The Chiefs Defense: An Absolutely Terrifying Set of Statistics

[Arrowhead Pride]

I'm not one to self promote on here but one of our readers did an excellent post on the Chiefs defensive draft picks over the last 7 years. Thought you all might be interested.

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2008/11/17/663898/the-defense-an-absolutely

[BigRedChief]

From a poster on the Arrowhead pride website:


Here are the results, and they are DISGUSTING. Even from the beginning of the Vermeil and Herm eras, the Defense has not been ignored:

Of the Picks Not Traded Since the 2001 Draft

1st Round: 4 of 6 have been on Defense (67%)

2nd Round: 6 of 6 have been on Defense (100%...100 freaking percent!)

3rd Round: 5 of 9 have been on Defense (56%)

71% of of every 1st through 3rd round draft pick in the last 8 years has been on Defense.

By Position:

DT = 6 (7 if you count McBride)

DE = 2 counting McBride as a DE

LB = 3

S = 2

CB = 2

By Year (with names):

2001 = 1st - No First pick. 2nd - No Second pick. 3rd - Defense, Eric Downing DT. 3rd - Offense.

2002 = 1st - Defense, Ryan Sims DT. 2nd - Defense, Eddie Freeman DT. 3rd - No Third pick.

2003 = 1st - Offense. 2nd - Defense, Kawika Mitchell LB. 3rd - Defense, Julian Battle CB.

2004 = 1st - No First pick. 2nd - Defense, Junior Siavii DT. 2nd - Offense. 3rd - Defense, Keyaron Fox LB.

2005 = 1st - Defense, Derrick Johnson LB. 2nd - No 2nd pick. 3rd - Special Teams.

2006 = 1st - Defense, Tamba Hali DE. 2nd - Defense, Bernard Pollard S. 3rd - Offense.

2007 = 1st - Offense. 2nd - Defense, Turk McBride DT/DE. 3rd - Defense, Tank Tyler DT.

2008 = 1st - Defense, Glenn Dorsey DT. 1st - Offense. 2nd - Defense, Brandon Flowers CB. 3rd - Offense. 3rd - Offense. 3rd - Defense, DaJuan Morgan S.

I really feel sick looking at all of this over the last 8 years, and we still have the 32nd ranked Defense. Blame Vermeil...blame Herm, but there has only been 1 person in charge over that entire 8 year period.

[U] Those are 15 first day Defensive players. Even if we whiffed on 4 of them, that is still an ENTIRE starting defensive team in their prime. Add to that FA's in that period like Ty Law, Pat Surtain, Napolean Harris, Donnie Edwards, Demorrio Williams, Alphonso Boone...and keep in mind Jared Allen, Jarrad Page, and Brandon Carr were second day picks and don't factor into this scenario.

Our Defense is, and has been, so horrendously broken it almost defies blame...but it doesn't. It is inexcusable.

[BigRedChief]

From a poster on the Arrowhead pride website:


Here are the results, and they are DISGUSTING. Even from the beginning of the Vermeil and Herm eras, the Defense has not been ignored:

Of the Picks Not Traded Since the 2001 Draft

1st Round: 4 of 6 have been on Defense (67%)

2nd Round: 6 of 6 have been on Defense (100%...100 freaking percent!)

3rd Round: 5 of 9 have been on Defense (56%)

71% of of every 1st through 3rd round draft pick in the last 8 years has been on Defense.

By Position:

DT = 6 (7 if you count McBride)

DE = 2 counting McBride as a DE

LB = 3

S = 2

CB = 2

By Year (with names):

2001 = 1st - No First pick. 2nd - No Second pick. 3rd - Defense, Eric Downing DT. 3rd - Offense.

2002 = 1st - Defense, Ryan Sims DT. 2nd - Defense, Eddie Freeman DT. 3rd - No Third pick.

2003 = 1st - Offense. 2nd - Defense, Kawika Mitchell LB. 3rd - Defense, Julian Battle CB.

2004 = 1st - No First pick. 2nd - Defense, Junior Siavii DT. 2nd - Offense. 3rd - Defense, Keyaron Fox LB.

