**** 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.

[scho63]

Let's put one thing in perspective about our defense....

Our team has jumped out to leads in every game, except Denver, and other teams for the most part have thrown a LOT of passes at us.

Phyllis Rivers - 51 passes
Rapesmoreburgers - 60 passes
Gimpyrapalow - 30 passes
MentalCase Keenum - 33 passes
BortlesandJames - 61 passes

That's 47 passes per game average, 235 total, a hell of a lot of passes for any defense including the pass rushers. Only one team in the NFL, Indy Colts, have averaged more passing attempts versus their opponents than the Chiefs have had at them.

Most of the yards allowed have come late in the game during garbage time.

Our biggest weakness is ZERO run defense. Teams come out and gash the hell out of us and then we get even softer in the secondary than we already are. It's amazing the size and amount of gaping holes our D opens up for rushers. Why Denver ever abandoned the run is beyond me and they probably would have won had they stuck to that plan.

While our defense is certainly poor, it's still much better than what most people think. I wouldn't want to depend on our Defense to win a game for us and the great D this past weekend was a against a shitty Blake Bortles.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it........

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

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.

Eric Murray not being out there to blow coverages and assignments like the Steelers game was nice!

[Sassy Squatch]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Eric Murray not being out there to blow coverages and assignments like the Steelers game was nice!

Just sucks it took an injury to get him off the field and it wasn't by choice when you had 2 better players on the depth chart. Whatever. If I'm Sutton I'm all over Veach to get me somebody to replace Ragland. That dude is legit awful and already lost almost all his playing time.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

So why does Andy get so much love for our O's performance instead of Veach? I think it's odd how if it's bad, it's not the coach's fault, they don't play, but if they win it's that the coach is a genius.

[Sassy Squatch]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

So why does Andy get so much love for our O's performance instead of Veach? I think it's odd how if it's bad, it's not the coach's fault, they don't play, but if they win it's that the coach is a genius.

Why would Veach get credit for the offense? The only thing he did was bring in Watkins, which admittedly isn't as bad of a move as I thought it was. He also gets a lions share of the credit for Mahomes, but seems like everyone was involved in that pick.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

So why does Andy get so much love for our O's performance instead of Veach? I think it's odd how if it's bad, it's not the coach's fault, they don't play, but if they win it's that the coach is a genius.

There's 2 dynamics at play.

1. In the NFL, it's the offense dictates game plan. Defense is, by it's very nature, reactive. Scheming and scripting is far more important on the offensive side of the ball. So any offensive coach has the potential to have more impact than a defensive coach because playing defense is more about keeping pace, which in turn is about the players, their speed, and their football IQ.

2. The offense is UBER talented. In the NFL, when there's so much talent parity, it's coaching that takes a good team and makes them great. Andy takes a very, very talented offense and makes them great. On the flip side, you could put a guy like Marty Mohrningwg in charge of this offense and they're still going to be good because talent trumps coaching every time. Coaching is the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. You'd never fill a cake pan with icing and try to tell someone that it's a "good" cake because it isn't. A good coach cannot make a bad unit good. That simply is not possible in the NFL.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

Why would Veach get credit for the offense? The only thing he did was bring in Watkins, which admittedly isn't as bad of a move as I thought it was. He also gets a lions share of the credit for Mahomes, but seems like everyone was involved in that pick.

Dorsey would get credit, of course. But I think it's better to say "general manager" than mention names, since there has been more than 1.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Superturtle

Why would Veach get credit for the offense? The only thing he did was bring in Watkins, which admittedly isn't as bad of a move as I thought it was. He also gets a lions share of the credit for Mahomes, but seems like everyone was involved in that pick.

IDK, all I know is the coaches don't get blame, so I'm not sure why they get credit.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

IDK, all I know is the coaches don't get blame, so I'm not sure why they get credit.

You're making it completely black and white. Don't be disingenuous.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

There's 2 dynamics at play.

1. In the NFL, it's the offense dictates game plan. Defense is, by it's very nature, reactive. Scheming and scripting is far more important on the offensive side of the ball. So any offensive coach has the potential to have more impact than a defensive coach because playing defense is more about keeping pace, which in turn is about the players, their speed, and their football IQ.

