Evaluate the Defense Game #1

[petegz28]

I thought they looked improved from several aspects. Keep in mind this was Jax and not a high-powered offense.

Tackling = Much, MUCH better

Coverage = Tighter. Few plays without a defender right on the WR

Run Defense = Stellar start, let's not get cocky

Pass Defense = Not a ton of pressure today. Missed a huge sack which ended up leading to a TD. Coverage overall was decent. Made a backup look all-world but that happens when a backup comes in mid-game.

Overall it looked like we were more sound fundamentally. Run gaps were getting filled, screens were getting blown up and not a ton of YAC. Hopefully as the season progresses our defense will as well.

Overall grade today: C+

[O.city]

Originally Posted by RunKC

One could argue that you are the complete opposite. The bottom line is the bottom line.

A 6th rd rookie in his first NFL game tore our assholes apart. “But wait it was only short passes!” Well yes it was. That’s what Brady does so well and he’s our biggest (and only) competition. So what does that tell you?

The Chiefs offense scored every possession yesterday, but that isn’t sustainable against the best defenses in the league. We didn’t do that against the Broncos, Patriots 2X, Ravens, etc.

I absolutely hate it that Pat has the weight of the world on his shoulders to will this goddamn team to the Super Bowl without seemingly any help from the defense.

Ask Aaron Rodgers what that’s like. It’s happened to him for the last 9 years.

They didn't last year, but are we sure they won't this year? I mean, ****, that defense will probably be one of the top 2 or 3 in the league this year and we just ran roughshod thru them.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

Correct. A Defense that's actually good usually in Jacksonville got knifed with total ease.

Neither Defense did particularly well and while that's not indicative that the Chiefs Defense will actually be good, but maybe they're not bad like that performance yesterday would make you think.

It's okay to say the performance yesterday was not good, because it wasn't. But I think it's fair to say that we should see more before dropping the hot takes, yeah?

My criticism is very specific ... isolated, in fact. It's restricted to these players in this game against this opponent.

As I mentioned, I don't know the defensive calls and I don't know who is responsible for what in any given situation ... that's why it's impossible to project future results from a small sample size in a vacuum of factoids.

On the other hand, we had two major acquisitions in the off-season on defense and neither one of those guys did anything more than the average JAG might do against an offense that isn't especially threatening (to put it mildly).

I expected more across the board. I'm a big-time homer, so hope springs eternal in my heart ... but IMHO, that defensive display was well below expectations and makes me worry that the fans have been over-hyped with camp bullcrap once again.

FAX

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by O.city

I mean, just having Clark, Jones, Mathieu, puts them not at the end.

It's not ****ing barren talent wise. It should be better than it was yesterday results wise.

That's fine, but the guys who fill the other 8 spots matter. Teams attack weaknesses, not strengths, of a defense.

I think talent wise we're definitely bottom 10 if you look at the whole package. It's not a lot to work with. Bad players can hurt you more than good players help sometimes.

I'm not freaking out. They basically are who I thought they were. I expected one of the 10 worst defenses and I think that's what we'll get. KC is still a threat to anyone in any stadium. I just hope we don't lose a OT coin toss.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

Correct. A Defense that's actually good usually in Jacksonville got knifed with total ease.

Neither Defense did particularly well and while that's not indicative that the Chiefs Defense will actually be good, but maybe they're not bad like that performance yesterday would make you think.

It's okay to say the performance yesterday was not good, because it wasn't. But I think it's fair to say that we should see more before dropping the hot takes, yeah?


I think you would have been fine until the whiny shit about boy howdy you sure expect to see more from the shiny new DL.

It's a long season. Settle down, Francis. People were dropping like flies from just sitting in the stands

I love how so many people are getting butt hurt over DJs analysis. Truth hurts, huh? Yeah he's the one being emotional, not you lil chiefy homers.

[Sassy Squatch]

Originally Posted by Lzen

I wasn't all that happy with the defense but I can see some bright spots. And we all knew going in that this defense would take several weeks to get up to their full potential. I agree with you about Clark, though. I was disappointed in his performance. Knowing the kind of professional he is supposed to be, I can imagine he is pretty disappointed in himself. Hopefully, we will see much better out of him in the remaining games.

He is.

Gotta play better defense individually and collectively. Thank god for a healthy outcome and first win being apart of @Chiefs kingdom. Thank you to all the dope fans who came out in support. Your appreciated.

— Frank Clark (@TheRealFrankC_) September 8, 2019

Hopefully he takes that attitude and comes back stronger. We desperately need it.

[Halfcan]

[QUOTE=RunKC;14436415]One could argue that you are the complete opposite. The bottom line is the bottom line.

