Chiefs Nap Harris vs. Kawika Mitchell

Direckshun · 10-23-2007, 12:55 AM

Just wondering where you'd stand on this particular issue.

Mitchell doesn't have Harris' versatility, but he was a tackling machine. Harris puts up decent numbers tackling, but I doubt he'll top Mitchell's tackling numbers from 2006.

Mitchell displays a lot more fire on the field, but Harris is undoubtably the better field general.

Harris is also a lot faster, and better in coverage. A classic Cover 2 MLB.

But that's my opinion. Yours?

**luv** · 10-23-2007, 12:58 AM

Based on my very limited knowledge, I thought Mitchell was doing very well, and I was suprised when he got released. However, based on what you said, and what I had heard, in general, about his lack of speed, I can see why Herm would release him and get someone who can cover more of the field. Truth be told, though, I miss Mitchell.

Hammock Parties · 10-23-2007, 12:58 AM

I miss Kawika's hitting ability. Other than that, Nap is teh man.

Direckshun · 10-23-2007, 12:58 AM

Another thing.

Mitchell at least displays the desire to be a team leader. Whereas Harris doesn't really show any inclination, he just does his job and leaves the leadership up to Donnie.

Direckshun · 10-23-2007, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv

Based on my very limited knowledge, I thought Mitchell was doing very well, and I was suprised when he got traded. However, based on what you said, and what I had heard, in general, about his lack of speed, I can see why Herm would trade him and get someone who can cover more of the field. Truth be told, though, I miss Mitchell.

Just FYI, to beat the hounds that'll rush in to correct you, we released Mitchell. We didn't trade him.

Fishpicker · 10-23-2007, 01:00 AM

mitchell floundered in deep zones. he looked like a reerun when he tried to tackle. I'l settle for harris because he can at least wrap up and drop back.

harris> maslowski > patton > mitchell

**luv** · 10-23-2007, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Just FYI, to beat the hounds that'll rush in to correct you, we released Mitchell. We didn't trade him.

Fixed it. Thanks for the heads up.

Hootie · 10-23-2007, 01:16 AM

First off, Mitchell was better than Maslowski...just thought I'd point that out.

Mitchell got a bad rap here, he was a good LB in the wrong scheme.

kcchiefsus · 10-23-2007, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Just FYI, to beat the hounds that'll rush in to correct you, we released Mitchell. We didn't trade him.

Looks like the hounds are in to correct you.

We didn't release Mitchell. He was a free agent who we didn't resign.

Hootie · 10-23-2007, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchiefsus

Looks like the hounds are in to correct you.

We didn't release Mitchell. He was a free agent who we didn't resign.

QFT

beer bacon · 10-23-2007, 01:39 AM

Tackle-wise, it isn't fair to compare Mitchell and Harris. Mitchell had Bell playing WLB, so of course he was going to get a bunch of tackles. DE is a tackling machine.

Fishpicker · 10-23-2007, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootie

First off, Mitchell was better than Maslowski...just thought I'd point that out.

Mitchell got a bad rap here, he was a good LB in the wrong scheme.

when you said Huard > Croyle, I let that go

Mitchell was the poor man's Polamalu. a good LB in the wrong scheme can be ammended to read; the wrong LB.

Hootie · 10-23-2007, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishpicker

when you said Huard > Croyle, I let that go

Mitchell was the poor man's Polamalu. a good LB in the wrong scheme can be ammended to read; the wrong LB.

I don't know if this makes any sense.

Zeke Ziggle · 10-23-2007, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishpicker

when you said Huard > Croyle, I let that go

Mitchell was the poor man's Polamalu. a good LB in the wrong scheme can be ammended to read; the wrong LB.

did i miss something or can you now make comparison between players who play different positions.

Mecca · 10-23-2007, 03:13 AM

Mitchell ****in sucked, I said that forever.....Harris is solid which makes him better than Mitchell by a good degree.

View Poll Results: Who's been the better MLB for the Chiefs?
Kawika Mitchell	28	22.95%
Nap Harris	75	61.48%
It's a wash.	16	13.11%
Whatever -- I'm just hanging around, waiting for another FAX limerick.	3	2.46%
Voters: 122. You may not vote on this poll

10-23-2007, 12:55 AM
Direckshun __ Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $2033447	Nap Harris vs. Kawika Mitchell Just wondering where you'd stand on this particular issue. Mitchell doesn't have Harris' versatility, but he was a tackling machine. Harris puts up decent numbers tackling, but I doubt he'll top Mitchell's tackling numbers from 2006. Mitchell displays a lot more fire on the field, but Harris is undoubtably the better field general. Harris is also a lot faster, and better in coverage. A classic Cover 2 MLB. But that's my opinion. Yours?
Posts: 59,693

10-23-2007, 12:58 AM	#2
luv You think you can get by this? Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Springfield, MO Casino cash: $-1270000	Based on my very limited knowledge, I thought Mitchell was doing very well, and I was suprised when he got released. However, based on what you said, and what I had heard, in general, about his lack of speed, I can see why Herm would release him and get someone who can cover more of the field. Truth be told, though, I miss Mitchell.
Posts: 63,567

10-23-2007, 12:58 AM	#3
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $740478	I miss Kawika's hitting ability. Other than that, Nap is teh man. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 297,600

10-23-2007, 12:58 AM	#4
Direckshun __ Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $2033447	Another thing. Mitchell at least displays the desire to be a team leader. Whereas Harris doesn't really show any inclination, he just does his job and leaves the leadership up to Donnie.
Posts: 59,693

10-23-2007, 01:00 AM	#6
Fishpicker On one quarter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: I play all day Casino cash: $467111	mitchell floundered in deep zones. he looked like a reerun when he tried to tackle. I'l settle for harris because he can at least wrap up and drop back. harris> maslowski > patton > mitchell __________________ A person who has been [ideologically] demoralized cannot assess true information. the [demoralization] process is complete and irreversible. -Yuri Bezmenov on Soviet Subversion
Posts: 6,194

10-23-2007, 01:16 AM	#8
Hootie Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Casino cash: $10004900	First off, Mitchell was better than Maslowski...just thought I'd point that out. Mitchell got a bad rap here, he was a good LB in the wrong scheme.
Posts: 56,356

10-23-2007, 01:39 AM	#11
beer bacon WHAT Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Casino cash: $10019545	Tackle-wise, it isn't fair to compare Mitchell and Harris. Mitchell had Bell playing WLB, so of course he was going to get a bunch of tackles. DE is a tackling machine.
Posts: 9,301

10-23-2007, 03:13 AM	#15
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-762950	Mitchell ****in sucked, I said that forever.....Harris is solid which makes him better than Mitchell by a good degree.
Posts: 115,406