2005 = 1st - Defense, Derrick Johnson LB. 2nd - No 2nd pick. 3rd - Special Teams.

2006 = 1st - Defense, Tamba Hali DE. 2nd - Defense, Bernard Pollard S. 3rd - Offense.

2007 = 1st - Offense. 2nd - Defense, Turk McBride DT/DE. 3rd - Defense, Tank Tyler DT.

2008 = 1st - Defense, Glenn Dorsey DT. 1st - Offense. 2nd - Defense, Brandon Flowers CB. 3rd - Offense. 3rd - Offense. 3rd - Defense, DaJuan Morgan S.

I really feel sick looking at all of this over the last 8 years, and we still have the 32nd ranked Defense. Blame Vermeil...blame Herm, but there has only been 1 person in charge over that entire 8 year period.

[u] Those are 15 first day Defensive players. Even if we whiffed on 4 of them, that is still an ENTIRE starting defensive team in their prime. Add to that FA's in that period like Ty Law, Pat Surtain, Napolean Harris, Donnie Edwards, Demorrio Williams, Alphonso Boone...and keep in mind Jared Allen, Jarrad Page, and Brandon Carr were second day picks and don't factor into this scenario.

Our Defense is, and has been, so horrendously broken it almost defies blame...but it doesn't. It is inexcusable.
That is sad.Sad.Sad.:shake:

[Buehler445]

Hey, what a way to start the morning!
:lin:

[Deberg_1990]

Yep. Sad

and to think there are some people that want Peterson to stay???

[BigChiefFan]

More like Pathetic. What is sad is ownership keeps these clowns around.

[notorious]

Anger growing stronger........... :#






But fizzles because the Chiefs have taken all the fire out of me.


Now it's just apathy and sorrow. :(

That is just plain, f****** pathetic.

[Basileus777]

It's a combination of bad drafting/scouting and bad coaches who can't develop talent.

It's fucking pathetic.

[Fish]

Yep. Sad

and to think there are some people that want Peterson to stay???

Who the hell is still supporting Peterson? Seriously?

[BigChiefFan]

It's a combination of bad drafting/scouting and bad coaches who can't develop talent.

It's ****ing pathetic.,but Carl has a USFL championship ring.:D

[ChiefGator]

2001 = 1st - No First pick. 2nd - No Second pick. 3rd - Defense, Eric Downing DT. 3rd - Offense.

2002 = 1st - Defense, Ryan Sims DT. 2nd - Defense, Eddie Freeman DT. 3rd - No Third pick.

2003 = 1st - Offense. 2nd - Defense, Kawika Mitchell LB. 3rd - Defense, Julian Battle CB.

2004 = 1st - No First pick. 2nd - Defense, Junior Siavii DT. 2nd - Offense. 3rd - Defense, Keyaron Fox LB.

Those are the really bad years. Terrible, terrible, terrible.

[yeti]

Those are the really bad years. Terrible, terrible, terrible.

but after that things start to look at least a little better. so maybe those years of draft suckage might have set us only back 2 years in the 5 year plan right?

[Brock]

Vermeil was awesome.

[Chief Faithful]

The whole conclusion is based on false logic. In order for the conclusion to work it requires all 8 years to be bad drafting, but only the first 4 (2001 - 2004) were really bad. This would point to DV being the one to blame. In reality the whole scouting organization top to bottom was sick during the DV years, which is why Carl is to blame.

Results from years 2006 - 2008 show evidence that the problem has been corrected. So who was the positive influence for the corrective change? We all know Herm was picked because he was the type of change Carl wanted, a coach that would play the youth. The corrective change has resulted in improvement in scouting and drafting. Proof positive are the second day picks in 2008 with players like Carr.

We all want to blame Carl and DV for the bad years and rightly so, but I also applaud Carl for the changes made resulting in what appears to be a rebuilding effort moving in the right direction.

[BigRedChief]

We all want to blame Carl and DV for the bad years and rightly so, but I also applaud Carl for the changes made resulting in what appears to be a rebuilding effort moving in the right direction.
Not quite so fast there ace.

