Jackson And Magee - The Foundation?
 

<table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" class="storytitle">Jackson And Magee - The Foundation? </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="primaryimage" valign="top">http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/67/675519.jpg
Icon SMI
</td> <td width="3" nowrap="nowrap">
</td> <td valign="top"> <table width="60%" bgcolor="#f5f5f5" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td valign="middle" nowrap="nowrap">By C.E. Wendler
Warpaint Illustrated Columnist
Posted May 4, 2009
</td> <td nowrap="nowrap">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Four thousand, six-hundred and thirty-two rushing yards, 4.67 yards per carry, 36 rushing touchdowns, 35 runs over 20 yards. If you saw the last 32 games played by the Kansas City Chiefs, no doubt you’re acutely aware of what those statistics represent. They are the numerical representation of one of the NFL’s worst run defenses.
</td></tr> <tr> <td colspan="3">
In fact, only one team has allowed more rushing yards than the Chiefs over the last two seasons – the Oakland Raiders. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Raiders are the only team the Chiefs have beaten more than once over the last two seasons.

Do you think any of this escaped the attention of Scott Pioli?

Early this offseason, as he reviewed film of the ragtag defense he was inheriting, likely he was completely disgusted by what he saw: huge running lanes, missed tackles, safeties and linebackers being abused by even pedestrian running backs.

Actually, forget running backs. How about ball carriers in general? Last September, when former Patriots quarterback Matt Cassel put a juke on former Chiefs middle linebacker Pat Thomas, Pioli had to be laughing. A few months later, Pioli probably wasn’t giggling when he decided not to re-sign Thomas.

There’s really nothing more demoralizing to a football team than bad run defense. Via the play-action pass, it effectively turns any defense into a complete laughingstock. It forces the offense to play catch-up against a well-rested defense.

Worst of all, it emasculates abnormally large men who possess strength much greater than the average human. To put it bluntly, if you're a defender who can't hold up against the run, the average fan might assign you certain feminine characteristics. There is no greater embarrassment in the world of pro football.

It’s probably not a coincidence that eight of the last 10 Super Bowl winners featured top 10 run defenses during the regular season. And the two exceptions – the 2006 Colts and 2001 Patriots – just happened to play phenomenal run defense on their way to championships. <table width="225" align="right" cellspacing="7"><tbody><tr><td>http://media.scout.com/media/image/67/675539.jpg
"Pick me! Pick me!" screamed Tyson Jackson. And Pioli obliged.
Doug Benc - Getty </td></tr></tbody></table> Again, none of this escapes Pioli, who witnessed firsthand what a bad run defense does to a football team in 2002, with the Patriots. A championship team the previous year, New England was reduced to missing the playoffs because of the 31st ranked run defense.

That’s why we shouldn’t be surprised Tyson Jackson and Alex Magee are Chiefs today.

Leading up to the draft, it seemed a foregone conclusion that if Pioli was going pick based on need, as we had seen him do in New England, picking a pass rusher appeared to be the most obvious choice. When you only get to the quarterback 10 times in 16 games, it’s fairly obvious your roster is stocked with a lack of individuals who can beat an offensive tackle with any sort of consistency.

So when the Chiefs didn’t even bother to trade down in an effort to pick an outside pass rusher, and in fact went through the entire draft without selecting a single player who might play outside linebacker in a 3-4 defense, fans started scratching their heads. Actually, they started beating their heads against the wall when Pioli and company apparently “reached” for a 3-4 defensive end in Jackson with the third overall pick.

But perhaps we all misjudged what the Chiefs’ biggest need really was? Think of it this way – how is a defense going to get to the quarterback when the ball is being shoved down its throat 35 or 40 times on a given Sunday?

What’s the old football adage? You earn the right to rush the passer by stopping the run? Last year the only thing the Chiefs’ defense earned was pink slips for Herm Edwards and Gunther Cunningham.

If Jackson and Magee are the 3-4 run stuffers Pioli believes them to be, and Tank Tyler is the supposed anchor in the middle, they’ll create more opportunities for Tamba Hali, Mike Vrabel and hopefully a few more pass rushers to be named later this offseason. They’ll also give Derrick Johnson a chance to revive his career and Zach Thomas a chance to do what he was signed to do.

