Historical Draft Reactions of Three Floundering Teams - A Chiefs Perspective
by Bewsaf on Dec 16, 2009 6:00 PM CST
221 comments
There is a saying in football that a lot of people believe, "Offense wins games and defense wins championships". In other words, you can have a good team if you have a good offense. However, if you want a Championship team you must have a good defense.
Through my experiences I have come to believe something similar: Games are won in the trenches and game-changing defenders win championships.
Last week I wrote "We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us." I contended that the Kansas City Chiefs were a floundering team and attempted to show the difficulties NFL teams have after recording two consecutive years at a .250 winning percentage.
The problem I presented was that no team, not one, had gotten out of the hole yet. None of them had found the path. None had found any answers. None seemed to back up the belief that the game is won in the trenches and game-changing defenders win championships.
This post will attempt to review the draft reactions of three floundering teams and how they might have went wrong based on my fundamental belief.
It is my contention that when a team reaches the floundering line, all bets are off. The norm is no longer the rule. Teams can no longer follow standard drafting and free agent procedures. Floundering teams MUST address the quality of their trench players and at the same time start acquiring young game-changing defensive talent.
| Going into the 2003 draft, the Lions were staring at offensive and defensive numbers that ranked at the bottom of the league for two consecutive years (chart below). They were a team that had reached the floundering line. So which direction did the Lions choose to go when faced with addressing problems through the draft? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lion's Draft Choices after Hitting Floundering Line | |||
| Lions | 1st Round |
2nd Round |
3rd Round |
| 2005 | M. Williams - WR | S. Cody - DT | S. Wilson - DB |
| 2004 | R. Williams - WR K. Jones - RB | T. Lehman - LB | K. Smith - DB |
| 2003 | C. Rogers - WR | B. Bailey - LB | Redding - DE |
Here are some observations of the Lions next three drafts (chart above).
- The Lions did not elect to draft a game changing defender in the first round. Instead, they decided to select four offensive players for the next three years. None of them offensive linemen.
- The Lions chose to take defenders in the second round. Not electing to take a 'trench' player until the third year.
- The Lions chose to take defenders in the third round.
|
|
Going into the 2007 draft, the Raiders were staring at offensive and defensive rankings that were at the bottom of the league (chart below). They were a team that had reached the floundering line. The 2006 defensive rankings end up being deceptive due to the fact that the Raiders fell back down to the bottom 20's in both 2007 and 2008. So which direction did the Raiders choose to go when faced with addressing problems through the draft? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Raiders Draft Choices after Hitting Floundering Line | |||
| Raiders | 1st Round | 2nd Round | 3rd Round |
| 2009 | Heyward-Bey - WR | M. Mitchell - DB | Shaughnessy DE |
| 2008 | D. McFadden - RB | None | None |
| 2007 | J. Russell - QB | Z. Miller - TE |
Moses DE Henderson DT Higgins WR |
Look familiar?
Here are some observations from the Raiders next three drafts (chart above).
- The Raiders did not elect to draft a game changing defender in the first round. Instead, they decided to select three offensive players for the next three years. None of them offensive linemen.
- The Raiders tried to go for the "franchise" QB in the first round, but failed.
- The Raiders chose to take defenders in the third round.
A franchise reaches the "floundering" stage by making a series of bad drafts, bad player signings, bad coaching moves, and a miscalculation (at some point) of the condition of their team. So what keeps them floundering?
Based on my belief that the game is won in the trenches and game-changing defenders win championships...this is what I failed to see after reviewing the Lions and Raiders picks.
- Game changing defenders are most often found in the first round. The Lions and Raiders failed to go for any game-changing defenders (first rounders) through the draft.
- Both the Lions and the Raiders failed to address the offensive line through the draft for three years. Not one o-line pick.
- The Lions and Raiders either addressed the defensive trench players to late in the three year process or to late in the draft rounds. Remember, game-changing defenders win championships. More game changing trench players are found in round one than any other round.
After reviewing the teams it would appear that the direction taken by both the Lions and Raiders in the draft are similar. It is also obvious, through hind site, that the direction taken by both teams did not work. So how did Scott Pioli react after seeing the Chiefs numbers after two consecutive years below the floundering line?
| Pioli's First Year Draft Response after Floundering | |||
| Chiefs | 1st Round |
2nd Round |
3rd Round |
| 2009 | T. Jackson - DE | None | A. Magee - DE |
It would appear that Pioli went a different direction than the Lions and Raiders. In the first round Pioli went with a defensive trench player. In the 3rd round Pioli again went with a defensive trench player. So what does that say? Will the Chiefs get out of the hole where other teams have failed?
I don't think you can tell at this point. We can, however, see that Pioli does not seem to be following the Lions and Raiders plan of action in regards to the draft. We might all be able to rejoice at that fact.
Pioli just might believe that games are won in the trenches. He just might believe that game-changing defenders win championships. He just might have the right belief and plan of action to get the Chiefs out of the hole.
The off-season will reveal if Scott Pioli is the man with a plan...or just another Detroit or Oakland want-a-be.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.
20 recs |
221 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I think Pioli is going about this the right way
Like you showed, he is building the trenches first, and not just the D line either. Let’s not forget he brought in Colin Brown, Ndukwe, Alleman, and O’Callaghan in an effort to improve the O line. I’d look for Pioli to continue that strategy in the draft. He might not take an O-Lineman in the first round, but I would expect to see at least one interior lineman in the 2nd-3rd rounds.
And doing the opposite of Detroit and Oakland is usually a smart decision
Great post. Rec’d
by ktr17x on Dec 16, 2009 6:12 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
like you said
opposite of Detroit and Oakland is usually smart
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 16, 2009 6:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Once again
I really enjoy your posts Bewsaf. I am guilty of wanting the Chiefs to select a wideout with the first pick this past year I admit. This year I am hoping for a defensive game-changer (NT,ILB,or S). I feel like we can get the talent at OL a little bit later, maybe with our third pick (2nd round) this draft. But your logic makes sense. I, like the rest of us, am looking forward to hearing the name to be called with our first round pick because:
1. It means we are one step closer in the right direction
2. We can use that pick to maybe gain further insight into the mind of Pioli
3. I’m just a big fan of the draft in general
Numbers, don’t lie. Thanks again for your hard work. Rec’d…..
by Hail2DaChiefs on Dec 16, 2009 6:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think a lot of us
look forward to the draft
glad you found the info useful
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 16, 2009 6:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd
And I think Pioli goes D with the first two picks this year and gets our S and NT in the first and second rd along with an OL or LB.
by kcchiefstd on Dec 16, 2009 9:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Those 3rd round DBs can help turn a team around.
But I think the losing franchises confuse measurables with playing ability, and THAT might be why those orgs stay in the cellar.
But Alice Davis is also the guy who pulled the trigger on Charles Woodson (couldn’t retain him) and Nnamdi Asomugha (who probably leaves when his rookie contract expires).
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 16, 2009 11:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't Asomugha past his rookie contract now?
I’m almost certain he signed a new deal in Oakland that pays him more per year than Cassel’s making, and only for three years.
by DanielUM on Dec 18, 2009 12:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thx. I didn't fact-check.
Letting the blog self-correct… Apologize for just throwing out thoughts, but that’s kinda what a good blog does, and the truth rises to the top pretty quickly.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 1:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice Stuff Rec
Obviously, Detroit and Oakland decided Butts in the seats (wins now) was more important than (unhappy fans, that haven’t realized Wins later) is much better.
IMO, the Chiefs aren’t done in the trenches yet, but the picks might be a 2nd and 4th or 5th. The NT position is probably going to have to be a FA this year. The top NT’s in the draft are not worth the pick that will aquire them. That might work in our favor as we can get some good weapons for Cassel because the alternatives are not worth such high picks. Berry might make and excellent Cornerback, Haydn the top CB is 185 pounds.
Flowers could beat him up :) Maybe Carr could be the FS, seems to be a ballhawk and a little better at Jacking up a WR that crosses his path. There are some guys that would fit the SS position in 2-4 rounds. talk to much, and my pecking fingers are tired now.
Geaux Chiefs
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 6:17 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
R E ?
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 6:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
B E R
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 6:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
R Y ?
Miz zou thinging there.
So would you Berry at CB?
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 6:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Have they have been talking about him
at the corner spot…like a former chiefs we know?
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 16, 2009 6:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
getting tired
must….get……sleeeee______
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 16, 2009 7:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Sweet dreams! You have been working to hard :)
Much Appreciated
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 7:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Eric Berry did take a couple punt returns vs Kentucky.
I think Dale Carter had excellent skills, but I would rather us keep Berry in the middle.
by ravenhawk on Dec 16, 2009 7:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A great defense with smart and talented DBs can give a LOT of looks, without being
tied to “He’s a corner” or “He’s a safety.” It’s VERY difficult for offenses when you can and WILL bring your safeties up and play press coverage across the board at the drop of a hat.
I think Brandon Flowers has a James Hasty kind of awareness of the field that would make him a great safety. I wouldn’t want him mixing it up TOO much in the run game, but I can definitely see him hiding behind a LB and suddenly appearing in the vicinity of the ball, if he were allowed to play center field.
