the KC defensive backfield is last/nearly last in all of these categories is irrelevant. They were not getting the job done, we all know that.

We've done two very important things to improve this defense- get a safety to be a proven leader and get a middle linebacker to improve the middle. Now, if we get Surtain and draft a couple of DB's and an attack LB or two- we will be a much more improved defense.

I just said we were nearly last in every single passing catagory. You said, no we are not.

I agree with the rest.

DT is not what we need.

Mark M · 04-14-2005, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

DT is not what we need.

Actually, DT is exactly what we need ...

A DT is not.

MM
~~

Coogs · 04-14-2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark M

Actually, DT is exactly what we need ...

A DT is not.

MM
~~

**CosmicPal** · 04-14-2005, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

I just said we were nearly last in every single passing catagory. You said, no we are not.

Right, and I just wanted to point out that there was at least something good on our defense, like how we were 8th in sacks. All the good numbers, little that they may be, indicate our D line was better than average.

So there.

It's all good.

Coogs · 04-14-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicPal

Right, and I just wanted to point out that there was at least something good on our defense, like how we were 8th in sacks. All the good numbers, little that they may be, indicate our D line was better than average.

So there.

It's all good.

04-14-2005, 12:01 PM	#1
Coogs In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Northern Kansas Casino cash: $1384349	Check out these pass defense stats for us from last season. You can sort each column by highlighting the column heading, and we are last on damn near every one of them... http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...G/2004/regular And... http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...G/2004/regular
Posts: 21,629

04-14-2005, 12:21 PM	#2
Bowser sorta mod-ish Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: KC North Casino cash: $3251616	Who's running Fox's mock drafts? Jack Steadman?
Posts: 100,938

04-14-2005, 01:05 PM	#5
Mr. Kotter The Dude Abides Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Dakota Country Casino cash: $5715285	These guys are clueless.... __________________ "I've always said I worry about legacy and winning rings more than making money at this moment...We see what's going on around the league, but at the same time, I'll never do anything that's going to hurt us from keeping the great players around me.”
Posts: 46,352