Just because they are starting on a team thats lost 17 out of their last 18 games doesn't nessesarily make them good picks or decent NFL players.

[talastan]

but after that things start to look at least a little better. so maybe those years of draft suckage might have set us only back 2 years in the 5 year plan right?

Yes the sad thing is that out of the 20 years of the "5 year plan" that is 8 years real time. :shake:

There are a couple of things that are constant in these stats. The fact that Gun and Carl are both there. I love Gun and his fire but the truth is I'm wondering if he still is up to the task of coaching his players. You can yell, spit, :cuss:, and motivate them all you want but with this young team these coaches have to be actually TEACHING them something.

[Chief Faithful]

Not quite so fast there ace.

Just because they are starting on a team thats lost 17 out of their last 18 games doesn't nessesarily make them good picks or decent NFL players.

You are right that history will tell the full story, but even if we apply your arguement that starting does not absolutely mean a good pick then more time is needed to determine the value of the pick. Thus, the result is the conclusion is premature.

If we consider starting typically, not always, means a good pick while the record is not as consistent a measure. For example, DV didn't start many bad picks while producing a good record during the same period that the Titans started many good picks while producing a bad record. Then the current evidence points to an incorrect conclusion not just premature.

If you add my opinion of what I've seen from the rookies on the field then I say the conclusion is way off built on bad logic.

[Chief Faithful]

Yes the sad thing is that out of the 20 years of the "5 year plan" that is 8 years real time. :shake:

There are a couple of things that are constant in these stats. The fact that Gun and Carl are both there. I love Gun and his fire but the truth is I'm wondering if he still is up to the task of coaching his players. You can yell, spit, :cuss:, and motivate them all you want but with this young team these coaches have to be actually TEACHING them something.

Why do so many conclude that the coaches are failing to teach because of the record? These rookies are getting better even fans on CP, the ones who think they know more than they actually do, can see it through the television, which tells me the coaches are doing their job.

I think we have a lot of fans who were not prepared for what rebuilding really meant.

[HemiEd]

That is sad.Sad.Sad.:shake:

Glad someone went to the trouble of putting it on paper.
I was saying to the defensive homers for the last several years. I still blame Gunther, a capable coach should have gotten a decent team out of that bunch.

[Brock]

I think we have a lot of fans who were not prepared for what rebuilding really meant.

This is true. The real problem with most people is the unpopularity of Herman Edwards. If this were some young wunderkind coach that everybody was on board with, you wouldn't hear this much bitching.

[talastan]

Why do so many conclude that the coaches are failing to teach because of the record? These rookies are getting better even fans on CP, the ones who think they know more than they actually do, can see it through the television, which tells me the coaches are doing their job.

I think we have a lot of fans who were not prepared for what rebuilding really meant.

While I agree that a lot of people weren't prepared for what rebuilding actually brought us, I still see the same issues that we've had for a couple of years now. Arm tackling, not bringing down a runner, biting on the play-action. These are all coaching issues IMO. Yes inexperience is a problem THIS year, but what about the past few? I love Gunther, and I hope he works this all out, but you have to hold everyone involved accountable in these situations.

[Rausch]

This is true. The real problem with most people is the unpopularity of Herman Edwards. If this were some young wunderkind coach that everybody was on board with, you wouldn't hear this much bitching.

He'd also have an excuse for dumbassery, poor clock managment, and a poor read on the pulse of his team.

Herm should not be excused from any of those. He's not some green rook with fresh ideas.

And the rebuild excuse is tired with me. I didn't tell you to wait until year three to build this team around you.

Wish this worked for everyone else. "Hey, I know I've spent 5 months remodeling but there's too much termite damage. Let's just tear this fucker down and start from the foundation up..."

[FringeNC]

I think we have a lot of fans who were not prepared for what rebuilding really meant.

Screw rebuilding. There is no such thing as rebuilding. You either draft well or you don't. You either develop the players you draft or you don't. You either coach well or you don't.

Some claim Parcells isn't "rebuilding" in Miami. That's a bunch of BS. He will turnover the roster quite a bit every year until it is loaded with talent -- talent acquired via the draft, free-agency, and trade.