But some of Flowers’ BEST plays showed him to be just a tad bit small to really be a shut-down corner. If the QB puts decent air under the ball, Flowers is very vulnerable to the deep post and deep slant. His speed isn’t dominant speed and he’s short. The top 3rd or 4th of the league’s #1 WRs are going to outrun and outbig Flowers. This doesn’t mean Flowers is bad. He’s the best coverage back the Chiefs currently have, and he’s plenty good enough to make most any teams roster. But the better defenses would think of him as a wonderful nickel back.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 12:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice Stuff Rec
The best lines seem to be chock full of 2nd and 3rd rounders, with or without a 1st in there, though Chiefs definitely needed one or two 1sts to get the ball rolling, and start developing a 3rd-rounder on D, who’s getting about as many minutes as Jackson and Dorsey, already…
As an aside, note the apparent contradictions in Haley’s approach: Run the friggin’ legs off the d-line, but make ‘em wear knee braces in practice. Then quietly run a rotation that, despite all the complaints, has NOT worn down our big guys. Had a bit of a scare last week, with Dorsey’s knee, but he’s back in practice… I think after this year, the players are going to appreciate his tough love. Despite spending an ungodly amount of time on defense this season, I don’t think I’ve seen our d-linemen with their hands on their knees between snaps all season.
I think that Berry is the best DB in this draft. Bewsaf says as much, below, which will, of course, be above, after I hit the “POST” button. But that’s beside the point. Now, where was I? Oh yeah. KC’s currently short a pair of coverage backs. Ideally, all 4 would be starters, but you could go with one mostly-banger at starter in your base defense, if you had 4 (or 5) coverage backs that you could field at the same time in nickel and dime situations.
Chiefs already have a trio of young DBs with upside waiting in the wings. NONE have distinguished themselves this season, and ONE of them has an “I’m a rookie with up-side, but I left college early because I butted heads with the NCAA” excuse. Morgan and Leggett are on thin ice. The mere fact that NEITHER pushed Brown or McGraw out of the way says either the coaches have no clue, or these guys are fresh outta Get Outta Jail Free! cards.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 12:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Great analysis
This is how Hoodie/Pioli approached things in NY and NE.
Round 1-3 of the draft
NYJ 1997 – OLB, DT, WR
NYJ 1998 – DE DB DB
NYJ 1999 – G G
NE 2000 – T RB T
NE 2001 – DT T CB
NE 2002 – TE WR
NE 2003 – DE FS WR
This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.
by KCSatchmo on Dec 16, 2009 6:21 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
good added info Satchmo
and thanks
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 16, 2009 6:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
NP
NE was not floundering when Pioli/Hoodie arrived. The Jets however were.
This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.
by KCSatchmo on Dec 16, 2009 6:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd really like to see an OT in the first round
I really like Branden Albert, however I think if we were to take a LT with our first pick and move him to LG we would have a dominant left side for years to come. Remember Willie Roaf and Will Shields. If we could have a left side like that again, I really believe that would make the offense leaps and bounds better next year.
So to further my idea, move Water back to RG, keep O’Call at RT, and do something else at C. I’m not picky a FA or later round draft pick would be fine. I really think this would open up the run game even more, and thereby make Cassel’s life in the passing game much easier.
I agree our defense needs some serious help, but I think a dominant running game would go a long way, just because the defense would get a breather in between being on the field.
No matter who we draft, though, I’ll support my Chiefs through thick and thin.
by Sparbs on Dec 16, 2009 6:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
An OT in the first round would be ok with me
especially that guy from Oklahoma State
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 16, 2009 6:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My Problem
is the same as Suh. We have that position covered. Albert once he adjusts to the Zone-Block is going to return to beast status, especially with working on blocking Hali day in and day out. I am leaning toward Safety/CB with our high pick. Picks of the litter.
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 6:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Albert has been looking better
he is actually the most athletic. Can get those second level blocks and reach blocks.
Not to say leaving him at LT is a bad idea (and probably will stay that way)…but he would be a GREAT guard. And with Okung…we might just have that Roff/Shields thing going again. Not that I think they would be better than Roff/Shields.
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 16, 2009 6:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts almost exactly
Remember when he who will not be named could run pretty much at will to the left side? I miss those days.
by Sparbs on Dec 16, 2009 6:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You can say Preist Holmes
Put the Pouncey’s at C and RG and DONE.
Good till we have to work in a LG, who could be Mike Johnson @ Alabama with a third. Oh damn, he could start if we didn’t have a LG named Waters whom I Heart.
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 6:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be okay with this too
I think Waters definetely has some time left in him if we start to really compete again. Basically what I’m getting at is I really really really want something done with the oline through the DRAFT. I’d really like some young guys that could play together for a very long time.
I really believe fixing the o-line could fix most of our offenses problems. Oh that and the same OC through OTA’s, training camp, and the season.
by Sparbs on Dec 16, 2009 7:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
MountainManMIke’s thought
Russ Grimm from Arizona
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 7:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Johnson is a beast
1. Rodney Hudson, Florida State (Jr.)
2. Sergio Render, V Tech
3. John Jerry Ol Miss
All three of those guys could be available in the 2nd round and could start right away for us.
I think there are a number of directions this team could go with the draft. For sure, our first pick should be for a player we might not get a chance for in a while. We’re going to get more wins next season and drop in draft slots. I think a lot of people may end up confused and disapointed after this draft because I don’t think this one draft is going to fix all of our problems. No way. It would have to be BETTER than Jimmy Johnsons at Dallas after the Hershel Walker trade.
by tenacious rdc on Dec 18, 2009 9:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hard to say when the whole thing starts to really gel.
If they’re doing things right, we’re likely to be surprised when things catalyze, and the Chiefs start winning. It won’t be about big things you can point to (although people will see big things and point to them). It will be a slow, imperceptible process of incremental improvement that reaches a tipping point, and one Sunday, a no-name LB records 4 sacks or records a pick-6 off the deflection. And the emergence won’t be because that one guy is all that much better than he was the week, before, or than guy he replaces, but that by improving the whole squad, suddenly there’s that extra half-second of time to see the open man, because this week, the knee brace finally came off a guard’s sprained knee, and he’s sustaining his blocks better.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I also like Albert
My thought is just building for the long run. We all know Waters isn’t a spring chicken anymore, and when we he goes we’ll have to plug in a new LG that Albert is going to have to learn to trust. Whereas if we were to switch and put Waters on the right side when he retires/gets traded etc he’s easier to replace. I just believe the left side to be way more important, since that where most of the dominant pass rushers come from.
That being said, I still think Albert can be a LT. I just think this is someting worth putting some thought into.
by Sparbs on Dec 16, 2009 6:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If Okung is there you almost have to take him.
It’s NOT really a position of need but, he would most definitely be the BPA. What an upgrade to the O-line! Albert would be the best LG in the league hands down.
Our biggest area of need is the Center position though w/o a doubt. I would love to see us take the best Center on the board. (O Dowd or Pouncey)
Now THAT is an O-line. Do that and watch Charles become the next Chris Johnson or LT. Matt Cassel might be able to actually complete a pass behind that line. LOL j/k
by Chiefsfan1970 on Dec 16, 2009 7:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like that idea
I just can’t believe that Berry or Suh will be available when we draft, and at that point if Okung is there he will definetely be the BPA. Also I think if you look at Satch’s comment above Pioli is very high on drafting for either line. So I think this is a real possibility.
That being said, it’s really sad we’re this involved in draft talks in December. Here’s to a much better season next year!!!
by Sparbs on Dec 16, 2009 7:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As of right now we will be drafting #5.
Eric Berry will still be there at #5… possibly even up to #8.
by ravenhawk on Dec 16, 2009 7:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
According to McShay
Berry could go #2.
by Sparbs on Dec 16, 2009 7:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I seriously doubt Berry falls to us.
If he does, that’s cool too. I would be happy with either of those picks. As long as it’s not another D-lineman. I know there are a ton of people who want Suh but, damn man when does it stop? We spent our 1st AND 3rd rounders last year on the D-line as well as our 1st the year before. To use our 1st round pick on that again would just kill me.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Dec 16, 2009 7:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think there's any way Suh falls
I still think Dorsey was pretty much a fluke, and the lack of Al Davis wanting anything but speed.
by Sparbs on Dec 16, 2009 7:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that we need some experience on the Defensive line...
especially when it comes to the NT position. If we get a big guy that has experience that would be sweet.
I would be way ok with Terrance Cody as our late 2nd round pick… he doesn’t have much gas but he is a big body to fill up the hole.
by ravenhawk on Dec 16, 2009 7:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if Cody has the mindset to fit into the Pioli Plan.
But I don’t see him runnin’ outta gas if he DOES. I see him being lighter and more fit under Haley’s strength and conditioning system (He gets credit for spearheading it, but I think he’s farmed this out to full-time experts in that field, judging by his comments). And I don’t see him being left on the field long enough to ever run out of gas.
I’m leanin’ Steve’s way on this, thinking that Pioli might just hire a Wilfork in FA. If there’s another Alex Magee in temperament and maturity, with true NT measurables in the 2nd or a later round, he might/could go that route, also. I’m kind of dubious of Edwards playing up to the level the Chiefs want/need, even in a #2, even though I think he has some more years of above-average d-line performances still ahead of him.