After the fact, and considering all of that, how can anyone disagree with the drafting of Jackson and Magee? What was Pioli supposed to do? Go to war with Glenn Dorsey, Alfonso Boone and Turk McBride playing end in the 3-4? There are already indications that Dorsey isn’t a particularly good fit anywhere in the scheme. Boone is a career 4-3 defensive tackle. McBride, despite his size, has been moved to outside linebacker. <table width="225" align="right" cellspacing="9"><tbody><tr><td>http://media.scout.com/media/image/67/675559.jpg
After seeing the guns on Alex Magee, Pioli could not resist picking him.
Andrew Hancock - IndyStar.com </td></tr></tbody></table>Without a pair of players like Jackson and Magee, the Chiefs were just asking to get run all over again for the third year in a row. Can you imagine the gaping holes off right and left tackle that might’ve been created in Kansas City’s defensive line this season without competent 3-4 defensive ends? Forget running up the middle, teams would have been ripping off enormous gains to the outside.

The Chiefs would have been asking any pass rushers, no matter their talent, to be bystanders in a hopeless war of attrition. Even worse, they would have been asking Matt Cassel to play catch-up against well-rested defenses. Not a great way to start the new era at Arrowhead Stadium.

Clearly, if you want to build a football team, you have to start with the foundation. Jackson and Magee appear to be just that.

In drafting the pair, Pioli is sending you a simple message. If we could step inside his thought process, it might sound a little something like this:

"My God, Chiefs fans. My God. This team may have the most pathetic run defense in the history of the franchise. It may be the worst I've seen my 17 years in and around the National Football League. I know you covet pass rushers. But right now, I have to do something to fix this run defense.

My God, if I don't, what will happen? I saw how you turned on Gunther Cunningham. You ate Herm Edwards alive! You guys scare me! I have to fix this run defense RIGHT NOW, or Clancy Pendergast may soon be compared to Greg Robinson. I need Tyson Jackson. I need Alex Magee. Help me, Zach Thomas, you're my only hope!"

What about Todd Haley? We don't even have to guess. Shortly after Jackson was selected, he had this to say about his new defensive end:

"We probably see him right now away from the tight end, on the back side, the open side," said Haley. "That’s a key position for the defense as far as stopping the run."

And who knows? The Chiefs may yet make a play for Julius Peppers or Jason Taylor. But what good would either player – or any pass rusher picked early in the draft - have done for Kansas City this season if opposing offenses were ramming the ball in every direction for huge chunks of yardage again and again?

The answer is obvious: little good at all.
</td></tr></tbody></table>

No no no no. Don't they know?

Mecca, Hamas, Dane, and the Gang Green decided this draft was a disaster.
Posted via Mobile Device

Claythan?

That's his article, yes. What are your thoughts?

Sucks about Dorsey.

Great article, I agree completely. When a team can run all over you, nothing else matters, that game is over.

At this point it's quite easy to see the philosophy of building your team through special teams and each unit (offense and defense) from the lines out.

I think Pioli and Haley feel better about the O-line than most of us.

I think adding Goff is a lot bigger than people believe. The right side isn't terrible anymore, but our guards aren't a long term solution either.

And what's your official opinion, Cockholster?

I'll go on record and say they're arrogant and nuts.

That O-line completely sucks ass.

That's the same trap that Carl & Herm fell into in 2007.

They are? If i remember right, the 01 Pats teams didnt have the greatest offense but had strong special teams and a strong defense.

I remember them stealing a game in the playoffs that year from the Steelers on special teams alone.

I have a hard time believing that an offensive line consisting of Sackintosh, Niswanger and Goff will be competing for a playoff spot.

Goff is 33, Sack is 32 and Niswanger is horrible center. Haley's also a first-time head coach.

And in 2001, the New England Patriots were 6th in the league in offensive points scored per game.

I think you have Goff in the wrong category. When healthy he should be in the Albert and Waters category. I'm not saying hes great, but even at his age hes a big upgrade for the short term. Also Olinemen can usually play past 33.

I dont think they will compete for a playoff spot this year. Rome wasnt built in a day.