[yeti]

Yes the sad thing is that out of the 20 years of the "5 year plan" that is 8 years real time. :shake:

There are a couple of things that are constant in these stats. The fact that Gun and Carl are both there. I love Gun and his fire but the truth is I'm wondering if he still is up to the task of coaching his players. You can yell, spit, :cuss:, and motivate them all you want but with this young team these coaches have to be actually TEACHING them something.

it is frustrating. i mean gun is a hard ass SOB drill sergeant and herm is one of the most "best coaches to play for" bottom line is neither of them have fixed the D. wtf is the point of having herm as the coach if you have a shitty D.

[Chiefnj2]

I didn't tell you to wait until year three to build this team around you.



Herm didn't wait three years to rebuild. He tried building his own defense and special teams from the beginning.

[FringeNC]

Herm didn't wait three years to rebuild. He tried building his own defense and special teams from the beginning.

Thank you. You only call it "rebuilding" when you have a bad record.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Thank you. You only call it "rebuilding" when you have a bad record.

IMO, rebuilding has nothing to do with the record.

It's the process of making your team younger, and hopefully better for the long term in the process.

In theory, if you bring in/draft the right players during a rebuilding process, your team should be good for a significant amount of time. We're talking 5-8 years. A team of 22 year old players should grow and mature as players along the same timeframe, putting them all in their prime at the same time. Almost by definition, you can't call a rebuild a success or failure for several years. See Green Bay, Tennessee. In our case, incompetent coaching will probably slow that process down considerably.

What Miami has done is not rebuilding. You could call it reloading, I guess. They'll be decent this year, maybe next.

But unless they draft extremely well over the next 3-5 years to replace all the aging veterans they signed in FA this offseason, (at what happen to be very important positions) then they'll be right back in the shithouse with a 4-12 record.

The Jets are the same way. When players like Favre, Faneca and Jenkins retire, or are become ineffective to to age, they'll be in a world of hurt unless they draft extremely well and have replacements on hand for those vets.

[Chiefnj2]

What Miami has done is not rebuilding. You could call it reloading, I guess. They'll be decent this year, maybe next.

But unless they draft extremely well over the next 3-5 years to replace all the aging veterans they signed in FA this offseason, (at what happen to be very important positions) then they'll be right back in the shithouse with a 4-12 record.



How are the Dolphins not rebuilding? Their OL is very young and they already have replacement players in line on the DL for NT and RDE.

[OnTheWarpath15]

How are the Dolphins not rebuilding? Their OL is very young and they already have replacement players in line on the DL for NT and RDE.

Do you think that Miami is set up to win consistently for the next 5-8 years, like the Colts?

I don't.

[StcChief]

so we have been trying to improve since Marty left.... tell me something new...

[Chiefnj2]

Do you think that Miami is set up to win consistently for the next 5-8 years, like the Colts?

I don't.

It's their first year with a new coach and new GM. They couldn't possibly be in the same situation as a team that has had the benefit of having the same coach and GM for many years.

Nobody looks 8 years down the road. Most teams and coaches probably have a 3-4 year plan. Coaches don't have the job security to build something that looks so far into the future.

[FringeNC]

IMO, rebuilding has nothing to do with the record.

It's the process of making your team younger, and hopefully better for the long term in the process.

In theory, if you bring in/draft the right players during a rebuilding process, your team should be good for a significant amount of time. We're talking 5-8 years. A team of 22 year old players should grow and mature as players along the same timeframe, putting them all in their prime at the same time. Almost by definition, you can't call a rebuild a success or failure for several years. See Green Bay, Tennessee. In our case, incompetent coaching will probably slow that process down considerably.

What Miami has done is not rebuilding. You could call it reloading, I guess. They'll be decent this year, maybe next.

But unless they draft extremely well over the next 3-5 years to replace all the aging veterans they signed in FA this offseason, (at what happen to be very important positions) then they'll be right back in the shithouse with a 4-12 record.

The Jets are the same way. When players like Favre, Faneca and Jenkins retire, or are become ineffective to to age, they'll be in a world of hurt unless they draft extremely well and have replacements on hand for those vets.