To my eye, the training and conditioning he received this year under Haley made him a better player, and he’s within a whisker of being the kind of NT KC needs (More like walrus whiskers than bad-teenage-boy whiskers), but not quite up to the total job description. He might continue to improve, and he definitely has understanding, but a mid-career FA starter plus Edwards as the #2 gives you significant dropoff in the rotation, the way it now looks, and I think Edwards could take what he’s learned this year and be more successful than he’s ever been, playing DT in some other team’s 4-3. The conditioning has made him more fit and quicker than before, and he’s more capable of attacking in a 1-gap scheme than he was before. Unfortunately, KC primarily needs him to push the C backwards in any 1-on-1 and hold the point against any two guys who try to push him off it. Shooting the gap is of secondary importance to the Chiefs, imo.
Judging by ‘09, Pioli’s likely to double-invest at that position, so that the Chiefs rely more on a rotation than on any one guy. Keeps their legs fresh, raises the consistency level of the position group and lowers the probability of injury, as does the “Don’t be a hero. Just do your job,” approach to the trenches. To some this may seem like overkill, but it protects the #1 NT and the DEs and LBs that play beside and behind him (and his backup). I don’t want things to go horribly wrong if the #1 NT gets a head cold and I want to minimize the likelihood of catastrophic injury to ANY D-Linemen. Just landing a Wilfork and rollin’ with Edwards as #2 would leave the Chiefs vulnerable, imo.
Magee had me at “It’s football, man,” in his 1st Red Zone interview with Soren. We all think it’s rocket science, and the guys in the trenches who really get it, know that it ain’t and they know better ’n any of us what it takes, and whether or not they have what it takes.
Steve keeps bringing Haydn up, but I think KC’s wrong-footed for Haydn.
I’ve seen enough reaches-for-measurables at WR and DB to last me a lifetime. I’m totally OK with WR in 1st round if he’s the real deal. Mainly I just want talent scouts who know the difference between athletes and players and players-who-are-also-athletes. Being aggressive at DB-in-depth gives you a real edge in offseason OTAs and Training Camp, when it comes to finding the young diamonds-in-the-rough at WR that Haley’s capable of developing, and actually developing them.
Last I checked (long ago and not very thoroughly), about the only 1st-round talent at WR was Arrelius Benn (sp?). I think it’s clear that KC could make progress in the position group in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, and improve the group’s speed, quickness and hands, if not immediately have the BIG fast guy with hands.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 2:09 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
tx
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 5:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Very well said...
and we are both on the same page.
I am all about us picking up a FA NT, but if that doesn’t happen… we seriously need to look at Terrance Cody. One of his limitations is that he does run out of gas, but in his first year he probably isn’t going to start every snap at the begining of the season(look at B.J Raji).
Oh and Arrelius Benn has been ranked as round 1 talent, but has dropped due to nagging injuries this year.
Again great right up
by ravenhawk on Dec 17, 2009 6:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thx for Arrelious Benn tidbit.
I actually read about it further down in this football-rich thread.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 12:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Re Cody
Not sure, but it seems to me possible that if you start Cody and he has poor endurance…. then he doesn’t make plays on first and second down, the opponent continues to run the ball down our throats, and Cody HAS TO stay on the field, as the top NT whose job is to plug the line and help put the opponents’ offense into second- and third-and-long situations. It’s like a very bad positive feedback loop: the worse he does, the longer he has to stay, and then he does even worse, etc.
It will be interesting to see how Cody manages his weight and fitness as a pro. We’ll see what his weight and conditioning look like at the combine— it might make a big difference for his rookie contract #’s. I continue to feel that he’s too risky for a 1st round pick.
Re 1st round WR, I think Dez Bryant is widely considered 1st round talent. Agree very much with the need for new WR’s.
by Wheatboy74 on Dec 18, 2009 10:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If Suh, Okung, Berry gone by the time KC picks,
Dez Bryant starts looking pretty good to me.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 19, 2009 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be the first time a Safety has gone that high.
As of right now it is
Tampa… Whom I would expect will select Suh.
St. Louis Whom will go QB (Clausen)
Detriot Whom will go WR(just kidding)…. This should be Okung, but could be DT McCoy. I seriously doubt they go Berry(but they need help everywhere and if he drops this is where).
Cleveland They too could pick Berry, but I just don’t see it. They desperately need help everywhere. I could see them going RB this early, or WR.
Chiefs…
by ravenhawk on Dec 16, 2009 7:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with most of that.
The only way we could get either of those guys is if Detroit or Cleveland goes with Mark Ingram or Gerhart. (both of which will be great players) I don’t really see either of them going so high though.
Taylor Mays will still be there when we pick and he is a damn good player. He could very likely be our first round pick.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Dec 16, 2009 8:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We could get that guy later
always sniffing at the LOS and getting burnt deep.
Just my opinion
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 8:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Jake Locker staying in school is fucking everything up!
I want Okung or Berry for sure. It doesn’t matter though. I bet Pioli goes with somebody we don’t even expect.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Dec 16, 2009 8:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Locker wants to play in Seattle...
I think that by staying he is making a big mistake.
by ravenhawk on Dec 16, 2009 8:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
Sam Bradford needs to have a talk with him.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Dec 16, 2009 8:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it could help us if the plan is to indeed trade back...
we wont know until the season is over and draft order is set though.
by MountainManMike on Dec 17, 2009 3:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
always sniffing at the LOS and getting burnt deep
Maybe that’s because Mays is a dominant playmaker who’s gotten some bad habits. If he has the tools to take any TE, and a few of the bigger WRs in the league out of a game 1-on-1, AND he has a nose for the offensive backfield, he could definitely bring an immediate impact. I’ve been dreaming of a fast AND big secondary for years, crossing my fingers with every Bartee, Wesley, Woods, Tongue, Pollard and Page that’ve come down the pike…
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 2:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The things I keep hearing about Mays is that for all of his athletic talent he's not very instinctive.
Often out of position or a step late in getting to a spot. Likes to lay the big hit but doesn’t wrap up and tackle well. Gets exploited by good tight-ends.
These are all things I’ve seen; maybe he’d be a good fit, but I’m thinking that he’s a boom-or-bust pick with a likelihood of being a bust.
by DanielUM on Dec 18, 2009 12:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Gets exploited by good tight-ends.
Part of his appeal is having the measurables to take on the Tony G’s. Thx.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 1:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Currently his measurables
are getting him exploited by even mediocre TEs.
This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.
by KCSatchmo on Dec 18, 2009 9:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
That, too, is something being measured.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Anything could happen... and it is about 5 months away.
Detriot and Cleveland are both wild cards… I see many drafts with Cleveland picking up a QB, but I just don’t think they will go that way.
If we don’t go Eric Berry, I would hope that we pass on Taylor Mays. Rolando McClain is a solid pickup and a little bit of a reach. He fills another need, and will be a major upgrade in the middle of the field.
I would love to see us get this:
1st round Eric Berry
2nd round pick one Jason Fox OT (Mike Iupai G, from Iowa would be good too depending on where we are going to put Albert, and Waters.
2rd round pick two Brandon Spikes, or Arrelious Benn(remember Rey Mauagula, and James Lauranitis dropped to the 2nd)
3r round Matt Tennant C or Micah Johnson ILB.
by ravenhawk on Dec 16, 2009 8:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
looks pretty darn good to me
* "I doubt anyone will miss Connor Barth except UCrawford"
* the LB corps may become the biggest strength of the Chiefs in 2009
* The OL is NOT as bad as you think it is... give it time, and you'll see improvement this season
* Stats are for losers
by stagdsp on Dec 16, 2009 8:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would give it a B+ in the draft... but I really don't want to draft a WR...
Yet if the talent is there and Spikes is gone we really need to think about Arrelious Benn if he is still there. Benn has talent but has been seen in my drafts of the 2nd round because of his injuries this year.
by ravenhawk on Dec 16, 2009 8:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would rather fill in a need on the Offensive line or...
the middle of the defense ie ILB, and Safety.
Yet when there is talent like Arrelious Benn in the second it is hard to not pick him up. So I wouldn’t be disappointed if in the 3rd we picked up Matt Tennant. as it does address the offensive line. We do have Colin Brown coming back off of IR next year so we should be much upgraded.
The scenarios are numberous of how we can majorily upgrade the Chiefs roster.
by ravenhawk on Dec 16, 2009 10:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ingram's a sophomore
so he won’t be in the draft.
by bh13 on Dec 16, 2009 8:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
is he a 3rd year sophomore?
The only players I hurt with my words are the ones who have an inflated opinion of their ability. I can't worry about that.
Bill Parcells
Knowledge is confidence. And confidence lets you play fast.
Bill Parcells
by kcguy on Dec 16, 2009 9:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No to Taylor Mays...
he is overrated. Our only options at 5 right now are Okung, Berry, Hayden. Suh won’t fall to us.
by I_Bleed_Red. on Dec 16, 2009 11:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Playoff talk is much prefered
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 8:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct me if I'm wrong
but wasn’t Shields always the RG? It would have been Roaf and Waters on the left side.
by bh13 on Dec 16, 2009 7:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup. I noticed that too. I usually try not to correct people on stuff like that.
