The sad thing is this line could be just as bad next year

[Just Passin' By]

They replaced a defense that set a league record for fewest sacks, and some of you people are still bitching about the switch to the 3-4.

Newsflash: You can't expect to improve 45+ positions in one season and, no matter where you do improve, you'll still have areas which suck enough that impatient and/or stupid fans will be bitching even though it was a 2 win team the season before.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

They replaced a defense that set a league record for fewest sacks, and some of you people are still bitching about the switch to the 3-4.

Newsflash: You can't expect to improve 45+ positions in one season and, no matter where you do improve, you'll still have areas which suck enough that impatient and/or stupid fans will be bitching even though it was a 2 win team the season before.

No, they didn't improve the sacks numbers because of a scheme change.

The sack numbers are improved because Dorsey is devloping into a player that is disruptive on the D-Line.

Had they remained in a 43, and used Dorsey as the UT with Hali as the LDE, the improvement would very likely be much the same as it is now.

The last draft should have been dedicated to offense.
The next to defense.

They appear to be ass backwards.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by milkman

No, they didn't improve the sacks numbers because of a scheme change.

The sack numbers are improved because Dorsey is devloping into a player that is disruptive on the D-Line.

Had they remained in a 43, and used Dorsey as the UT with Hali as the LDE, the improvement would very likely be much the same as it is now.

The last draft should have been dedicated to offense.
The next to defense.

They appear to be ass backwards.

I didn't say that that sacks numbers changed because of a scheme change. My point was that the defense sucked in the 4-3 last season, so bitching about the change to a 3-4 is just idiotic. Bitching about changing if the 4-3 had been working would at least make sense.

As for the "ass backwards" claim:

• The Steelers are considered a top drafting team. They took corners with picks in the 3rd and 5th rounds, and defensive tackles in the 1st and 6th.



• The Giants went with defensive backs in rounds 6 and 7, as well as going linebacker in round 2, RB in the 4th and QB in the 5th.



• The Colts went DT in rounds 2 and 4, and CB in round 3.



• The Patriots were loaded with 12 picks and could take some gambles, but the team used 6 of those picks on defense, along with one on a long snapper, one on a player recovering from ACL surgery (Tate), and one that was a QB conversion gamble (Edelman)

All that 'great' offense, and top drafting teams were taking multiple defensive players, often at the top of the draft. That's because teams draft according to their plan, and their draft board. That plan differing from a message board poster's preference is not the same as that plan being wrong.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I didn't say that that sacks numbers changed because of a scheme change. My point was that the defense sucked in the 4-3 last season, so bitching about the change to a 3-4 is just idiotic. Bitching about changing if the 4-3 had been working would at least make sense.

As for the "ass backwards" claim:

• The Steelers are considered a top drafting team. They took corners with picks in the 3rd and 5th rounds, and defensive tackles in the 1st and 6th.
  
  
• The Giants went with defensive backs in rounds 6 and 7, as well as going linebacker in round 2, RB in the 4th and QB in the 5th.
  
  
• The Colts went DT in rounds 2 and 4, and CB in round 3.
  
  
• The Patriots were loaded with 12 picks and could take some gambles, but the team used 6 of those picks on defense, along with one on a long snapper, one on a player recovering from ACL surgery (Tate), and one that was a QB conversion gamble (Edelman)

All that 'great' offense, and top drafting teams were taking multiple defensive players, often at the top of the draft. That's because teams draft according to their plan, and their draft board. That plan differing from a message board poster's preference is not the same as that plan being wrong.

You looking at 4 of the top teams in the league to justify the Chiefs' plan?

You're telling me that because those teams, teams with fewer holes combined than the Chiefs, can be used to illustrate that the Chiefs draft wasn't backasswards?

This team has more holes than the PGA tour.

Thier plan may work, but the value in the last draft was on offense, the value in the next draft is on defense.

A team with as many holes as the Chiefs should have followed a plan that took advantage of that value.

But they pissed on that value because they had to switch immediately.

Quite frankly, I'm not convinced that Pioli is any better than Carl.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by milkman

Thier plan may work, but the value in the last draft was on offense, the value in the next draft is on defense.

A team with as many holes as the Chiefs should have followed a plan that took advantage of that value.

But they pissed on that value because they had to switch immediately.

Quite frankly, I'm not convinced that Pioli is any better than Carl.

Even though this has been stated hundreds of times these past few months...

THIS!

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by milkman

You looking at 4 of the top teams in the league to justify the Chiefs' plan?

You're telling me that because those teams, teams with fewer holes combined than the Chiefs, can be used to illustrate that the Chiefs draft wasn't backasswards?

This team has more holes than the PGA tour.

Thier plan may work, but the value in the last draft was on offense, the value in the next draft is on defense.

A team with as many holes as the Chiefs should have followed a plan that took advantage of that value.

But they pissed on that value because they had to switch immediately.

Quite frankly, I'm not convinced that Pioli is any better than Carl.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

They replaced a defense that set a league record for fewest sacks, and some of you people are still bitching about the switch to the 3-4.

Newsflash: You can't expect to improve 45+ positions in one season and, no matter where you do improve, you'll still have areas which suck enough that impatient and/or stupid fans will be bitching even though it was a 2 win team the season before.

We still could have drafted Jackson in the first. Cassel and Vrabel with the 2nd. From that point on was where you would have to rate the draft a big FAIL with regards to the offensive line.

We won't go into the first two rounds in this draft in this thread...

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Coogs

We still could have drafted Jackson in the first. Cassel and Vrabel with the 2nd. From that point on was where you would have to rate the draft a big FAIL with regards to the offensive line.

We won't go into the first two rounds in this draft in this thread...

Yep.

Even if you want to reach for Jackson, and the 2nd is already gone, you still could have done much, much more to improve this team, and specifically, the OL. Examples:

R3: Antoine Caldwell, Louis Vasquez, Kraig Urbik, Michael Johnson, Mike Wallace

R4: Jonathan Luigs, TJ Lang, Lawrence Sidbury, Austin Collie, Troy Kropog

R5: Johnny Knox, Jasper Brinkley, Fenuki Tupou, Macho Harris, Jamon Meridith, Duke Robinson

R6: Matt Slauson, Brandon Gibson, James Davis

R7: AQ Shipley, Julian Edelman, Zach Follett

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Yep.

Even if you want to reach for Jackson, and the 2nd is already gone, you still could have done much, much more to improve this team, and specifically, the OL. Examples:

R3: Antoine Caldwell, Louis Vasquez, Kraig Urbik, Michael Johnson, Mike Wallace

R4: Jonathan Luigs, TJ Lang, Lawrence Sidbury, Austin Collie, Troy Kropog

R5: Johnny Knox, Jasper Brinkley, Fenuki Tupou, Macho Harris, Jamon Meridith, Duke Robinson

R6: Matt Slauson, Brandon Gibson, James Davis

R7: AQ Shipley, Julian Edelman, Zach Follett

Luigs, Duke and Shipley could help us.

But really, Michael Johnson isnt a better pick than Magee IMHO for this scheme.

I fully agree that we ****ed up by not taking a linemen till Collin.