A 6th rd rookie in his first NFL game tore our assholes apart. “But wait it was only short passes!” Well yes it was. That’s what Brady does so well and he’s our biggest (and only) competition. So what does that tell you?

The Chiefs offense scored every possession yesterday, but that isn’t sustainable against the best defenses in the league. We didn’t do that against the Broncos, Patriots 2X, Ravens, etc.

I absolutely hate it that Pat has the weight of the world on his shoulders to will this.



The defense held them to 13 points until the outcome was pretty much decided. It created 2 turnovers and held their stud rusher to 66 yards and under 100 with a fumble. The Jags piled up some garbage yards but were never a threat to win.

I am not being a homer- just stating positive things they did, but I know that goes against the narrative that the D. still sucks.

I guess my expectations were much lower since it was the First game with several new players, playing in a new system under a New coordinator- on the road in the heat.

I highly doubt this is the High Watermark for this defense and they are only going to get worse.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

That's fine, but the guys who fill the other 8 spots matter. Teams attack weaknesses, not strengths, of a defense.

I think talent wise we're definitely bottom 10 if you look at the whole package. It's not a lot to work with. Bad players can hurt you more than good players help sometimes.

Yeah, I just don't see that though.

I mean, Ward is probably a weakness. Other than that the starters should be a credible bunch no?

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by FAX

My criticism is very specific ... isolated, in fact. It's restricted to these players in this game against this opponent.

As I mentioned, I don't know the defensive calls and I don't know who is responsible for what in any given situation ... that's why it's impossible to project future results from a small sample size in a vacuum of factoids.

On the other hand, we had two major acquisitions in the off-season on defense and neither one of those guys did anything more than the average JAG might do against an offense that isn't especially threatening (to put it mildly).

I expected more across the board. I'm a big-time homer, so hope springs eternal in my heart ... but IMHO, that defensive display was well below expectations and makes me worry that the fans have been over-hyped with camp bullcrap once again.

FAX

Get out in the 120 degree heat and run at full speed and see how long that works out for ya. Every report I got from people I know that went said it was miserable as hell at that game, and it has to be even worse on the field.

I'm saying lets wait till after next week, at least, before the hot takes and pitchforks.

Originally Posted by dlphg9

I love how so many people are getting butt hurt over DJs analysis. Truth hurts, huh? Yeah he's the one being emotional, not you lil chiefy homers.

Thanks for your useless dumb shit.

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by dlphg9

Ummm you can't just explain Fournette's decent game against us away by saying it was just some big runs at the end of the game. Here are all 13 of his attempts.

-1
2
5
12
3
3
6
1
14
6
2
10
3

So take out his 3 big carries which accounted for 36 of his 66 yards. So 10 carries for 30 yards.

Now compare that to McCoys game. His 10 carries looked like this.

13
2
4
2
3
31
5
0
2
19

So 63 of his 81 yards came on 3 carries. On his other 7 carries he had 18 yards.


But you can't take away the long carries, so I'd say they both had pretty good games.

What's everyone's obsession with trying to convince themselves and everyone that the pass rush and rush D was good?

Leonard Fournette rushed 13 times for 66 yards and caught four of six targets for 28 yards as the Jaguars lost to the Chiefs in Week 1 action. He also had a soul-crushing fumble- the 1st in his NFL career.

So you say that is a good game?

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by O.city

Yeah, I just don't see that though.

I mean, Ward is probably a weakness. Other than that the starters should be a credible bunch no?

I don't think three above average players is particularly good. Jones is probably great, but he's also not a hustle guy. Clark is a hustle guy, but probably not great. Mathieu is good, but not great.

The rest are average to below average players based on their resume. Obviously Thornhill is a mystery for now.

I don't think the defense is really more talented than last year, but the talent is more evenly distributed which will probably help.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

Get out in the 120 degree heat and run at full speed and see how long that works out for ya. Every report I got from people I know that went said it was miserable as hell at that game, and it has to be even worse on the field.

I'm saying lets wait till after next week, at least, before the hot takes and pitchforks.

LOL ... "hot takes"? "Pitchforks"?

I think you have the wrong guy. I haven't wielded a pitchfork since before they benched Ragland.

You can stand atop your voice-of-reason crate and speak in calm, sincere tones ... and more power to you. That's not going to change what happened (and how). Besides, the topic was; "Evaluate The Defense's Game #1" ... not "Engage In Pissing Matches With Fellow Posters Until Nightfall. Ready, Go."

Of course, we are all aware that this performance is in the books. The good news is that we got some tape of the 1s and the players have a chance to discuss how much (and where) they have to improve. The glass is half-full. I'm merely hopeful it's not half-full of walrus piss.