I hate being corrected. (as if I was ever wrong) LOL!
by Chiefsfan1970 on Dec 16, 2009 7:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good Catch
Sorry about that. Regardless we need some serious upgrades in at least two spots on the o-line.
by Sparbs on Dec 16, 2009 7:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
C and RG
for the unitiated
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 8:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If we want to upgrade for the longhaul
Center and Guard need to be upgraded. Yet we can get away with another season with just a guard or a center.
by ravenhawk on Dec 16, 2009 8:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Blasphemy
We need those spots fixed this year in a very deep draft for those positions.
CB and NT are very thin, Safety is deeper.
I have bought into the LB’s and RB’s are fodder in our 3-4 D and our WR O.
I will go for a WR that we can pair with Bowe. obviously that would be a speed stretch the field guy since Bowe can be the Pocession guy.
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 8:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If Dez Bryant were to fall to us with our early 2nd rounder, I'd say we have to take him.
I would freak! That kid is going places.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Dec 16, 2009 8:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
heck yeah
but I’d be stunned if he fell that far, considering that he’s generally considered to be the best WR in the draft. Arrelious Benn would be a great sleeper who could fall to the 3rd round, I’d be thrilled to get him as an alternative. Jermaine Gresham would be a steal in the 2nd round too.
Predictions:
Kansas City will not win more than four games in 2009
Kansas City will have a new OC and DC in 2010
Kansas City will win at least seven games in 2010
by jmcgoblue on Dec 16, 2009 10:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd have to agree
While I have hopes for Colin Brown and I’ve heard some say good things about Darryl Harris, you can’t just assume they’re going to develop. If you have a shot at what appears to be a quality guard and center, you have to make the move.
If someone already on the roster steps up and takes the starting spot, it still gives us better, much needed depth.
by bh13 on Dec 16, 2009 9:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If the Chiefs don't have a starting RG amongst all of the guys they have now,
then they’re really not qualified to run a pro team.
- I’m not at all sure that Waters comes back. Isn’t this a contract year? Seems like I heard he’d hired an agent for the first time in his life.
Brown may or may not have what it takes. I hope he does, but he didn’t impress me in limited minutes. The must-add player is C. Another G to push the position group would be cool. But it’s not like they’re so bad, now, that they need a journeyman off the street to pretend they have someone that can block. All that being said, there’s not a single thing I’ve heard in this thread that talked about adding an OL that I didn’t like.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 3:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Valid point
I would think between Alleman, Ndukwe, Smith, Brown, Harris and maybe Niswanger, someone could hold the spot down well enough to not make it an immediate need. That’s assuming all of those players are back next year, which I imagine most will be, into training camp at least.
I wouldn’t be opposed to adding another guard if they felt it would be an upgrade but at the same time, there’s a lot of work to be done and another guard might not be the best choice right now. A center does appear to be a must though. Any other O-line additions would be gravy.
by bh13 on Dec 17, 2009 3:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Frankly, I don't think Brown has the feet to be the starting RT.
Don’t know if that’s something that’s coachable. I’m thinking he’s a guard or he’s nothing, at this point. Maybe the game will slow down for him, and he can be convincing. Maybe my impressions (imperfect eyes and imperfect memory – the perfect marriage!) are off, but he just reminded me a bit of Victor Riley, playing too high and too slow to be an NFL tackle. Like maybe he made his name as a tackle by just using his mammoth size to swallow-up defenders. I think he scouted like a lineman who was more likely to be a dominant G, with some tackle traits. Sometimes (believe it or not), I kind of wish KC had tried McIntosh seriously at G, rather than just release him… I always felt HE could be a dominant G.
And I’m not so sure that O’Callaghan is a long-term answer, there, either. But I don’t currently see anyone else on the roster seriously pushin’ ’im for minutes, and I think KC needs another RT to at least do that, and preferably more than that.
One thing for sure, though. They appear to be entering this offseason with more talent at G than they did entering last offseason, even though they did next-to-squat that could be considered decisive.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 5:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see Brown as a tackle either
If he doesn’t make it at guard, I don’t see him sticking here.
O’Callaghan seems solid enough for now but I wouldn’t mind seeing someone brought in to push him a bit. If he ends up getting sent to the bench because of it, so be it. Then we’d have a backup with decent starting experience in case he’s ever needed.
Thinking about it, I’d like to see a tackle or two picked up in the offseason. Albert will be ok I think and we’ve already touched on O’Callaghan. Richardson has shown some potential but he could still be upgraded and past that, there’s really not much on the roster at this time.
by bh13 on Dec 17, 2009 6:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Move waters back to RG?
Waters has NEVER played right guard. He came to KC as a center who played in NFL Europe, he entered the NFL as an undrafted free agent in Dallas as a TE/FB and he played some TE and DE in college. I’m sorry to nitpick but I read dozens of comments saying his original position is right guard and that is entirely untrue. He is a center, Albert is originally a left guard, and I would love to see a new left tackle (much like I screamed for Eugene Monroe on cbssportsline last year). Those three guys would have instantly became the next best left side of an o-line last year next to the Vikings with McKinnie, Hutchinson and Birk. I still feel like drafting Okung for LT, moving Albert to LG, and sliding Waters back to C would do amazing things for the line.
Other than Okung, the only other left tackle prospects I feel would be an instant upgrade over Albert are Charles Brown from USC and Ciron Black from LSU. Bruce Campbell of Maryland or Jason Fox from Maimi would hit a learning curve that really wouldnt make them an upgrade over what we already have in Albert…IMO.
by kc_radrh8r on Dec 17, 2009 2:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice comment. I like your thinking.
I would have doubts about just how well Waters would do at C, though, and would hesitate to put all my eggs in that basket. Whitlock’s use of Waters as a vehicle for propaganda and career maintenance/advancement soured me on Waters beyond all reason.
But I was on the Eugene Monroe bandwagon last year, too. At this point, I’m thinking “Does Waters have another good year in him, free of discontent?” If he does, I’d probably be OK with rolling with Albert and Waters on the left side, fix C with a true C (maybe a top FA plus a VERY GOOD young prospect), and upgrade the right side of the line. But I agree with the general idea of upgrading left tackle if such upgrade be clear and clearly within your reach, however the chips may fall elsewhere along the o-front. Worse comes to worst, you trade off the lesser tackle. I don’t think you can quite afford two high 1sts at LT and LG, though, at least not for very long.
What about dominant RT prospects, plus a decent project LT, like Bruce Campbell?
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
there will be some solid LT/RT prospects in the 2nd round
Fox, Black, Capers, Young…
Fox or Black could probably start at LT from day one, Capers is more of a RT, and a ZB (undersized, quicker)
Drafting one of these guys, using the #1 pick on defense, would allow the current lineup to keep playing together, with a good prospect there to push for a starting job at some point.
I’d still draft a Center, though… wherever they can get their guy
* "I doubt anyone will miss Connor Barth except UCrawford"
* the LB corps may become the biggest strength of the Chiefs in 2009
* The OL is NOT as bad as you think it is... give it time, and you'll see improvement this season
* Stats are for losers
by stagdsp on Dec 17, 2009 4:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
thx
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 10:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Okung
I totally agree with the statment that football is won in the trenches, and quite honestly both of our trenches need serious help.
I just think the NT void would be better filled through FA with a guy like Wilfork, or Casey Hampton. I think a proven NFL starting NT with Dorsey and Jackson on either side of him would be the best for the future of the D-line.
by Sparbs on Dec 16, 2009 6:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think I can argue
with getting Wilfork or Hampton as FA and a young OT in the draft.
I am not sure there is a real good NT in the draft…at least one that would come in and kick ass quick. That Alabama dude just seems to cry feed me…and then…bust.
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 16, 2009 6:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rec
Though he might be alright at a 2nd round price:)
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 6:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To say that Cody was less than impressive in the SEC championship
would be nice. That guy only “dominated” his man once that whole game.
You really should get professional help. Your obsession with ND football is not healthy. ---Dr. lookingdeadred
by averagegatsby on Dec 16, 2009 10:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You really put together the most substance in any post
I ever read here daily. Nice work, and rec’ed
So who here thinks that we should draft Eric Berry after reading these lines?
-The Lions did not elect to draft a game changing defender in the first round
-The Raiders did not elect to draft a game changing defender in the first round
by Sam D on Dec 16, 2009 7:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
And before anybody replies with "he's staying"
12/13/2009 – Tennessee safety Eric Berry says he’s “leaning” toward turning pro. Although Berry is still waiting to meet with head coach Lane Kiffin to discuss his future as a Vol, Berry told Sports Overtime that the NFL is more of an option next year than returning for his senior season. “Right now I’m kinda leaning toward leaving, but I want to make sure I get other opinions about it,” Berry said after Friday’s practice.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1255016
by Sam D on Dec 16, 2009 7:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no second round pick this year
But we got an excellent defensive player and a QB with as much potential as what they could possibly have drafted. Not a bad move for the second. I think Pioli is dedicated to the trenches.
