**** BOB SUTTON

[Chris Meck]

That's it.
You got major upgrades in the front seven. The corners were not the problem today. Guys running free underneath all ****ing day. NO PASS RUSH, rushing two and three guys and Steeler receivers STILL RUNNING FREE UNDERNEATH. Everytime we blitzed, we rushed the throw. Everytime we didn't, Roethlisberger had all ****ing day. No excuse to rush two and three against a HOF QB.

You got younger, and faster. It's not all on the players. It's the scheme. It leaves the defense on the field until they're gassed and give up the big play.

If the scheme is too complicated for your secondary to run, then CHANGE THE SCHEME.

You have an offense that can score at will. Play aggressive and make them match you big play for big play. blitz, pressure, force them to make a big play or a mistake. Sitting back in loose zones all day is NOT WORKING.

**** Sutton.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Sannyasi

Firing Sutton after last year's playoff game and replacing him with some up and comer would have actually been the right political move. It would have increased Reid's esteem with the fans and the media, and improved his job security (not that he needs any more job security).

The fact that he didn't replace Sutton at that point tells me that he actually thinks Sutton is the best man for the job, or at least that the risks of bringing in a fresh DC outweigh the potential benefits in his mind. That its worth it to him to take the hit from the fans in order to have continuity with the defense. You can say Reid is crazy or doesn't know shit about defense, but clearly he actually really believes in Sutton because he's had every opportunity to move on and we know after the Smith situation that Reid isn't going to stick with anyone out of loyalty.

Yep.

The gauntlet ultimately falls at the feet of Andy Reid.

Bob Sutton is the fans' effigy du jour.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

1995 and 1997 aren't contiguous.

And that's the problem.

Everytime something comes up about the Ol or the defense, it's compared to "95" or the "OL of the 2000s".

Well, no shit. Those were some of the best units at those spots ever. That's not gonna happen again and lets not worry about it.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

1995 and 1997 aren't contiguous.

Be nice.

For some of us, they are. There are people in this world, Mr. htismaqe, who have no memory of 1996.

Whether or not it's a blessing is undetermined.

FAX

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Just one FG in either of those collapses and they're wins.

Bob Sutton can't fix Alex Smith anymore than he can fix Terrance Smith. Players either make plays or they don't.

Anybody that thinks a coach is the difference between "good" and "bad" in the NFL doesn't watch enough football.

Coaching can make "good" teams "great" and "bad" teams "awful". But no amount of coaching can make a "bad" team "good".

You're being way to nice. When the asshole goes into his bend-then-snap defense, that's 100% on him. When he decides to rush too few and give the passer 6-8 seconds for the WRs to get open or draw a flag, that's on him. When he drops a LB into coverage for those 6-8 second schemes, that's on him. Even if they don't wrap up..

Sorry, he's terribad.

Sent from my 9+ using Tapatalk

[FAX]

It saddens me deeply to see great posters go bad.

Rush who? Who? Zombo? Dead Dee Ford? One-legged Hali? Justin Stumpy Houston? Wanna blitz the only safety available to cover the slant? I repeat; who?

Drop who else? Same list.

Guys ... we have crossed the boundary of irrationality here.

FAX

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

You're being way to nice. When the asshole goes into his bend-then-snap defense, that's 100% on him. When he decides to rush too few and give the passer 6-8 seconds for the WRs to get open or draw a flag, that's on him. When he drops a LB into coverage for those 6-8 second schemes, that's on him. Even if they don't wrap up..

Sorry, he's terribad.

Sent from my 9+ using Tapatalk

You need to watch more football, man.

Every team in the league runs prevent at times. Every team plays drop zones on 3rd and 15. Every team uses LBs in coverage.

The difference between the Chiefs and other teams is that other teams stay in their zones and tackle.

Players make plays.

[TambaBerry]

it doesn't make us wrong because we dislike Sutton, it also doesn't make you right because you think you know about football more then the rest of us. This is not a personal attack by the way this is just me making a statement. I think the Chiefs would be better off with a different DC, now that could be totally wrong but its still my opinion.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by TambaBerry

it doesn't make us wrong because we dislike Sutton, it also doesn't make you right because you think you know about football more then the rest of us. This is not a personal attack by the way this is just me making a statement. I think the Chiefs would be better off with a different DC, now that could be totally wrong but its still my opinion.

You're not wrong for disliking Sutton. You're entitled to an emotional opinion.

What is "wrong" is thinking that a new DC will fix this. A new DC might make everybody FEEL better and certainly, players might play better simply because of that.

But ultimately, defense in the NFL is about speed and instinct. Either you have the players or you don't. You won't find a single defense in the entire NFL that has crap players and is good simply because they're "coached up". That doesn't exist in the NFL. In college ball, sure but not in the NFL.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You need to watch more football, man.

Every team in the league runs prevent at times. Every team plays drop zones on 3rd and 15. Every team uses LBs in coverage.

The difference between the Chiefs and other teams is that other teams stay in their zones and tackle.

Players make plays.

