PDA

View Full Version : GRETZ: Returning to Turnovers


C-Mac
05-27-2005, 07:36 AM
GRETZ: Returning to Turnovers
May 27, 2005, 4:36:14 AM by Bob Gretz

The voice cuts through the chatter of the practice field on nearly every snap of the ball as the Chiefs go through their OTA workouts at the Truman Sports Complex.

“Get your hands on the ball.“
“Rip out the ball.“
“Get the rock.”

It’s the voice of Gunther Cunningham, waging an every day war to return the Chiefs defense to the culture of the takeaway.

Of all the frustrations that came with the defensive performance of the Chiefs in 2004, the greatest for Cunningham was the inability of his unit to turn the tide of games with key turnovers. Heck, it was greater than that: the frustration crested with the simple inability of the Chiefs to force fumbles or grab interceptions in any situation.

The Chiefs had just 21 takeaways last year, ranking them in a tie for 27th in the league. They recovered just eight fumbles, to rank in a tie for 29th in the league. Their 13 interceptions left them tied for 24th. They had five games when they did not get a single takeaway.

Worst of all, the 21 takeaways was the lowest total in Chiefs history.

Yes, you read that right. In 45 seasons, the only time they came close to having that few takeaways was in 1982, when they had 22 in a nine-game season. The eight fumbles recovered was the second lowest total in any Texans-Chiefs season.

This was not Kansas City defensive football, certainly not what was established in 1989 with Marty Schottenheimer and continued through five seasons when Cunningham was either defensive coordinator or head coach. In those seasons (1995-2000) the Chiefs averaged 33.5 takeaways per season.

In 2003, the Chiefs actually had 37 fumbles recovered and interceptions in Greg Robinson’s defense. The best evidence of the troubles the group had switching over to the Cunningham defense may be the drop in takeaways. Very simply, the players did not fit the system, especially at linebacker, the position group that’s going to help produce both interceptions and fumbles. Plus, a team’s safeties are always going to be big turnover producers and the Chiefs did not get good play out of their back line last year (just four takeaways, all from Greg Wesley.)

Turnovers also come from the pass rush, as defensive ends and blitzing backers and safeties hit the quarterback from the blind side, knocking the ball loose. While the Chiefs had a respectable 41 sacks in ‘04, not a single one of their eight fumbles recovered came from a quarterback.

That’s why the changes in the Chiefs defense for 2005 have more to do with just new faces, although that’s where they started. The personnel moves were made over the first four months of the season and included the addition of safety Sammy Knight, the man who has created more turnovers in the last eight seasons than any player in the NFL. Knight had 46; the next closest player had 40 (Darren Sharper) in the same time frame. How impressive is that number? Jerome Woods has played eight seasons of football for the Chiefs (1996-2001, 2003-04) and had just 19 career takeaways.

Now, as the players go through meetings and practice sessions, Cunningham is working on returning the takeaway culture. There’s only one way to do that: constant reminders. Defensive minded coaches have pushed this for years, guys like Tony Dungy and former assistants on his staff like Herman Edwards and Lovie Smith. It’s something they work on every time the team is on the field, no matter the circumstances: OTA, mini-camp, training camp, in-season practice sessions. Going after the ball becomes ingrained and it’s always stressed, never taken for granted. That’s why Indianapolis produced 36 takeaways to rank among the league leaders, despite a mediocre overall defense. Edwards’ NY Jets had 33 takeaways.

In off-season sessions in years past, defensive players were instructed to “tag off” on runners and receivers, more like touch football. This year, Cunningham is badgering his players to get their hands on the ball, not just the man. Since these are non-contact drills, it’s the first step in training players for when the real hitting starts.

During Tuesday’s OTA practice, various members of the defensive staff could be heard exhorting their players to get after the ball and knock it out. In Wednesday’s practice, the only constant voice was Cunningham; so even the coaching staff needs reminding that their players need reminding and it must happen over, and over, and over again.

Sure it gets tiring, it gets old, the players hear it over and over and there’s concern they’ll tune it out. That can’t happen. Takeaways mean too much. They cannot be taken for granted and they cannot be expected to just show up when it’s game time.