Chiefs go 9-7. LJ makes 1400 yards. DBowe makes 1200 yards. Defense #18.
10/28--The Koolaid buzz is beginning to wear off. Maybe drop this back to my original thoughts on the year. Chiefs go 6-10 (and that my be optimistic!). LJ gets a restraining order to stay 1400 yards away from the Chiefs. I'll let the rest stand for now. 11/18 Oh My! Dbowe gets a restraining order to stay 1200 yards away from the Chiefs. Argh! Can we go 5-11? Can the defense make #20?
by Zodeman on Dec 16, 2009 7:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think its funny
That some people were/are mad that we gave up a 2nd rounder for Cassel and Vrabel, and gave away Tony G for a future 2nd.
Because now, we have 2 2nd round picks. So in a sense..we didnt really LOSE a 2nd round pick..we just put it off for a year. haha.
by Petey14 on Dec 16, 2009 7:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Except in CB and NT. a Couple of needs.
We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram
by Steve_Chiefs on Dec 16, 2009 8:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We obviously need a NT
But CB really isn’t a need. Flowers is really coming into his own and Carr is also doing a lot better. You could argue we need a nickleback, but I think we should be fine with Leggett and Washington.
Check out my blog on software development:
http://www.turnleafdesign.com/
by Scaryclouds on Dec 16, 2009 11:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
CB and NT
are far enough down the needs list, IMO, to put off for a year.
With Hampton and Wilfork possibly getting lose, we may get lucky and not even need to look for one in the draft.
As far as CB is concerned..we have 2 young ass corners plus a rookie corner..who have NO safety help. We need a safety whether its FA or draft, but drafting as high as we are, I think the pick has to be berry, because no other player is worth taking that high.
Honestly, I think Pioli will try to trade down but he tried that last year and ended up taking Jackson at #3 instead of possibly somwhere between 10 and 15 and getting an extra pick later. If Berry goes before us, I’ll be biting my nails to see what happens because honestly, other than Suh who will probably go #1..Berry is the only player I think is worth that high of a pick.
On top of the secondary being young, our DL is young and developing also. When those guys start playing to their potential, they’ll warrant double-teams and open our our LB’s on the pass rush. Pass rush obviously makes the secondary’s job easier. Hell, our Secondary seemed to play good last year despite what the stats say..everyone thought our secondary was a strength coming into this season.
by Petey14 on Dec 16, 2009 11:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think KC has a pair of starters, but journeymen at best behind Carr and Flowers.
And neither Carr nor Flowers are dominant at their position, however much we want to believe otherwise. Flowers is a very very good DB. Don’t get me wrong. But if you think KC is set at corner, I think you’re wrong.
That being said, Eric Berry is still the best thing the Chiefs could do. And you’d probably move him all over the place, to keep offenses off-balance. He’d be convincing in press coverage on an island, and just as easily blitz from that spot in the formation. Like Mr. Head ‘n’ Shoulders.
DaJuan Morgan hasn’t impressed me, yet. Maurice Leggett is actually looking more like a potentially good safety than a good corner. Washington hasn’t even shown me a FLASH of the up-side he supposedly has. Deserves another offseason to try and make the squad, but I’m not counting on him for much, which leaves the Chiefs pretty damn thin at that position, imo. They need to bring in some more bodies and make ’em fight for minutes. I think that position group is FAR from settled.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 3:23 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not impressed with Donald Washington either
but my only defense of him is that due the NFL’s rules about practicing before a player’s college has graduated, Washington missed the entire May mini-camp. He was so far behind when he signed in the fall that it wasnt very realistic to expect much of him this year. Hopefully he’s caught up on the playbook by next year and shows all of us whatever it is that Pioli saw in him on draft day. The “experts” said that he would have likely been a 1st round pick in 2010 had he stayed for his senior year, so lets hope that they’re right.
by kc_radrh8r on Dec 17, 2009 2:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's a very demanding position, and the kid hasn't had the best in the league to practice against.
Word from camp was he seemed to have little difficulty singling-up D-Bowe. CB is a position that demands elite athleticism, with very little margin for utterly humiliating error. Maybe they’re happy being patient with him, but I think I’d want to get him more reps, rather than seeing so much of Travis Daniels and (frankly) Mike Brown and Jon McGraw. And I think by this point of his first year, his late offseason start should not be a factor. He’s not, apparently, bringing anything very special to the field. With the position group struggling as it obviously has been, it still takes an injury to Brown/Daniels/McGraw/Carr/Flowers for us to see much of Morgan (who has no rookie excuses) or Washington (who by Game 13 has run out of “late start” excuses).
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree partly
You cant expect a (4th or 5th..I cant remember) round Cornerback (a fairly tough position to transition to in the NFL) who missed all that camp time to do much on the field at any point in the season. I wouldnt expect him to start showing flashes until late next year and carry that into his 3rd season. But everybody is so impatient and expect our draft picks to give us instant results.
However, Morgan was a 3rd round pick and his results have been disappointing. I can understand that.
by Petey14 on Dec 17, 2009 10:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Granted.
But when I saw him on the field, I was hoping to see something special, if raw, and I just saw raw. Didn’t look especially quick or fluid in the hips. I expected to see “tentative but scary-talented” and I just saw the “tentative” part. Didn’t get much of a look. The point is, I expected to see him getting more minutes by now, if he were going to be something special.
One of the things that I saw in him in his highlight reels was broken field awareness (in far greater measure than Lawrence). Seemed like maybe the kid had a higher order of football IQ, with a knack for taking INTs to the house. Hard to explain, but it’s happened to me a few times on the field (as a kid who could actually RUN, unlike the decrepit old man typing this comment), when where everybody is and where you need to go sort of crystallizes in your mind’s eye. Seemed like he had that in large measure. I wanted to see a glimpse of that this season, and I haven’t.
Kid may be out of his depth and may never learn to swim in the deeper waters. But maybe it’s just a learning curve thing, or a “the game is bigger and faster than I am” stage fright sort of thing in a young guy.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 1:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand
the concern without seeing anything from him. But look around the league and into the leagues history.
How many 4th round CB’s miss all of training camp and show anything in their rookie season? Better yet, how many 4th round CB’s PERIOD..show much in their rookie season? Sure, we got Brandon Carr who’s played better than where he was drafted, but honestly, how often does that happen?
by Petey14 on Dec 19, 2009 5:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Washington didn't miss all of training camp, though.
He was late, missing most of the OTAs, but I think he was in training camp on-time.
Definitely haven’t given up on the kid, Petey, but I want to see a flash, at least. Is he made of glass that they haven’t given him a look at KR? He looked like the best broken-field runner the Chiefs drafted.
In limited action on the regular D, I was hoping to see, at least, a great athlete, who’s finding his way. I didn’t see that. I saw middle-tier athlete, even discounting for inexperience. You know what I mean? Maybe a mental error or two, but blazing speed. Didn’t see blazing speed, or much flexibility in the hips. So I’m still on the lookout for SERIOUS talent at DB.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 19, 2009 6:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I didnt mean
that our CB’s were set per se…I just think that Donald Washington is only a rookie..a 4th rounder at that. Am I against adding a CB? No..not at all..in free agency. I think other pressing needs are more important than CB is. Now..I wouldnt be opposed to another corner depending on what happens between now and then.
I mean..depending what we get in FA changes the entire draft look. Some people thought we were going to draft either a LB or QB until Vrabel and Cassel came. I know everyone thought we’d still get Curry but I didnt think we would. I liked TJack just because of the Chiefs talking about the 3-4 but I didnt think the chiefs were even looking at him..I was shocked to see us draft him. I thought they wanted Raji. But anyways..
Let me put it this way. I dont think we’re SET at corner..I just think if it comes down to it..CB should be address in FA if possible. I’d hate to see us use a day 1 pick on a CB. And a day 2 pick likely wont contribute much unless its an early 3rd rounder and thats a MAYBE..i dont know how deep this class is.
by Petey14 on Dec 17, 2009 10:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My take on FA is it's going to be pretty thin.
But adding, say, Eric Berry would relieve a lot of CB concerns. KC basically needs better coverage backs, however they are labeled. Real upgrades aren’t going to be particularly easy in FA, imo.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 1:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Its probably
not going to be easy. But I do know that CP couldnt get more than a 3rd round pick for TG and Pioli came to town and got a 2nd rounder for him.
I’m not one of those guys who thinks Pioli is the savior and he does everything right. But..I think Pioli has a better chance of getting better FA’s who’d actually FIT and play well in KC than Peterson ever did.
Based on that, especially with a few big names at positions we desperately need, I dont think we’ll come out of FA empty handed.
And adding a coverage Dback..I completely agree that we need a COVERAGE guy..which is why i’m all for Eric Berry.
by Petey14 on Dec 19, 2009 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right on.
And your take on the 2nd for Tony G says a lot for Pioli. I think he’ll get better deals because he doesn’t try to put the squeeze on anyone. I think Peterson was like an old wolf, who, after years of bullying others, doesn’t understand why no one treats him fairly, let alone showing any mercy, when he’s on his back with his legs in the air.
