Chiefs Chiefs Going 3-4 -Adam Shefters Blog - Page 12

philfree · 02-18-2009, 09:59 AM

Posted: Adam Schefter | Adam Schefter | Tags: Glenn Dorsey, Kansas City Chiefs

Kansas City announced its coaching staff this week. What it didn’t announce is that the Chiefs are planning to switch to a 3-4 defense.

Under the guidance of new defensive coaches Clancy Pendergast and Gary Gibbs, the Chiefs are turning to the defense that has done so well for Pittsburgh and is back in vogue in the NFL. The Chiefs are going 3-4.

Now Kansas City is going to have to tailor its personnel accordingly. But what is most intriguing and mysterious about it is where last year’s first-round pick, defensive tackle Glenn Dorsey, fits in. Dorsey might not be stout enough to play nose tackle in a 3-4, and he might not be big enough to play end in that style of defense.

One year after becoming Kansas City’s top pick, there now are questions about Dorsey’s role.

But the changes now are coming fast and furious in Kansas City, mainly on defense.

Discuss

PhilFree

Mr. Kotter · 02-18-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiveturkey

Why is height so important for a 3-4 DE?

Because smaller DEs can get swallowed up but the tackles in the NFL...UNLESS they are freakish athletes.

See Freeney vs Hali, as evidence. Freeney is freakish; Hali, not so much.

Hali would have to try OLB in a 3-4; depending on speed/quickness he could do it with strong safety support.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-18-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

I've always thought Raji was the pick. Some don't like the pick, but I think he has PB potential and would be thrilled with drafting him.

Because dropping 100 million dollars on the defensive tackle position is an intelligent way to build a team.

Chiefnj2 · 02-18-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Because dropping 100 million dollars on the defensive tackle position is an intelligent way to build a team.

If the Chiefs took Sanchez or Stafford this year and the kid ended up being a bust and 3 years from now took another top flight QB would you complain about tying up 100 million in QB's?

beach tribe · 02-18-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

If the Chiefs took Sanchez or Stafford this year and the kid ended up being a bust and 3 years from now took another top flight QB would you complain about tying up 100 million in QB's?

That would be taking a qb every 4th year. Not two DT in in 2 years in the top 5.

I wish they would just work this shit out with these rookie contracts. It's the only thing that football has WRONG.

BigChiefFan · 02-18-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Because dropping 100 million dollars on the defensive tackle position is an intelligent way to build a team.

I can think of worse ways to do it.

Also if we move to a 3-4, which I believe we will, that money would be used on a dominant NOSE TACKLE and a DE. I put a premium on the lines and don't think it's unwise to become more stout upfront, regardless of scheme.

I'm not in the QB or bust mode like many of you all are. Yes, we absolutely need one(or three

), but I don't believe Sanchez is our guy, at least not with our 1st overall pick.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-18-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

If the Chiefs took Sanchez or Stafford this year and the kid ended up being a bust and 3 years from now took another top flight QB would you complain about tying up 100 million in QB's?

Why would you judge a "bust" QB after 3 years?

And yes, the Chargers did it after 4 years, so what's your point?

Chiefnj2 · 02-18-2009, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Why would you judge a "bust" QB after 3 years?

And yes, the Chargers did it after 4 years, so what's your point?

Try to follow along, people don't think X dollars should be tied up in a certain position. I was wondering if it applied to QB's.

Chiefnj2 · 02-18-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

That would be taking a qb every 4th year. Not two DT in in 2 years in the top 5.

.

Jax took Stroud and Henderson in the top 15 in consecutive years.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-18-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

I can think of worse ways to do it.

Also if we move to a 3-4, which I believe we will, that money would be used on a dominant NOSE TACKLE and a DE. I put a premium on the lines and don't think it's unwise to become more stout upfront, regardless of scheme.

I'm not in the QB or bust mode like many of you all are. Yes, we absolutely need one(or three

), but I don't believe Sanchez is our guy, at least not with our 1st overall pick.

So, we're cool with dumping 50 million on a 3-4 end, and 60 million on a 3-4 NT.

Which is awesome because the 50 million dollar end can't play his position, because he's too goddamned short.

So, you've effectively turned the 50 million dollar end into a less valuable piece of your D than Turk McBride, since he can actually play the position.

This is how teams go 3-13 for a decade, and how they end up in cap hell.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-18-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Jax took Stroud and Henderson in the top 15 in consecutive years.

Top 15 does not = top 5, dumbass. There is a huge difference in those contracts.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-18-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Try to follow along, people don't think X dollars should be tied up in a certain position. I was wondering if it applied to QB's.

I'll "try".

And people think I'm a dick.

CupidStunt · 02-18-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

So, you've effectively turned the 50 million dollar end into a less valuable piece of your D than Turk McBride, since he can actually play the position.

Dorsey's contract isn't $50 million, he isn't too short given his arm length, and McBride has shown nothing to make anyone think he can "actually play" 3-4 DE.

Nice try, though.

BigChiefFan · 02-18-2009, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

So, we're cool with dumping 50 million on a 3-4 end, and 60 million on a 3-4 NT.

Which is awesome because the 50 million dollar end can't play his position, because he's too goddamned short.

So, you've effectively turned the 50 million dollar end into a less valuable piece of your D than Turk McBride, since he can actually play the position.

This is how teams go 3-13 for a decade, and how they end up in cap hell.

Sorry, but paying top money for ONE DT and ONE DE on rookie contracts, doesn't put any team in cap Hell.

beach tribe · 02-18-2009, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Jax took Stroud and Henderson in the top 15 in consecutive years.

Top 15 is a lot different from top 5.

beach tribe · 02-18-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CupidStunt

Dorsey's contract isn't $50 million, he isn't too short given his arm length, and McBride has shown nothing to make anyone think he can "actually play" 3-4 DE.

Nice try, though.

Does Dorsey have long arms? Serious question.

02-18-2009, 09:59 AM
philfree Indian Twitter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Free Agency Casino cash: $-2243802	Chiefs Going 3-4 -Adam Shefters Blog Posted: Adam Schefter \| Adam Schefter \| Tags: Glenn Dorsey, Kansas City Chiefs Kansas City announced its coaching staff this week. What it didn’t announce is that the Chiefs are planning to switch to a 3-4 defense. Under the guidance of new defensive coaches Clancy Pendergast and Gary Gibbs, the Chiefs are turning to the defense that has done so well for Pittsburgh and is back in vogue in the NFL. The Chiefs are going 3-4. Now Kansas City is going to have to tailor its personnel accordingly. But what is most intriguing and mysterious about it is where last year’s first-round pick, defensive tackle Glenn Dorsey, fits in. Dorsey might not be stout enough to play nose tackle in a 3-4, and he might not be big enough to play end in that style of defense. One year after becoming Kansas City’s top pick, there now are questions about Dorsey’s role. But the changes now are coming fast and furious in Kansas City, mainly on defense. Discuss PhilFree
Posts: 16,167