Takeaways are a way of life and the Chiefs defense needs to return to that lifestyle. That starts right now for players and coaches in hot, sweaty May practice sessions that are far from the regular-season spotlight.

jspchief
05-27-2005, 07:47 AM
I'm not a big fan of this approach. We're talking about a team that is horrible at tackling as it is. Now they are going to stress strips vs wrapping up?

J Diddy
05-27-2005, 09:45 AM
I want to see the player who tunes out Gunther.

StcChief
05-27-2005, 10:09 AM
Tune out Gunther...adios.

TRR
05-27-2005, 10:13 AM
I think I would feel better if he were yelling, "wrap up, don't just arm tackle. Drive your legs through the player." jspchief hit it right on the head. One of the main problems KC has on D is that they flat out can't tackle.

the Talking Can
05-27-2005, 10:16 AM
I want to see the player who tunes out Gunther.

our whole team did when he was coach....

C-Mac
05-27-2005, 10:19 AM
I want to see the player who tunes out Gunther.

Gunther isnt concerned about their hurting their morale this year.
They would have to be deaf, dumb, blind or a Oakland Raider to tune him out.

craneref
05-27-2005, 11:35 AM
I think I would feel better if he were yelling, "wrap up, don't just arm tackle. Drive your legs through the player." jspchief hit it right on the head. One of the main problems KC has on D is that they flat out can't tackle.

I agree with completely however they are not tackling people yet, that needs to be emphasized when they are taking people to the ground. Now is the best time to ingrain the mind set that the team with the football the most will win games. It is hard to continue to run tough when you gat someone attacking the ball as well. I think that the "D" needs to wrap up so the runner is not going anywhere, then the other D on the tackle needs to go after the ball and PUNISH the runner. I used to love it when you laid the nammer on somebody and the next play you could see fear in their eyes. Remember one of the things teams feared the most about those great CHIEFS "D" is the fact tht we took the ball away. GO CHIEFS

keg in kc
05-27-2005, 01:56 PM
We're dealing with a different group and calibre of player now. Most of the guys we've talked about in terms of "he can't tackle" have been replaced. Sammy Knight can tackle. Kendrell Bell can tackle. Pat Surtain can tackle. There's no question with any of them. Most of the incumbent skill players are fine now, too. Warfield can tackle. Wesley can tackle. Whoever starts at OLB on the left side will be able to tackle, whether it's Fox or Fujita or Johnson. I think MLB is really the only real question left, and even Mitchell has shown signs at times that he might be able to get the job done.

This is really night and day from what we've seen since, probably going all the way back to '98. The guys who were most talented on our roster in that time are now relegated to secondary roles (in terms of importance, I mean, not 'secondary' as in d-backs). We have legitimate, proven Pro Bowl talent on the roster now in key positions. My guess is that we'll see those guys bring up the play of the incumbent players around them, rather than vice versa.

So, all-in-all, I'm just fine with the approach. We're not dealing with the 2004 defense. This is a new entity.

whoman69
05-27-2005, 02:15 PM
I'm sure they are not just blindly trying to get a turnover on every down. Just because the article doesn't state anything about tackling, doesn't mean they aren't working on it. There's only a few situations when its good to go for the strip: when they are already wrapped up and can't go anywhere, when its a QB or other player unaware they will be hit, or when the ball carrier is not carrying the ball correctly. I see no problem with wanting to do as much as double the turnovers caused last year.

tk13
05-27-2005, 02:20 PM
I think it's still important that we focus on turnovers. I think that was very much overlooked last year and with our additions this offseason, guys like Surtain, Knight, Derrick Johnson... all have a good history of forcing turnovers. That's really the best way to shift momentum with your defense.

keg in kc
05-27-2005, 02:24 PM
That's really the best way to shift momentum with your defense.A forced punt here and there would be a nice change of pace, too.

Stop the big play, create turnovers and consistently force punts and we're talking a drastic change on defense, not just a unit good enough to get by with.

jspchief
05-27-2005, 02:34 PM
Indianapolis was 3rd in the league for total takeaways. Cincinatti and New Orleans were top 10. Denver was tied with us.

Takeaways don't equal good defense.