My point in the previous comment was that FA looks thin at DB. And only the very tippy top of the position looks worth a 1st-rounder, with Berry being the only one who’s not an obvious reach (and many will argue that he’s a reach).
Some have mentioned Bethea as a real good candidate for S, and I think adding Berry and Bethea would work wonders for the KC defense. Add NT in depth (FA plus draft), and system picks for LB later in the draft (or after). Plow the rest into offense and BPA.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 19, 2009 7:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a good take on the situation.
Regarding the defensive backs, Antoine Bethea would be a solid pickup, and the Colts might already have his replacement in house in Melvin Bullitt, so he could well be available.
Another option to look at is his teammate, Marlin Jackson. He’s listed as a corner, but he’s versatile. He’s played corner and safety at the collegiate and pro levels and is a good player. He’s had some injury problems, so he might be cheap and a steady veteran who can contribute. He might even be able to show our younger players at both corner and safety a thing or two about the positions.
by DanielUM on Dec 20, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Could be some real value, there.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 20, 2009 1:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We need to get our NT in free agency in my opinion.
A guy who is playoff ready right off the bat.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Dec 16, 2009 8:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'd like that a LOT
then, maybe take a NT in the 5th round as a developmental prospect?
* "I doubt anyone will miss Connor Barth except UCrawford"
* the LB corps may become the biggest strength of the Chiefs in 2009
* The OL is NOT as bad as you think it is... give it time, and you'll see improvement this season
* Stats are for losers
by stagdsp on Dec 16, 2009 8:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree 100%
How many 5th round picks do we have this year?
and shouldn’t we get some conditional picks for Larry Johnson and Bernard Pollard?
by ravenhawk on Dec 16, 2009 8:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we have 3 5th round picks.
Pioli seems to do well in that part of the draft.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Dec 16, 2009 8:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
With the multiple 5th-rounders, you can cast a wider net.
The genius isn’t in the individual picks, but in acquiring the extra opportunities, imo.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 4:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
3 5th round picks
I don’t think you get conditional picks if you cut a guy
only if they leave via free agency
* "I doubt anyone will miss Connor Barth except UCrawford"
* the LB corps may become the biggest strength of the Chiefs in 2009
* The OL is NOT as bad as you think it is... give it time, and you'll see improvement this season
* Stats are for losers
by stagdsp on Dec 16, 2009 8:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Or take one higher than that.
I don’t think Edwards is getting it done at the nose, so I see the Chiefs as more than just one sure-fire FA and a developmental player who can’t give quality minutes right away. I’d say 2nd- or 3rd-round, with a Magee-like draftee (a leader on the field), only bigger. From comments I’m reading, it doesn’t sound like Cody is that kind of a player. But if, say, Williams passed the attitude test, he’d look pretty good in the 2nd, to me.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 4:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
something to look at...
we always seem to be looking at those who r already NT’s but r the any DT’s out there becoming FA’s that could possibly make the solid switch?
also, r there any solid LT’s in FA coming up if we don’t pick up okung?
people seem fixed on the draft but there r plenty of ways to upgrade our team.
by MountainManMike on Dec 17, 2009 3:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Waaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic
Anybody think we should have looked at Incognito?
by KCMizzou on Dec 16, 2009 8:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
maybe
but, he is a nutcase, Pioli/Haley probably didn’t want to mess with it
* "I doubt anyone will miss Connor Barth except UCrawford"
* the LB corps may become the biggest strength of the Chiefs in 2009
* The OL is NOT as bad as you think it is... give it time, and you'll see improvement this season
* Stats are for losers
by stagdsp on Dec 16, 2009 8:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hell
No. That’s one crazy whiteboy.
Welcome to Chiefs REBUILD - Version 2.0 /The Clark Hunt Edition
Chiefs will be lucky to go 4-12 in 2010
by KansasCityShuffle on Dec 16, 2009 8:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Crazy Roid-Raging Cokehead
If you believe teh rumors on him
This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.
by KCSatchmo on Dec 16, 2009 8:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe his past history
which getting kicked off BOTH Nebraska & Oregon’s team(s) doesn’t leave much room for benefit of the doubt.
Welcome to Chiefs REBUILD - Version 2.0 /The Clark Hunt Edition
Chiefs will be lucky to go 4-12 in 2010
by KansasCityShuffle on Dec 16, 2009 8:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Shuffle, I've been meaning to ask you.
Do you really think the Chiefs will only win 4 games next year? If so, why?
by Chiefsfan1970 on Dec 16, 2009 8:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Truth be told
I’m such a doucher and was stoned when I wrote that signature that I meant to say for the 2009 season. After realizing my mistake I chose to leave it up because it made me laugh but also because it’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility. While for the record I don’t think Pioli’s next draft will be as dismal as his first, it’s possible and if it does indeed turn out anything like it I think we’re screwed. Y’all can say what you want about the talent level on this team but Pioli had some prime opportunities in the draft with some juicy names left on the board and all he gives us is Washington’s, Lawrence’s, Brown’s, Williams’, and O’Connell’s of the world. Thanks but no thanks. I appreciate the attention to detail and articulate manner in which they’re building this team, but there were some primetime football players available on draft day that could have helped us THIS season not next year’s or the year after that.
Welcome to Chiefs REBUILD - Version 2.0 /The Clark Hunt Edition
Chiefs will be lucky to go 4-12 in 2010
by KansasCityShuffle on Dec 16, 2009 8:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
I want nothing to do with this kid
This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.
by KCSatchmo on Dec 16, 2009 8:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Me too.
I would have been ECSTATIC if we had gotten him. It worked out well for him though. Buffalo has a much brighter future than the Rams IMO.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Dec 16, 2009 8:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Excellant post B man!
Winning begins with Attitude - Haley and Pioli will be winners in KC!
I'll forever be a Chiefs fan! Only God himself could take that away from me, but when I get to my great reward, I'll rejoin two bigger fans, my Mom and Dad.
by Lanier63 on Dec 16, 2009 9:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Will all this seasons dropped passes
way heavily on the mind of H&P when or if Dez Bryant is on the board when the team picks in round one? Or will they wait and hope Damien Williams of SoCal is on the board in round two? It is something to think about. I would prefer a LB myself and draft two safeties in the later rounds, but I’m not Pioli. I still believe his first 3 picks in the draft are going to surprise us fans as they could all be offense. This could change. FA might tell us a bit more about what he might do in the draft.
by chief66 on Dec 16, 2009 9:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'm not interested in a Cadillac LB and settling for a Hyundai DB.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 4:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Damien Williams
would be a great choice in the 2nd round, but it’s unlikely he’d fall that far. Supposedly he’s a very polished receiver. I’d rather go Defense and Offensive Line over the first three rounds, but it really depends on who is available.
Predictions:
Kansas City will not win more than four games in 2009
Kansas City will have a new OC and DC in 2010
Kansas City will win at least seven games in 2010
by jmcgoblue on Dec 16, 2009 10:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
A couple of thoughts
One is that your sample size is very small: Oakland and Detroit, that’s only two teams, and their ‘recovery’ into the win column could be severely impeded just as much by making very poor choices and sheer random bad luck, as well as not following your defensive ‘game changers’ idea.
Another is that their lack of success AT LEAST in part— if not mostly— must be attributed to taking ‘bust’ players: Rogers, M.Williams, J.Russell, Heyward-Bey were all HORRENDOUS picks and would have done damage to pretty much any NFL franchise, much less chronic and severe losing teams, whether the ‘defensive game-changer’ theory is true or not.
Yes, you can make a case that defense wins championships— at least it did for the Chiefs’ only championship-winning team back in Super Bowl IV. But you can also take a look at the great success of a mainly offense-dominant team (Indianapolis) in the past 10 years, and note that although the Steelers had Dick Lebeau and an outstanding defense for years, then didn’t have championship success this decade until AFTER they took a QB in the first round. And if you dial things back to the 90’s, look at the Cowboys: the Hall-of-Fame players from those championship teams are pretty much all on offense: Aikman, Smith, Irvin, maybe Allen. Similarly, look at the Rams from the 90’s and early 2000’s— the big game-changers were on offense.
by Wheatboy74 on Dec 16, 2009 10:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
You need a good...
team period. However, you are more likely to win a championship with an elite defense and a sub par offense than vice-versa. As for the Colts are you telling me that Dwight Freeny and Bob Sanders had nothing to do with that superbowl? The Steelers had two game changers too in Harrison (INT for TD) and Polomalu, also Joey Porter for their first this decade. Pats had Seymour and Ty Law. The Ravens had Lewis and Woodson. The Bucs had Sapp and Lynch. And the Giants had Uminora and G Wilson. It seems to me you need two elite talents on defense, one in the front 7 and one in the secondary. We don’t have either right now although I think we have solid talent that will complement these players when they do come. I hope Berry drops to us because you can pencil him in for the game changer in the secondary. As for the front 7 I wouldn’t mind trading back into the first to get a dominant NT in Terrence Cody.
by I_Bleed_Red. on Dec 16, 2009 11:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually...
don’t trade back into the first to get Cody. In the 3-4 Its usually a LB or an DE that is the game changer. In my opinion there are only 4 game changers in this years draft: E Berry, McClain, Suh, and Hayden.
by I_Bleed_Red. on Dec 16, 2009 11:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Secure the nose, first.
