Chiefs Going 3-4 -Adam Shefters Blog

[philfree]

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

[philfree]

Originally Posted by milkman

The Pats have drafted a total of five O and D Lineman in the first round in the nine years that Belchick has been there.

The Patriot way is to draft for value.

Five out of nine is more then half so there you go. Maybe the Patriots know that's where the value is?

So now does Raji a DT not have the proper value either?


PhilFree

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by philfree

Five out of nine is more then half so there you go. Maybe the Patriots know that's where the value is?

Where were these players taken in round 1?

[philfree]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Where were these players taken in round 1?

It don't matter.

It's pretty obvious that no player in the 2009 draft is worthy of a top five pick except Stafford of Sanchez. Well according to handful of geniouses.


PhilFree

[jidar]

Well... the Chiefs going 3-4 is a lot better than the Chiefs going 3-13 I guess

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by philfree

It don't matter.

Of course it does.

You can't make a statement about the Pats drafting linemen for value without considering where they were taken in round 1.

At #3, this entire discussion changes. You know that, so you can't dismiss the most important variable when discussing the overall value of the board.

Regarding this draft, there are actually several players "worthy" of the selection, but many of these are LTs. Good thing two of the "values" are QBs.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Where were these players taken in round 1?

Actually, my bad, only 4 of 9.

Belichick's first year, they didn't have a first round pick.

in 2000, they selected G Adrian Klemm with their first pick, #46 overall, in the second round.

2001, Richard Seymour, #6 overall.
2002, TE Daniel Graham, #21
2003, DE Ty Warren, #13
2004, NT Vince Wilfork, #21 and TE Ben Watson, #32
2005, G Logan Mankins, #32
2006, RB Lawrence Maroney, #21
2007, DB Brandon Merriweather, #24
2008, LB Jarod Mayo, #10

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by milkman

Actually, my bad, only 4 of 9.

Belichick's first year, they didn't have a first round pick.

in 2000, they selected G Adrian Klemm with their first pick, #46 overall, in the second round.

2001, Richard Seymour, #6 overall.
2002, TE Daniel Graham, #21
2003, DE Ty Warren, #13
2004, NT Vince Wilfork, #21 and TE Ben Watson, #32
2005, G Logan Mankins, #32
2006, RB Lawrence Maroney, #21
2007, DB Brandon Merriweather, #24
2008, LB Jarod Mayo, #10

Yep.

And that's the point I was making. One can't even accurately use the Seymour selection as a point of comparison. Big difference between #3 and #6. Hell, Chiefs fans should know real well, based on last year, the difference between #3 and #5.

[Jilly]

Originally Posted by jidar

Well... the Chiefs going 3-4 is a lot better than the Chiefs going 3-13 I guess

hardy har har!

[philfree]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Of course it does.

You can't make a statement about the Pats drafting linemen for value without considering where they were taken in round 1.

At #3, this entire discussion changes. You know that, so you can't dismiss the most important variable when discussing the overall value of the board.

Regarding this draft, there are actually several players "worthy" of the selection, but many of these are LTs. Good thing two of the "values" are QBs.

The principals remain the same no matter where a team picks in the draft.


PhilFree

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by philfree

The principals remain the same no matter where a team picks in the draft.


PhilFree

What? What are you talking about?

Not in relation to value. A team can make a great justification for taking an uber-talented guard at pick #19, for example. Taking this same player at #5 would be a fireable offense.

It's tough to cull any valuable information about past Pats drafts because they were never in the top 5, let alone #3 overall.

Saying they value line play is great. Every team does. But pointing to draft history to confirm this fact is a false argument.

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Absolutely.

Now herein lies the problem, explaining what "value" means to a fanbase enamored, and for some very good reasons, with Will Shields and Tony Gonzalez.

This entire discussion is very cyclical in nature.

Now let's prepare for the next Curry or RT petition.

I think some indication of value would be how far the player would fall if he wasn't picked at #3.

And with picks #4 through #9 being the teams listed below, which all have QBs. I could definitely see Sanchez sliding to #10 or farther if the Chiefs don't take him. That is assuming that someone doesn't trade up. I don't see Crabtree falling past #4 or #7. So, using that assumption of value, Crabtree is a better value than Sanchez. I'm not saying we should take Crab, but he appears to be a better a value.

4 Seattle Seahawks
5 Cleveland Browns
6 Cincinnati Bengals
7 Oakland Raiders
8 Jacksonville Jaguars
9 Green Bay Packers

[NickAthanFan]

The Patriot way also had a franchise QB in place.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I think some indication of value would be how far the player would fall if he wasn't picked at #3.

And with picks #4 through #9 being the teams listed below, which all have QBs. I could definitely see Sanchez sliding to #10 or farther if the Chiefs don't take him. That is assuming that someone doesn't trade up. I don't see Crabtree falling past #4 or #7. So, using that assumption of value, Crabtree is a better value than Sanchez. I'm not saying we should take Crab, but he appears to be a better a value.

4 Seattle Seahawks
5 Cleveland Browns
6 Cincinnati Bengals
7 Oakland Raiders
8 Jacksonville Jaguars
9 Green Bay Packers

All that tells you is that a player's value is relative to a team's needs.

If the Jets, for instance, were sitting at #6, there is almost certainly no chance that sanchez would fall beyond 6.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

I think some indication of value would be how far the player would fall if he wasn't picked at #3.

And with picks #4 through #9 being the teams listed below, which all have QBs. I could definitely see Sanchez sliding to #10 or farther if the Chiefs don't take him. That is assuming that someone doesn't trade up. I don't see Crabtree falling past #4 or #7. So, using that assumption of value, Crabtree is a better value than Sanchez. I'm not saying we should take Crab, but he appears to be a better a value.

4 Seattle Seahawks
5 Cleveland Browns
6 Cincinnati Bengals
7 Oakland Raiders
8 Jacksonville Jaguars
9 Green Bay Packers

Value is always tempered with need.

It's the same principle as to why Chiefs shouldn't take a player like Smith. Yes, this is a player worthy of the value of the selection, but the team already has a LT, so it would be dumbass move.

Same reason why teams like Cleveland and Oakland are not going to take a QB.

I wouldn't consider it a lock that Seattle would pass on Sanchez, though, without knowing how much money is tied up in Hasselbeck.

Anyway, Crabtree is not a better value than Sanchez. Go to draftplanet and read some of the material there about him not being considered an "elite" WR by some analysts.

[kcbubb]

Originally Posted by milkman

All that tells you is that a player's value is relative to a team's needs.

If the Jets, for instance, were sitting at #6, there is almost certainly no chance that sanchez would fall beyond 6.

I could see Sanchez falling to #17 if the Chiefs don't take him at #3. That is assuming that no one trades up and the 49ers pass on him. I think Singletary likes Hill. And they already have a lot of $$$ invested in Smith. #11 to #16 appear to be pretty content with their QB situations.

11 Buffalo Bills
12 Denver Broncos
13 Washington Redskins
14 New Orleans Saints
15 Houston Texans
16 San Diego Chargers