I'm all for getting turnovers, but out Defense has shown a deficiency with fundamentals. I'd prefer getting good at the basics before we try and get fancy. When I think of going for the strip, I think of a lot of shed tackles. Hit hard and wrap up and the turnovers will take care of themselves.

Nightfyre
05-27-2005, 02:35 PM
Turnovers were a key element of our 13-3 season. What, werent we like +24 or something? last year, I think we were in the negatives, or really low.

TRR
05-27-2005, 02:39 PM
Turnovers are definitely a big part of success in the NFL. At this point, I just want a couple of 3 and outs. If we could cut down on giving up the big plays, especially on 3rd down, KC's D would really improve overall.

Nightfyre
05-27-2005, 02:41 PM
Turnovers are definitely a big part of success in the NFL. At this point, I just want a couple of 3 and outs. If we could cut down on giving up the big plays, especially on 3rd down, KC's D would really improve overall.
It wasnt the third downs that we sucked on, it was the third and LONGS...

tk13
05-27-2005, 02:43 PM
Takeaways don't equal good defense.

They don't? I think that's a bit of a contradiction. If you force turnovers you're playing good defense. Is that the only facet to playing defense? No way. But it's an important one.

TRR
05-27-2005, 02:45 PM
It wasnt the third downs that we sucked on, it was the third and LONGS...


I think our entire D and everything about it sucked last season.

Nightfyre
05-27-2005, 02:45 PM
I think our entire D and everything about it sucked last season.
Eh, details details....

TRR
05-27-2005, 02:46 PM
They don't? I think that's a bit of a contradiction. If you force turnovers you're playing good defense. Is that the only facet to playing defense? No way. But it's an important one.

Important, but as our rcent 13-3 season showed us...if you can't consistently force the opposition to punt, your going to get burned sooner or later. Turnovers are great, but some games you just aren't going to get them.

tk13
05-27-2005, 02:58 PM
Important, but as our rcent 13-3 season showed us...if you can't consistently force the opposition to punt, your going to get burned sooner or later. Turnovers are great, but some games you just aren't going to get them.
That team died when we stopped forcing turnovers. We never could force anybody to punt. We just forced turnovers and made every big stop when we needed it in the 4th quarter. Still, I think it's highly doubtful Gunther's just saying "Who cares about 3 and out! We wanna force turnovers!" I think it's just another thing he's working on that we weren't very good at. You obviously want to be good at forcing punts, but I think a turnover has far more value than a 3 and out.

keg in kc
05-27-2005, 03:04 PM
That team died when we stopped forcing turnovers. We never could force anybody to punt. We just forced turnovers and made every big stop when we needed it in the 4th quarter. Still, I think it's highly doubtful Gunther's just saying "Who cares about 3 and out! We wanna force turnovers!" I think it's just another thing he's working on that we weren't very good at. You obviously want to be good at forcing punts, but I think a turnover has far more value than a 3 and out.What we need is consistency, whether it's turnovers or stalling opponents' drives. Although I might say that forcing 3 and outs is probably as important as turnovers, depending on the situation. I think success in sports, football especially, has a lot to do with momentum. Turnovers on D are like big plays on O: they can get the ball rolling, they can even turn the game for you. But what really keeps it going is consistency in forcing the other team to punt and sustaining drives yourself. Nothing's better to me than a long drive by our O followed by a punt by them followed by another long drive by the O. We haven't seen nearly enough of that. There's been too much swapping of scores.

Well, okay, I might like a 90 yard TD run followed by a 75 yard INT return followed a fumble recovery, but I think I've made my point...

jspchief
05-27-2005, 03:21 PM
They don't? I think that's a bit of a contradiction. If you force turnovers you're playing good defense. Is that the only facet to playing defense? No way. But it's an important one.I just gave examples in the post you quoted.

Indianapolis was 3rd in the league in takeaways? Did they have a good defense?

Denver was tied with us. Did they have a bad defense?

I guess I should be more clear and say takeaways don't automatically equal good defense. Our 2003 season is another perfect example.