Set the table for your LBs before goin’ high-dollar at that position, and you may find that you don’t need to go high-dollar at LB at all. I wouldn’t be afraid of going high for LB, but it’d come after I had some confidence that the DL would take care of him. A D-Line is going to make averageLBs look great, but a great LB isn’t going to make an average DL look great.
Interestingly, walterfootball thinks Brandon Spikes slips all the way to #44, just within reach of KC, who snatches him with the Atlanta pick. Personally, I feel that 3rd is the earliest KC will want to be spending a pick on LB. They can get very good value – a young, smart, fast pair of legs for that position group.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 4:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I'm telling you that in the case of Indianapolis...
… if you subtracted Manning and their front-line receivers, the Colts struggle to get to five hundred, much less make the playoffs. Their offense is consistently ranked well ahead of their defense…. but I agree with you, in the sense that they had Pro-Bowl defensive players at two key positions: defensive end and safety.
But the question I would pose to you is this: if you have two first round picks that are very early, like the Chiefs have had the past few years, and you can take only two of these four: Manning, Harrison, Feeney and Sanders… which two do you take? You can only take two, because you are going to have enough success that for the next decade you will never pick below the 20’s. Yeah, I take Manning and Harrison, b/c they are the most difficult to replace, i.e., find similar talent in the later picks and later rounds.
by Wheatboy74 on Dec 16, 2009 11:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget that the only Superbowl the Colts even made it to (and won)
was when the chronically underwhelming defense stood up and shut everyone down in the playoffs. Nobody could run agianst them at all, that’s what killed us in our game against them that year.
The Rams defense could rush the pass and make 1-2 drive stops per game, that’s all they needed, much like Arizona last year.
If your offense is all world, your defense only needs to be average.
by Your_Moms_Boyfriend on Dec 17, 2009 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're exactly right about the 2006 Colts
but wrong about the Rams. The 1999 team that won a championship was ranked #1 in offense AND #4 inn defense.
With the exception of the Colts in 2006, I don’t believe you can find many examples of a team that won a championship with an “all world” offense and an average defense.
John
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"
by RDOGuy on Dec 17, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wanted to say that the all-world offense let the D pin its ears back.
But I seem to recall that defense sending a lot of 4-man pass rush.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If I recall correctly
the Colts D started playing in the playoffs like people expected them to at he start of the season. Along with the confused disappointment on why they were not performing during the season…I think they had a number of injuries and nicks. But that all came together around two games before the playoffs.
If I remember right.
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 17, 2009 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Chronically underwhelming defense stood up
…just like Arizona did last year. Good point.
by kc_radrh8r on Dec 17, 2009 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The other thing is, what is your definition of 'game changer'?
Harrison was with PIttsburgh for a long time before anyone would have identified him as a Pro Bowl player, and I don’t recall that he was an especially high draft pick. The Colts are undefeated and Sanders has hardly played, and Freeney has had injury problems (just not as severe).
Let me turn the argument around: you think the Giants win their most recent Super Bowl, or even get their, without Eli Manning and Plax? I don’t recall many New England champions before Brady came on the scene.
What I wonder is, why can’t you make the argument that offensive play-makers are required just as much or more nowadays, when the rules favor the offense more than they did back in the 70’s and 80’s?
by Wheatboy74 on Dec 16, 2009 11:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Listen...
I’m not saying screw the QB and WR positions. They are extremely important. I want a dominant offense and defense. However, you guys can’t tell me that we should draft a QB or WR with our first rounder. It doesn’t make sense since we just paid Cassel and I don’t see that blue chip WR this year. I mean maybe Dez Bryant, but that is a stretch considering he hardly played this year.
by I_Bleed_Red. on Dec 17, 2009 3:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're kind of making the opposite point, in a way.
The rules being bent in favor of the QB gives you a wider envelope for a QB who can succeed, if you’re GOOD there, and go all-out to set the table for whomever you start under center.
Understand, it makes me feel a little slimy, arguing against offensive playmakers.
As for the Eli Manning question, I think he’s definitely a special talent, but he doesn’t seem to have the intangible something that makes the guys around him so much better so quickly. Definitely good enough to succeed with a dominant OL, a dominant WR like Plax, an improbable clutch catch from David Tyree, and Michael Strahan and Osi Umenyiora starting at the DE spots (AND better dbs than they have in ’09). On a team with clear, unaddressed needs, Eli DOES stand out as being overpaid. Just imo.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 5:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wheatboy
Yes, the sample size is small. There was only 4 teams that met the criteria for a “floundering team” however. I showed three of them…the other was the Rams (which, like the Chiefs, does not have very many years to look at after floundering for 2 consecutive years.)
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 17, 2009 7:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Regarding the draft
Yes, I like the idea of Pro-Bowl quality linemen too…. but the current KC offense is clearly one of the worst in the league and is distinguished by only one asset with significant speed and otherwise an almost complete lack of any playmakers. Chambers is borderline at best and getting older, there’s nothing right now at the TE position, and aside from Charles the Chiefs have pretty much nothing else in the backfield.
Earlier this year I was gung-ho for them to draft a bunch of defensive prospects in the first two or three rounds. But as the year has gone on, I’ve begun to consider the alternative: use the high picks to get speedy playmakers for the offense. If not from the draft, who will run the ball between the tackles? If you use Charles for 25 touches a game for the whole year, inside and out, he’ll likely get destroyed— there needs to be more talent back there.
You can defense ‘til the cows come home, but if the offense goes three-and-out six times a game, and the third down efficiency is consistently below 25%, you’re just not gonna score enough to win, and you’re defense will eventually wear down… no matter how many playmakers you have on that side of the football.
by Wheatboy74 on Dec 16, 2009 11:22 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
So what are you saying? Spend the #1 pick on WR?
I’m all for it, if the guy’s a long-term monster at the position. Solves a lot of problems on offense, automatically, and helps your secondary develop at the same time.
I think that Tim Castille is the kind of all-around back who will be very consistent, once o-line is fixed. I can definitely see bringing in a boatload of 5th-rounders and UDFAs who all play like Castille, and cull for the quickest one(s). But put your wealth into the guys who block for ‘em. Like as not, you’ll think Pioli’s a genius at RB if he gets OL and WR upgrades.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 5:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm saying that KC's offense will be mostly stuck in neutral...
…. as long as Charles is their ONLY offensive skill player with significant speed. Even with a great offensive line, if the defense is eight-in-the-box the whole game, you’re severely limited. When the Chiefs had a great O-line in the first half of the decade, they still had Priest with great up-field quickness, and better speed at WR and TE than we have now.
I think that one of those first three picks— Round 1 and Round 2— should be RB or WR with enough speed to be a playmaker a la Charles. I think as you get back into Round 3 there may still be some possibilities there, but the offensive prospects start to tail off pretty fast after the third round. Waiting until 2011 is, I think, only delaying the inevitable.
But I don’t see a WR who would be appropriate for a 4th or 5th pick in the first round this year— Pioli would have to trade down to do it in round one, at least to the mid-teens.
by Wheatboy74 on Dec 18, 2009 11:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Points well-made and well-taken (if I do say so, myself).
Heh. I’m OK with one of the first 3 picks being WR. But LJ was plenty good for the KC offense when the OL was still solid and they still had Kennison on the edge, but even Kennison was only borderline in terms of a #1 speed threat on the edge.
I’d just be hesitant to make team decisions based on the fact that you can clearly see the difference Charles makes, short-term. You can make an offense look better instantly with great speed at RB. But it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of difference in the playoffs, if the other position groups aren’t solid. And if the OL isn’t fixed, those Ferrari choices at RB tend to have very short careers. Charles, himself, isn’t going to last long, unless they fix the OL and get more consistency and speed in the WR position group, to take some of the heat off the o-backfield (and to make big plays when the heat is on the o-backfield).
The way the current team sizes up in my eyes, RB is something you continue selecting all-around good players for. That’s why I mentioned Tim Castille. He has the entire toolkit, although you’re correct in saying he lacks elite speed. My rule of thumb is “fast enough to outrun anybody who can beat him up and tough enough to beat up anybody who can out-run him.”
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 19, 2009 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We have...
to look at this for the long haul. We have to go defense for the first round because defensive talent at key positions is extremely rare in the NFL. If we were going to go anything besides defense it should be an offensive tackle.
by I_Bleed_Red. on Dec 16, 2009 11:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
i know that a lot of people want to draft a RB somewhat high...
but with the zone blocking…doesn’t that mean we should be able to find someone solid in the lower rounds? denver did it for years and it was supposedly because of the zone blocking. they could have turned J. Russel from a QB to a 1,000 yard back with their scheme back in the day.
by MountainManMike on Dec 17, 2009 3:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'm still hoping to see something from Williams this year
Whether he shows anything or not, adding another RB wouldn’t be a terrible idea. I would agree though, draft one late if you draft one at all.
by bh13 on Dec 17, 2009 3:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That makes 3 of us.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 5:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Great post
and I agree that once a team hits the bottom they must build through the lines. However I think there is an exceptition to the rule and that is, a team must get a franchise QB. With this being said I give the Raiders a pass for the 2007 draft because they tried to fill the most important position on the field. Obviously that attempt has failed miserably and I laugh everytime I think Fyre is now starting over Fatty, but I won’t fault a team for trying to get a F.QB in the 1st round.
by BeijingKCfan on Dec 17, 2009 3:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
First, I completely agree with Bewsaf
that NFL games are won in the trenches. Everything depends on solid play in both lines.