Pioli and Bellicheks first year in NE they only won 5 games.

honestly, I'm in the wait and see camp due to this is Pioli's first year and didn't have "his" scouts. 2011-12 season will be the year to judge his competency.

Good concept for an article, but it seemed really redundant. Our first picks were used to shore up our run defense; yeah, I picked up on that.

I think Rudy is better than you are giving him credit for, but in all, Dane is spot on here. This was considered a very good/great year for drafting offensive linemen, but we didn't, other than a stretch for a MU tackle and an undersized Duke dude in free agency. (And I still don't get why we didn't pick up more guys in free agency to compete on the offensive line. If I was GM, my first call would have been to BYU to talk to the three senior offensive lineman that were available right after the draft. Also, we seemed to miss the boat on some quality linebackers in free agency, although the guy from Maine looks like a player.)

Clay's getting better. That one didn't make me wince even once. I knew Jackson was the best need available at three with no possible trade down, but I understand the Magee pickup more than I did before.

Kudos to Clay!

Good article. I agree that stopping the run is going to open the passrush.

I gotta' say; the idea of DJ, Vrabel, and Pollard getting after some guys out of coverage does in fact give me wood.

I don't know much about Vrabel, but I'd love to see DJ and Pollard start popping and playing up to their promise.

Best article by Clay in a long time.

top notch editing....

claythan is a vag, sending me private messages claiming that this makes sense..


can anyone not spot the error here, since claythan is too stupid to see it?

Why don't you post your problem with the sentence.

-

No, fill us in.

I don't have a problem with the hyphen. It makes the sentence easier to read, IMO.

They (two hyphens) don't belong, which is the problem I'm assuming that TC is talking about.

And really, how does it make it easier to read?

Catch-up is perfectly acceptable and well-rested defense is correct.

Exactly.

We didn't draft 7 offensive linemen so it's the end of the world.

In Belichek's first year in New England, the offense actually DROPPED from 20th to 25th in scoring and from 18th to 22nd in yards.

They took Matt Light in the 2001 draft and he started at LT from Day 1. Coincidentally, they won a Super Bowl in his rookie season.

Both of those words are hyphenated compounds. The usage is correct.

Back in the day, they weren't acceptable.

Rules change.

The hyphen in "well-rested", which is the one I thought you had a problem with, makes it easier to read because it ties the two words together for the reader as a description of the noun "defense". IMO, it saves the reader a little effort by preventing him from having to sort that connection out. Apparently the grammar police at grammarbook.com agree with me, fwiw.

So, I wonder if the Talking Can has something else in mind or if he'll be a stand up guy and admit that Claythan isn't really "too stupid" to see the supposed error after all.

Well, this is true as long as Goff comes back from that injury... ahhh **** it. He's an improvement over Adrian Jones even if he lost a ****ing leg.

Exactly.

I don't think people realize that we could have line up NOBODY at RG last season and it would have been an improvement over Jones.

how about switching "offense" and "defense" in that last sentence...you know, so it actually makes sense....

are you his editor?

If you did that, it would change the meaning to something that the author didn't intend (and it wouldn't make nearly as much sense).

When you have a porous run defense, the opposing team's offense stays on the field longer, controls the ball, and runs it down your throat until they score. Then your offense comes on the field and tries to play catch-up against the well-rested defense of the other team.

I hope this helps.

How would that make sense?

Having a poor run defense and allowing points in the run game puts pressure on the offense to play catch-up against an opposing defense that is well-rested because they haven't been on the field.

Being overly critical... but....

Gretz rips off Wendler:

And doesn't do NEAR as good a job on the subject at hand.
**** you, Fatty Lap Dog.

Woof Woof!

And they both got the idea from me
or maybe it's an obvious point and there's not much else to talk about right now

ALL HAIL-

Wait. Who the hell are you again?:rolleyes:

you do realize the first comment was sarcastic, right? i would assume the second sentence would tell you that

maybe i should've put it more bluntly: it's hard for writers not to cover the same material and sometimes make the same points when they're covering the same team

Gretz gets more exposure so it's not like he would can an article because Claythan recently made similar points on wpi.

Very well then.

Yeah, it's pretty hilarious that someone picks up on the article's problems and doesn't use that sentence as evidence.