Obviously the more takeaways, the better. I'm just not sure it's a good point of emphasis, when our team has been so bad in the basic areas of defense. Especially when pursuing takeaways can result in blown coverages and missed tackles...two areas the Chiefs need drastic improvement in. You're going to make a hell of a lot more stops by defending passes and wrapping up tackles than by getting turnovers.

We're teaching brain surgery when our guys haven't even passed first aid.

KCWolfman
05-27-2005, 03:23 PM
I miss the day of ruling the entire league in takeaways.....

But I think we need to have our defense work harder on more basic skills that have been lacking for almost 5 years now - like tackling and covering receivers.

Skip Towne
05-27-2005, 03:34 PM
Marty used to walk around practice trying to knock the ball out of anybody's hands that was holding one.

Rain Man
05-27-2005, 03:39 PM
This has been my pet peeve the last few years. Our players haven't tried to get turnovers, and they haven't been coached to force turnovers. It drives me nuts to see Woods and others trying to nail a receiver with a big hit when they could've possibly had an interception, or seeing a ball carrier get wrapped up and have the linebackers not go for the ball. Whatever happened to "first guy makes the tackle, second guy goes for the ball"?

Warfield, Harts, and to some extent Wesley were the only guys these last few years who seemed to understand that a turnover is worth more than a big hit. Oddly, that's Kawika Mitchell's best trait, too - he at least looks for the ball when he's near it.

KCWolfman
05-27-2005, 03:41 PM
Marty used to walk around practice trying to knock the ball out of anybody's hands that was holding one.
He'd hit on their girlfriends for the same result.

tiptap
05-27-2005, 03:51 PM
Good teams have a rhythm between the offense and defense. If you are a ball control offense like Denver tries to be than you want your defense to get those 3 and outs on defense and turnovers are less of a concern (unless it is a Chief heading for the endzone). But while our offense can be a ball control running team it is designed for scoring. But if you exchange scoring then it comes down to who has the ball last (lots of close games last year). If you can interject turnovers you give the offense more touches and a chance for more scores. That would help explain the 8-0 start to 13-3 season. And also why teams tried to minimize turnovers against us in the close of that season.
This year with I hope is more speed at LB we should again see more turnovers. And hopefully the secondary will get to look for the ball. Teams do not tend to be able to control fumble turnovers. They tend to be random as to who recovers even if you are good at forcing them. But teams can influence INT rates and I hope this is where we see improvement.

tk13
05-27-2005, 04:10 PM
I just gave examples in the post you quoted.

Indianapolis was 3rd in the league in takeaways? Did they have a good defense?

Denver was tied with us. Did they have a bad defense?

I guess I should be more clear and say takeaways don't automatically equal good defense. Our 2003 season is another perfect example.

Obviously the more takeaways, the better. I'm just not sure it's a good point of emphasis, when our team has been so bad in the basic areas of defense. Especially when pursuing takeaways can result in blown coverages and missed tackles...two areas the Chiefs need drastic improvement in. You're going to make a hell of a lot more stops by defending passes and wrapping up tackles than by getting turnovers.

We're teaching brain surgery when our guys haven't even passed first aid.
See, you consider that brain surgery, I consider it right along with tackling, etc. as part of playing good defense. I don't think making a commitment to trying to force turnovers means you have to ignore playing good defense otherwise. Especially in this day and age where NFL rules are making it tougher to play true straight-up defense each and every year...

Hydrae
05-27-2005, 04:18 PM
Indianapolis was 3rd in the league for total takeaways. Cincinatti and New Orleans were top 10. Denver was tied with us.

Takeaways don't equal good defense.

I'm all for getting turnovers, but out Defense has shown a deficiency with fundamentals. I'd prefer getting good at the basics before we try and get fancy. When I think of going for the strip, I think of a lot of shed tackles. Hit hard and wrap up and the turnovers will take care of themselves.


:eek: OMG, did you just say that? :eek:
















Couldn't agree more! :thumb:

Spicy McHaggis
05-27-2005, 04:38 PM
I think I would feel better if he were yelling, "wrap up, don't just arm tackle. Drive your legs through the player." jspchief hit it right on the head. One of the main problems KC has on D is that they flat out can't tackle.

I agree. If you bust your butt and form tackle, put your hat on the ball side, etc. then the turnovers should follow.