2. The offense is UBER talented. In the NFL, when there's so much talent parity, it's coaching that takes a good team and makes them great. Andy takes a very, very talented offense and makes them great. On the flip side, you could put a guy like Marty Mohrningwg in charge of this offense and they're still going to be good because talent trumps coaching every time. Coaching is the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. You'd never fill a cake pan with icing and try to tell someone that it's a "good" cake because it isn't. A good coach cannot make a bad unit good. That simply is not possible in the NFL.

Ah...

I guess we'll stay at the bottom of the league in defense because you can't teach tackling to kids after this many years either. I suspect the players know the basics of a form tackle and how to wrap up, they just work for an organization that allows it to continue. They get paid the same no mater what, right? That's pretty darn dynamic...

[FAX]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

So why does Andy get so much love for our O's performance instead of Veach? I think it's odd how if it's bad, it's not the coach's fault, they don't play, but if they win it's that the coach is a genius.

Geez, man ... Veach has received tons of praise for the Mahomes pick. There are a dozen lengthy articles about how Veach discovered him, his relationship with Steinberg's group, how he pestered Wally with tape and texts and the like.

I haven't seen anyone (here or elsewhere) who has failed to credit Veach for championing the Mahomes deal. That's also one that I give to Dorsey for pulling the trigger.

Honestly, if we want to try and isolate that issue, I would probably argue that Wally is likely far more involved in selecting offensive players (like Kelce) whereas he's less involved on the defensive side of the ball. Of Wally's shortcomings, that's probably one of the big ones.

As for the "genius wins" and "idiots fail" factor, what else is new? It's been that way since the first caveman smacked himself in the eye socket with a chunk of mammoth leg bone.

FAX

[GloryDayz]

I don't care, after this many years of bad Ds, I'm ready to try somebody new as DC. Being a bottom feeder should bother the players, the team's leadership, the ownership, and all of the fans, and not just be an "oh well" sort of topic.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

Ah...

I guess we'll stay at the bottom of the league in defense because you can't teach tackling to kids after this many years either. I suspect the players know the basics of a form tackle and how to wrap up, they just work for an organization that allows it to continue. They get paid the same no mater what, right? That's pretty darn dynamic...

The know how to form tackle but just choose not to? LOL

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

I don't care, after this many years of bad Ds, I'm ready to try somebody new as DC. Being a bottom feeder should bother the players, the team's leadership, the ownership, and all of the fans, and not just be an "oh well" sort of topic.

This many years?

In Reid's first 4 years they were 7th, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th in scoring defense.

This what I'm talking about. You're emoting, not thinking.

This team is 5-0 and currently the toast of the league. But because the defense isn't "gleamy" enough for you, they're "bottom feeders".

[FAX]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

I don't care, after this many years of bad Ds, I'm ready to try somebody new as DC. Being a bottom feeder should bother the players, the team's leadership, the ownership, and all of the fans, and not just be an "oh well" sort of topic.

Personally, I love great defense (I am a Chiefs fan, after all). I am a defensive homer through and through. It's gone, though. The way it used to be is no more and probably never will be again.

The NFL wants lots of scoring (because it equates to better ratings), so offense gets the rules and defense gets the shaft. That's the way it is.

But does that mean we should say "oh well" and be satisfied with the way this defense is performing? I say "No! By God, No!" Then I say, "Aaggaghhh!". IMO, our defense has sucked in very obvious areas ... particularly against the run, safety play, and our tackling is definitely awful. (The fact that tackling sucks league-wide is another discussion and no excuse, in my view.)

We need better players but we don't have them (as far as we know). All Uncle Bob can do is try and play the hand he's dealt and I don't envy him that job. At all.

I don't believe for a moment that people (like me) who are pushing back on the Fire Sutton cry are satisfied with poor defensive play. And I don't think we're making excuses. I try to see things objectively and make a distinction between the cause and the disease.

We have a disease, but the cause isn't "Sutton". And the cure isn't "Fire Sutton". That's the point I try to get across.

FAX