Vermeil: No changes in defense

[old_geezer]

From today's KC Star newspaper under the heading "Status Quo for Defense" Vermeil is quoted as saying there will be no changes in the starters for the defense because "the Chiefs don't have anyone better to replace the starters with."

That's it...I'm officially off the Vermeil bandwagon. If our reserves on D aren't even worth inserting into the lineup in place of this pile of festering dog crap then we suck even worse on defense than I thought. You can dump the whole damn bunch in the Missouri River and start over as far as I'm concerned. It can't get worse.

By the way DICK, what's wrong with at least giving your reserves some playing time to see if maybe, just maybe, they might perform better that the lifeless corpses you're starting now ?

[svuba]

Originally Posted by kc rush

Since the season is lost and we can't afford to cut and replace every player on defense, the young guys should get their opportunities. This should be a time to evaluate talent to assess where you really are going into the off-season (for both depth and starting positions). This will also give the young players some experience, so if there are injuries down the line they will have half a clue when they are put on the field.

"Since the season is lost" -------- statistically that is not yet true so if you play like it is now then you are truly playing like quitters.

Hopefully they will play the backups more when the season is over for sure. I know it would be NEARLY impossible but 10-6 can possibly still get the Chiefs into the playoffs, and so the coach is still obliged to play what he feels are the players that give us the best chance to win---------When the Chiefs are 3-8 Then I would expect to be in more of a scouting mode.

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

Yeah, after four years of giving up over 400 yards a game, we need to give the staff the benefit of the doubt. You never know what the film analysts may spot if given enough time. Its not like bad defense in KC is a trend or anything.

Hmm, most of the 'stars' on D are Gun's guys. Wesley, Woods, Hicks, Warfield, Bartee.... all picked & coached by Cunningham. He has to share in the blame you like to toss at 'anyone buy Marty/Gunther'.

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

Yeah, after four years of giving up over 400 yards a game, we need to give the staff the benefit of the doubt. You never know what the film analysts may spot if given enough time. Its not like bad defense in KC is a trend or anything.

It's been a trend since 1998....

[TRR]

I would insert Pile and Harts at safety for starters. I would also see what Key Fox brings to the table replacing Shawn Barber.

You could also substitute Jimmy Wilkerson in for Eric Hicks and Jared Allen in for John Browning. When Siavii gets back, I'd start him next to Lionel Dalton too.

[kc rush]

Originally Posted by svuba

"Since the season is lost" -------- statistically that is not yet true so if you play like it is now then you are truly playing like quitters.

Hopefully they will play the backups more when the season is over for sure. I know it would be NEARLY impossible but 10-6 can possibly still get the Chiefs into the playoffs, and so the coach is still obliged to play what he feels are the players that give us the best chance to win---------When the Chiefs are 3-8 Then I would expect to be in more of a scouting mode.

When the head coach makes a statement that they will essentially need to win out, then adds that they haven't been able to win more than two in a row so far, it is a pretty good indicator that he believes the team is out of it.

[RJWENT]

I too had a bad feeling in the offseason when DV was indicating that KC would be inactive in the free agency market. After the defense's performance, how can anyone possibly believe that a change of Co-ordinator only would be the difference. Players like DB Antoine Winfield, DB Troy Vincent, DT Robaire Smith from Tennessee, LB Jeremiah Trotter, Safety De'Ron Cherry from the Patriots...should I go on, were available and would have been upgrades from our current team?

The point is if DV sez that he has no one on the bench that can step in and do a better job than this defensive group, why was KC so inactive in the free agency market when they are so far under the cap?

I'm not sure what should be more embarrasing.... the performance of the current KC defense or the fact that the team stood pat this last offseason when they had to know they needed to upgrade the talent at many defensive positions.

Time for management to get their heads out of their collective butts and make some significant defensive changes this offseason.. the window for this collection of offensive stars will be closing soon!

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by RJWENT

...why was KC so inactive in the free agency market when they are so far under the cap?

Lamar said there was no cash for large signing bonuses...

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Lamar said there was no cash for large signing bonuses...

$33 million profit last year wasn't enough huh?

[TEX]

And why didn't we sign any players this past off season? No Cash for bonuses? Translation - Lamar didn't want to do all he could to win at a critical time...

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

$33 million profit last year wasn't enough huh?

Im not going to take the time to explain the difference between P/L profit and cash flow.

[Straight, No Chaser]

Originally Posted by old_geezer

From today's KC Star newspaper under the heading "Status Quo for Defense" Vermeil is quoted as saying there will be no changes in the starters for the defense because "the Chiefs don't have anyone better to replace the starters with."

That's it...I'm officially off the Vermeil bandwagon. If our reserves on D aren't even worth inserting into the lineup in place of this pile of festering dog crap then we suck even worse on defense than I thought. You can dump the whole damn bunch in the Missouri River and start over as far as I'm concerned. It can't get worse.

By the way DICK, what's wrong with at least giving your reserves some playing time to see if maybe, just maybe, they might perform better that the lifeless corpses you're starting now ?

Vermiel's MO has not changed since, well, he started coaching. He supports and respects the starters to the nth. You knew that when he was hired. What in the world makes you think he's going to change his philosophy now in the twilight of his coaching career?

You'll have to wait for the offseason to see any changes, by that time the sting of another unrealized season will have worn off (a little).

[Swanman]

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Im not going to take the time to explain the difference between P/L profit and cash flow.

With $33 million in profit, it's safe to say that the team generated quite a bit of positive cash flow unless they've invested tons of money into the stadium, which it sounds like they've not. Lamar did pay quite a bit of money to guys like Priest, Gonzo, Trent, etc. in the past couple seasons in bonuses but that should not stop him from making just one decent free agent acquisition. I have a hard time believing that he's that cash poor.

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by Swanman

With $33 million in profit, it's safe to say that the team generated quite a bit of positive cash flow unless they've invested tons of money into the stadium, which it sounds like they've not. Lamar did pay quite a bit of money to guys like Priest, Gonzo, Trent, etc. in the past couple seasons in bonuses but that should not stop him from making just one decent free agent acquisition. I have a hard time believing that he's that cash poor.

No, it's not safe to say...ever head of Enron? That's an extreme example, but you can play with P&L's.

With all the discussions Ive read, one FA wouldnt make a difference anyway.

I too have a hard time believing that Lamar is cash poor, so we're left with two alternatives. Either he's telling the truth or he's lying and chose profit over improving the team. I find the second alternative even less believable than him being cash poor.

[Hammock Parties]

This is ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that Harts or Pile can't do any worse than Woods.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by old_geezer

From today's KC Star newspaper under the heading "Status Quo for Defense" Vermeil is quoted as saying there will be no changes in the starters for the defense because "the Chiefs don't have anyone better to replace the starters with."

That's it...I'm officially off the Vermeil bandwagon. If our reserves on D aren't even worth inserting into the lineup in place of this pile of festering dog crap then we suck even worse on defense than I thought. You can dump the whole damn bunch in the Missouri River and start over as far as I'm concerned. It can't get worse.

By the way DICK, what's wrong with at least giving your reserves some playing time to see if maybe, just maybe, they might perform better that the lifeless corpses you're starting now ?

I'm with you. What do we have to lose? A shot at the playoffs, a winning record, respectability. Yeah, we already lost that.