PDA

View Full Version : hmmmm so can someone tell me.....

chiefs1111
02-26-2005, 03:13 PM
hopw the cheifs finished 12th in the league in run defense and how we had the 7th or 8th most sacks in the nfl with 41?????? i dont rember seeing 41 sacks and i dont rmebers us stopping the run that well! of course our pass D was dead last but no surprise there.

stats courtesy of nfl network.
the Talking Can
02-26-2005, 03:16 PM
teams passed on us repeately because it was so easy, which has the side effect of giving us more sack opportunities while creating the illusion that our run defense was improved...
Deberg_1990
02-26-2005, 03:16 PM
Our run d was better last year that the previous few years but it was hardly foolproof. As the year went along, teams realized that could throw at will all game long so they just abandoned the run altogether. We did get more pressure on the QB, but thats Gunns philosphophy. We still need Hicks replaced.
2bikemike
02-26-2005, 03:20 PM
I agree the run defense improvement was an illusion due to the suckiness of our pass defense.
cheeeefs
02-26-2005, 03:26 PM
I don't think the run D was that much of an illusion. especially early on we had some teams with good backs (IE Tomlinson) commit early to the run and we totally shut them down. I'm not saying our stats weren't helped at all by our crappy secondary, but we still did well against the run from start to finish.
Rausch
02-26-2005, 03:39 PM
I agree the run defense improvement was an illusion due to the suckiness of our pass defense.

I don't think it was an Illusion.

Under GROB you could pick your poison. Run defense, pass defense, it didn't matter. Both sucked. If you can run the ball all day long why risk putting it in the air? Teams didn't. They mauled us on the ground.

This year (towards mid season) we started to show drastic improvement in our run defense. Offensive coordinators aren't stupid. They took notice and killed us where we were weaker, in the air.
cheeeefs
02-26-2005, 03:41 PM
looking over the stats I recant that last statement. Our most impressive outing was against LT like I remembered where we kept him at 46 yards over 21 carries. and we also kept J lewis to 73 yards, F taylor to 66 yards, EJ to 34 yards as well, but we got torched by Q griffith and a few others. We only had 5 impressive run D outings when you take YPC into consideration, and three of them were against average to subpar backs
cheeeefs
02-26-2005, 03:42 PM
looking over the stats I recant that last statement. Our most impressive outing was against Landanian Tomlinson (hah I keep calling him Lawrence Taylor) like I remembered where we kept him at 46 yards over 21 carries. and we also kept J lewis to 73 yards, F taylor to 66 yards, EJ to 34 yards as well, but we got torched by Q griffith and a few others. We only had 5 impressive run D outings when you take YPC into consideration, and three of them were against average to subpar backs
morphius
02-26-2005, 03:50 PM
I don't think it was an Illusion.

Under GROB you could pick your poison. Run defense, pass defense, it didn't matter. Both sucked. If you can run the ball all day long why risk putting it in the air? Teams didn't. They mauled us on the ground.

This year (towards mid season) we started to show drastic improvement in our run defense. Offensive coordinators aren't stupid. They took notice and killed us where we were weaker, in the air.
Thats how I saw it as well. Teams were able to get a few yards running here or there, and after testing us through the air and realizing that anyone on the other side of Warfield was a complete pass every time.
unlurking
02-26-2005, 03:57 PM
Thats how I saw it as well. Teams were able to get a few yards running here or there, and after testing us through the air and realizing that anyone on the other side of Warfield was a complete pass every time.
Agreed.

Although I do think a veteran MLB will solidify the improvement in the run defense, I believe that CB is our biggest need this off-season and think we need 1 via FA and 1 in the first two rounds of the draft. If Rogers, Jones, or Rolle is available at 15, I say we take 'em.
morphius
02-26-2005, 04:09 PM
Agreed.

Although I do think a veteran MLB will solidify the improvement in the run defense, I believe that CB is our biggest need this off-season and think we need 1 via FA and 1 in the first two rounds of the draft. If Rogers, Jones, or Rolle is available at 15, I say we take 'em.
CB is the most obvious need, but we need one top tier FA CB, plus a first or second round guy. I don't know if we so much need a new MLB as we need one Playmaking LB that needs to be accounted for.
unlurking
02-26-2005, 04:15 PM
CB is the most obvious need, but we need one top tier FA CB, plus a first or second round guy. I don't know if we so much need a new MLB as we need one Playmaking LB that needs to be accounted for.
Definitely. In fact, I wouldn't mind picking up a FA CB as well as a guy like Cowart and an available OLB, then going for a LB in round one and a CB in round 2. I'd like to see Carl spread it around in FA and pick up several key positions if possible.
philfree
02-26-2005, 04:23 PM
CB is the most obvious need, but we need one top tier FA CB, plus a first or second round guy. I don't know if we so much need a new MLB as we need one Playmaking LB that needs to be accounted for.


Dead on IMO about the CBs but also about he LB situation. IMO if we could get an WLB that is that playmaker to go with the improved secondary our D should be vastly improved. And since in Guns scheme the LB positions take the longest to learn or "get" replacing multiple positions might not have the immediate impact we are looking for.


PhilFree :arrow:
Thig Lyfe
02-26-2005, 08:08 PM
teams passed on us repeately because it was so easy, which has the side effect of giving us more sack opportunities while creating the illusion that our run defense was improved...

excellent post.
Dave Lane
02-26-2005, 08:24 PM
I don't think it was an Illusion.

Under GROB you could pick your poison. Run defense, pass defense, it didn't matter. Both sucked. If you can run the ball all day long why risk putting it in the air? Teams didn't. They mauled us on the ground.

This year (towards mid season) we started to show drastic improvement in our run defense. Offensive coordinators aren't stupid. They took notice and killed us where we were weaker, in the air.

I agree

Dave
go bo
02-26-2005, 08:29 PM
I agree

Davewell that's it then...











;) ;) ;)
philfree
02-27-2005, 12:03 AM
I agree

Dave

No we gave up over 300 yards rushing the first two weeks of the season so after that all the teams we played thought they should attack our D with the pass. It makes perfect sense :)


PhilFree :arrow:
Amnorix
02-27-2005, 08:44 AM
hopw the chiefs finished 12th in the league in run defense and how we had the 7th or 8th most sacks in the nfl with 41?????? i dont rember seeing 41 sacks and i dont rmebers us stopping the run that well! of course our pass D was dead last but no surprise there.

stats courtesy of nfl network.

Yards per game is a bogus stat in all ways. Too many other factors come into play for it to be a meaningful stat to tell you whether you were good or bad at whatever it is you're measuring.

Instead, use yards per pass attempt to see if you were a good passing team, yards per rush if you were a good running team, and similar stats on defense to see how your defense did.

Your average yards per carry (against) was 4.6, 2nd worst in the NFL to only Arizona. So yeah, your run defense sucked. The number of runs of over 20 yards and the TDs allowed on the ground were also towards the bottom of the league.
keg in kc
02-27-2005, 09:31 AM
Your average yards per carry (against) was 4.6, 2nd worst in the NFL to only Arizona. So yeah, your run defense sucked. The number of runs of over 20 yards and the TDs allowed on the ground were also towards the bottom of the league.Thank you for saving me the time and effort it would have taken to get the stats to make that point.