Next time out, let's agree that it would be better if our two, new, extremely expensive defensive acquisitions can combine for more than 2 tackles on the day against a similarly-talented offense.

FAX

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

That's fine, but the guys who fill the other 8 spots matter. Teams attack weaknesses, not strengths, of a defense.

I think talent wise we're definitely bottom 10 if you look at the whole package. It's not a lot to work with. Bad players can hurt you more than good players help sometimes.

I'm not freaking out. They basically are who I thought they were. I expected one of the 10 worst defenses and I think that's what we'll get. KC is still a threat to anyone in any stadium. I just hope we don't lose a OT coin toss.

Yeah, I can't get there.

DL -- we have a LOT of talent here and a lot of depth. I think we're in the top 10 on the DL

LBs -- This is just such a hard group to evaluate because everyone uses their LBs so differently. If you consider a 3-4 team's edge rushers more along the lines of DL (as they're used that way) then 'LB' means primarily your off-ball linebackers now. For us that Hitchens, Wilson and Lee. If Wilson continues to play as well as he has and Hitchens can give us a credible performance in a scheme he's more comfortable in, I think we have...okay overall talent. Not great, not abysmal. And more critically, it's within the margin for error either way. It will play given what we ask of the LBs.

DBs -- Well I thought Breeland played a damn good game and I think Thornhill flashed the talent that made him the camp standout, despite some rough edges. Mathieu disappointed and some combination of Fuller/Ward (depending on how you apportion the failures) were a bag of smashed assholes. But outside of maybe 5 teams, EVERYONE is struggling to find good DB play. Are we really that far outside the norm there?

In terms of pure talent, this can/should be a mid-pack defense. That's why yesterdays outing was disappointing. It wasn't because they sucked and I expected them to. It's because they sucked and I didn't expect them to.

I texted my buddy prior to kick that I thought we'd win this game 35-21. This is a tough team to play defense on because there will almost always be a late garbage time score and I fully expected that. I expected another sustained drive and then another 'busted play' kind of TD from the new scheme. 21 was going to be a fine performance in my eyes and 26 isn't THAT far removed from it.

It wasn't the final outcome that bugged me - it was the component parts and how some of the more critical ones performed. The upshot is that some of the more talented guys are the ones that really struggled (Ward notwithstanding) so you hope that those guys play to their track records going forward and the team sees significant defensive improvement from here.

It's not impossible or even unlikely, IMO.

[tmax63]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Nobody said anything about giving the championship the NE.

You tell me, talent wise, where you think this defense ranks compared to the rest of the NFL. Go ahead.

I'm gonna say middle of the pack. The talent is there for the most part, it's just giving them time to adjust and play together. Depth in the secondary and linebackers is bad but few teams out there have good depth players throughout. There really isn't as much difference between the best and worst player in the NFL as people try to make it out to be. They are all great athletes with skills or they wouldn't make it onto the field. Coaching and schemes make more difference and that takes some time to implement or at least more than 1 training camp and 1 regular season game. IMHO. All I'm saying is if they are still bad after the midway point then it might be time to get nervous, not now.

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by FAX

LOL ... "hot takes"? "Pitchforks"?

I think you have the wrong guy. I haven't wielded a pitchfork since before they benched Ragland.

You can stand atop your voice-of-reason crate and speak in calm, sincere tones ... and more power to you. That's not going to change what happened (and how). Besides, the topic was; "Evaluate The Defense's Game #1" ... not "Engage In Pissing Matches With Fellow Posters Until Nightfall. Ready, Go."

Of course, we are all aware that this performance is in the books. The good news is that we got some tape of the 1s and the players have a chance to discuss how much (and where) they have to improve. The glass is half-full. I'm merely hopeful it's not half-full of walrus piss.

Next time out, let's agree that it would be better if our two, new, extremely expensive defensive acquisitions can combine for more than 2 tackles on the day against a similarly-talented offense.

FAX

If they played all 16 games in extreme heat, you'd have a point. It's like getting pissed at the QB for not getting 400 yards and 4 TD's in the snow.

If you guys want to not accept that than knock yourselves out over it. It's about as silly as crowning Ryan Fitzpatrick league MVP after Week 1 2018.

Now once again, it's perfectly fine to say it wasn't a great performance because it certainly wasn't. But there's enough evidence on the tape to say, well lets give them some benefit for at least a couple of days before going all BOY HOWDY I SURE EXPECT MORE.

Sometimes a little patience is good.

[Sassy Squatch]

Claiborne can't get here soon enough.