So by the Jets signing aging veterans, how does this preclude them from winning in the future -- in order words, what young players did they cut from the roster who will be good in the future?

[OnTheWarpath15]

So by the Jets signing aging veterans, how does this preclude them from winning in the future -- in order words, what young players did they cut from the roster who will be good in the future?

Who said anything about cutting young players?

I said they've put themselves in a position that they have to draft exceptionally to win in the future. (3-5 years down the road, and beyond)

As players age, their productivity declines.

They went out an spent a ton of money to win NOW, future be damned.

Unless they strike gold in the draft over the next 2 years and find replacements for these aging players (which all happen to be at key positions) then they're screwed.

The average age of the offense is 30 years old. Every impact player they have is over 30. (Favre, Jones, Coles, Woody, Faneca, etc)

They have youth at two positions, center and left tackle.

They are in better shape on the defensive side of the ball averaging 27 years old. All of their age is in the front 7, all of those guys are in that 30 YO range - which is the beginning of the slide, in a lot of cases.

Where they are really strong/young is in the backfield.

IMO, the Jets are going to end up right where Vermeil's Chiefs did - they'll all "get old" and have their skills diminish around the same time. If they draft like we did, they'll fall of the face of the map - just like we did.

[Chief Faithful]

Thank you. You only call it "rebuilding" when you have a bad record.

Obviously you do not agree with the approach they decided to take at the end of last season, but it is a proven approach. The most recent examples are Tennessee and Packers and nobody can forget how Jimmy Johnson did it in Dallas.

On the other extreme you have the George Allen approach of sell the future for now. The Jets are the most recent example of that approach.

Parcells and Cowher have been very successful treading the middle, which few can do. Most end up like Shannanrat with mediocrity year in and year out.

The Chiefs were so completely bankrupt of talent at the end of DV's tenure I don't think they had a choice. They tried to get younger and more talented without rebuilding, but the whole thing just fell apart last year.

[FringeNC]

Who said anything about cutting young players?

I said they've put themselves in a position that they have to draft exceptionally to win in the future. (3-5 years down the road, and beyond)

As players age, their productivity declines.

They went out an spent a ton of money to win NOW, future be damned.

Unless they strike gold in the draft over the next 2 years and find replacements for these aging players (which all happen to be at key positions) then they're screwed.

The average age of the offense is 30 years old. Every impact player they have is over 30. (Favre, Jones, Coles, Woody, Faneca, etc)

They have youth at two positions, center and left tackle.

They are in better shape on the defensive side of the ball averaging 27 years old. All of their age is in the front 7, all of those guys are in that 30 YO range - which is the beginning of the slide, in a lot of cases.

Where they are really strong/young is in the backfield.

IMO, the Jets are going to end up right where Vermeil's Chiefs did - they'll all "get old" and have their skills diminish around the same time. If they draft like we did, they'll fall of the face of the map - just like we did.

You're missing my point -- sure, if they are trading away all their draft picks, or cutting promising but young guys (like Minn. with Thigpen), then yeah, they may be mortgaging the future. If you sign good veteran players instead of playing crappy young players with no future, how are you mortgaging the future. My point is simply you either draft well, in which case you'll be good in the future, or you don't, and signing old good players doesn't matter.

[FringeNC]

Obviously you do not agree with the approach they decided to take at the end of last season, but it is a proven approach. The most recent examples are Tennessee and Packers and nobody can forget how Jimmy Johnson did it in Dallas.

On the other extreme you have the George Allen approach of sell the future for now. The Jets are the most recent example of that approach.

Parcells and Cowher have been very successful treading the middle, which few can do. Most end up like Shannanrat with mediocrity year in and year out.

The Chiefs were so completely bankrupt of talent at the end of DV's tenure I don't think they had a choice. They tried to get younger and more talented without rebuilding, but the whole thing just fell apart last year.

This argument would be correct if a lot of the players Shanny drafted were cut and had success elsewhere because he refused to wait for the to develop. I don't know the answer to this question, but my guess would be there were very few who developed elsewhere.