I watch as much as you, so stop. My problem isn't 3rd-and-15 (which we rarely enjoy), it that we play it in the "3rd-and-4th quarters", almost every down, if we have the lead.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

I watch as much as you, so stop. My problem isn't 3rd-and-15 (which we rarely enjoy), it that we play it in the "3rd-and-4th quarters", almost every down, if we have the lead.

Other teams do that as well. It comes directly from Andy Reid.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by TambaBerry

it doesn't make us wrong because we dislike Sutton, it also doesn't make you right because you think you know about football more then the rest of us. This is not a personal attack by the way this is just me making a statement. I think the Chiefs would be better off with a different DC, now that could be totally wrong but its still my opinion.

I think you're onto something there, Mr. TambaBerry.

The conversation has turned into a discussion of persons ... or, perhaps, personalities. I appreciate your insight on the matter.

Look, I tend to love everybody (except morons and intentionally stupid people). On the other hand, I honestly believe I can objectively evaluate human beings (including morons) from a distance without getting overly sentimental or maudlin ... if I have sufficient material with which to work.

I've mentioned this before ... I've been arguing with Mellinger about this since last January. The defensive issues we all see (would be blind not to) are player- and talent-centric. Not scheme based. That's why scapegoating Uncle Bob seems so unfair to some of us. It's the old nose/face debate. Hate your face? Slice off your nose. Bad logic.

Take away Good Hali, Good DJ, EB, Houston's leg, etc., etc., etc., and your defense is going to decline. Dramatically.

My point is simple; the Sutton criticism is just off-target. Hate the cause. Not the poor bastard you've tasked to make super-sonic airplanes from globs of river mud.

If you want to blame somebody, I point you in the direction of John Dorsey.

FAX

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You're not wrong for disliking Sutton. You're entitled to an emotional opinion.

What is "wrong" is thinking that a new DC will fix this. A new DC might make everybody FEEL better and certainly, players might play better simply because of that.

But ultimately, defense in the NFL is about speed and instinct. Either you have the players or you don't. You won't find a single defense in the entire NFL that has crap players and is good simply because they're "coached up". That doesn't exist in the NFL. In college ball, sure but not in the NFL.

So they could bring me in, at 2/3s the price of Sutton, and you'd provide cover for me if we're still the worst D in the league? Because, well, I can't make the tackles for them?

At some point the coach has to held responsible for their team's on-field performance. If not, don't credit Andy with the offense. Because whatever Andy did with his O, Sutton should be able to do with his D. Even if it means getting naturally better tacklers.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by FAX

I think you're onto something there, Mr. TambaBerry.

The conversation has turned into a discussion of persons ... or, perhaps, personalities. I appreciate your insight on the matter.

Look, I tend to love everybody (except morons and intentionally stupid people). On the other hand, I honestly believe I can objectively evaluate human beings (including morons) from a distance without getting overly sentimental or maudlin ... if I have sufficient material with which to work.

I've mentioned this before ... I've been arguing with Mellinger about this since last January. The defensive issues we all see (would be blind not to) are player- and talent-centric. Not scheme based. That's why scapegoating Uncle Bob seems so unfair to some of us. It's the old nose/face debate. Hate your face? Slice off your nose. Bad logic.

Take away Good Hali, Good DJ, EB, Houston's leg, etc., etc., etc., and your defense is going to decline. Dramatically.

My point is simple; the Sutton criticism is just off-target. Hate the cause. Not the poor bastard you've tasked to make super-sonic airplanes from globs of river mud.

If you want to blame somebody, I point you in the direction of John Dorsey.

FAX

I'd like to piggyback on this as well because I certainly don't have any emotional investment in this argument at all. I don't bear anybody here ill will at all and people are certainly entitled to their opinions. I know I come off overbearing at times - that's part of the reason I took a hiatus from this place. I don't actually enjoy being an arrogant a-hole, even though I often become one.

My only goal is actually to take the emotion out of it and look at the actual cause of the problem. There's no empirical evidence at all to support Sutton being the cause. Following the Chiefs from 2013 to now and taking that in combination with the stats CLEARLY points to a failure in the front office to address personnel problems on the defense.

If people want Sutton fired, I'm all for it. Fire him. I'm just not going to kid myself into thinking that's the solution to the problem. It isn't. Buddy Ryan himself couldn't make this unit good because they're not underperforming, they're just plain bad.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

So they could bring me in, at 2/3s the price of Sutton, and you'd provide cover for me if we're still the worst D in the league? Because, well, I can't make the tackles for them?

At some point the coach has to held responsible for their team's on-field performance. If not, don't credit Andy with the offense. Because whatever Andy did with his O, Sutton should be able to do with his D. Even if it means getting naturally better tacklers.

Getting naturally better tacklers is Veach's job.

And to answer your question:

Absolutely I'd provide cover for you. I don't like scapegoating. I prefer to actually solve problems.

[Sassy Squatch]

Have no complaints with him over the past 2 weeks. Call the games like that and we should be good to go. Just please don't go into long stretches of prevent like that Steelers 2nd quarter.