Look at the Chiefs of the early 90s. John Alt, Neil Smith, Tim Grunhard and Will Shields all came in the first three rounds of the draft. None of the team’s success during those years could have happened without those guys.
I also agree with the old saw Bewsaf referenced. Offense is fun to watch, and does sell tickets. But defense is more likely to win games during December and January. People point to teams like the Patriots and Colts and say that offense is what wins in today’s NFL, but that’s just not true. I_Bleed_Red stated it exactly right: the historical fact is that you are more likely to win a championship with an elite defense and a sub par offense than vice-versa.
None of the Patriots’ Super Bowl-winning teams had a defense ranked outside of the top ten – and in fact, in their 16-0 season, their offense was ranked first, and their defense was ranked fourth; in 2003, they had only the 12th ranked offense, but the top defense.
The Colts did win it all in 2006 with a defense ranked only 23rd, but they are the exception, not the rule. Wheatboy is correct that the Colts have been a dominant team during this decade with a high power offense and (usually) only an average defense – but it’s also true that despite being a legitimate contender in all but one of the last ten seasons, the Colts only have one championship to show for it. And this season’s 13-0 Colts team has an offense AND defense both ranked in the top five.
Nor do I completely buy into the “franchise quarterback” idea. No one’s going to argue that it’s better to have an average quarterback than a great one, but the fact is that there have been a number of championship teams that had only average quarterbacks – but just about every one of them had either an outstanding defense or an amazing running game. Either (or both) of those are a huge advantage in December and January, when it’s all on the line.
(Here in Kansas City, we ought to understand this very well: despite the fact that the Chiefs had the number two AFL offense in 1969, Len Dawson and Mike Livingston’s QB ratings were only a bit above average; today, even Matt Cassel’s 2009 rating is within a couple of points of both Dawson and Livingston’ 1969 numbers.)
Which brings me to this: I don’t think Pioli and Haley brought in Matt Cassel because they thought he could be a “franchise quarterback” – although if it played out that way, they (and we) wouldn’t mind. I think they brought him in to be a solid NFL starter – one they could get without risking an early pick (and a huge salary) on an unproven rookie. We can argue all day about whether Cassel will ever be an elite quarterback – but if P&H play their cards right with the players in the trenches (and on defense) he won’t have to be.
John
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"
by RDOGuy on Dec 17, 2009 10:12 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
Devil's Advocate Here
What if we take your research back two more years to 1997?
After a 3-13 season in 1997, draft a QB in Rd-1.
After another 3-13 season in 1998, draft a RB in Rd-1.
Then go on a tear for the next 10 years with a regular season winning percentage of 71% with only one season with less the 10 wins (6-10 in 2001).
by Lost in Denver on Dec 17, 2009 10:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All true...
but that 71% win percentage only gave them one championship in those ten years. We Chiefs fans have already been there and done that – albeit with a different set of problems.
In addition, the 2006 Colts team won that championship because their defense played well above expectations in the playoffs. In three of four postseason games, they allowed fewer points than their season average, in and two of them, fewer points than they had given up to any team all season.
John
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"
by RDOGuy on Dec 17, 2009 11:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry...
should have read, “AND in two of them”
John
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"
by RDOGuy on Dec 17, 2009 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wish Marty would have gotten us one.
Regular season wins are fun, but that hurt not getting at least one SB appearance.
By the way, I looked back at that decade with Marty. Do you realize there were only three AFC teams that did not make it as far (AFC Championship game) as the Chiefs? SEA, CINCY and HOU/TEN (Tennessee lost the SB the next year).
by Lost in Denver on Dec 17, 2009 11:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they had their front line (on offense) already in place, and QB/RB were finishing touches.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 12:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And that was a damn good line
a couple of road plows in that group
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 17, 2009 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry to start a conversation and then leave but I had to get back to working.
You are correct about INDY’s line. In 1997 they drafted O-Line Rds 1 (Glenn) & 2 (Meadows). Interesting is that first year Meadows started at LT then moved to RT for the next six years. Comparable to a lot of people wanting to move Albert and draft another LT this year. Glenn then moved to LT for the next several years. They then continued to add O-linemen some through FAs (Moore C-G, Saturday C) others in later rounds McKinney LG Rd 4 in 1998, Diem RG Rd 4 and DeMulling LG Rd 7 both in 2001. Diem eventually moved out to RT with RG being taken over by another 4th rounder (Sciullo)
by Lost in Denver on Dec 17, 2009 6:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thx.
Noticed that tonight they talked about building the team around Manning and how important it was to get the QB first, when in actuality they invested heavily in O-Line, first.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 10:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but with the best O-line in history and no Manning...
…. probably never a stellar team. I think the win value of incrementally better QB play is higher than for any other position.
by Wheatboy74 on Dec 18, 2009 11:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That being true, you don't put the best QB you can find behind an O-Line that sucks.
And Polian never did that with Payton. He prepared the way for his difference-making QB, with OL and WR talent. Following that, the Marshall Plan was implemented. Still took ’em years to win it all, and that only after their defense stepped up.
And Smellway never won a championship until he was backed by the best running attack in the business, and Davis emerged from 5th-round obscurity and flourished. A great RB, granted, but what are the chances he’s discovered if you put all your money into QB and RB?
I love great QBs, myself. But I can’t help but wonder what we all might think of Manning if he hadn’t had dominant players around him for most of his career. You can see that the 4-man pass rush is NEVER enough to get heat on him, and he has weapons that KILL when you blitz him. Yes, he’s among the best that ever played, but he’s consistently had among the best situations in which to play, for far longer than ’most ANY QB, EVER.
This is no disrespect to Manning. It’s just that maybe there’s not enough respect going out to other QBs in the league, who labor under more adverse conditions. Manning’s the happy conjunction of great head, great arm, and great GM. Make no mistake.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 19, 2009 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Or we can look at a proven formula.
Win 3 in 88 – Draft a QB,
Start out terrible in 89, trade our best (or 2nd best) player, finish by winning 1 – Draft a RB
Go on a tear and win SBs in 92, 93, and 95 – Lose in the Championship in 94.
Of course you need to find a team to trade with.
But it has worked twice. Draft QB then follow it up with a RB.
by Lost in Denver on Dec 17, 2009 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but now you're supporting MY argument
because all four of those Cowboys squads were top ten in defense AND offense. In all three seasons they won the Super Bowl, they were top FIVE on both sides of the ball.
John
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"
by RDOGuy on Dec 17, 2009 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ooops...
I misread the table. Actually… the Cowboys were top five on both sides of the ball in all four of those seasons.
John
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"
by RDOGuy on Dec 17, 2009 11:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I actually agree with you
I believe the best teams are built from the inside (trenches) out and D is more important than O.
I was trying to point out (although quite pathetically in the second example due to all of the other draft picks the ’boys got) that what we believe can be backed up; no matter which side of the argument you are on.
by Lost in Denver on Dec 17, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is good stuff RDOGuy
I will just leave it at that since there was so many good points of info
Rec’d
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 17, 2009 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If history gives us any indication of what Pioli will do...
Then we can look at what he did in NE:
2000:
2nd- Adrian Klemm, OT
3rd- JR Redmond, RB
4th- Greg Robinson-Randall, OT
(they had no first round pick)
2001:
1st- Richard Seymour, DE
2nd- Matt Light, LT
3rd- Brock Williams, CB
All in all, in the first 4 years of Pioli/Belichick’s tenure in NE, they had 36 draft picks.
14 of them were “trench” players. 38% of their draft choices over 2000-2003 were either OL or DL.
16 of their 36 picks went to defense, for 44% of their picks.
22 of the 36 were either trench players or other defensive players, making this category 61% of their picks.
Combine these results with the great post that KCSatchmo wrote regarding Pioli’s success in turning draft picks into guys that actively stay on rosters, and we at least have a reason to be optimistic. Pioli seems to have already started moving in the same direction he did when he got to NE.
My sentiments are likely to be summed up with one of these 2 quotes:
"Shut the f--- up."
-Matt Cassel
"WHAT THE F---?!?!"
-Todd Haley
by Red N Gold Beast on Dec 17, 2009 10:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Good post. I started out at the halfway mark thinking offense.
I was thinking we should have grabbed crabtree etc. I thought O line first and foremost. But as I listened to others viewpoints on here I started to think that defense has to be first and foremost.
We can not give up 40 pts a game and expect to win. We cannot let other teams drive on us with 2 mins left in the game and score the winning TD every time.
We have to get a d that is a top 5 defense in the NFL. Once that is out of the way, the skies the limit.
by krayfish on Dec 17, 2009 10:39 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes cause and effect is hard to track.
With a great offense, the D can take more chances and refine a pressure-based scheme over the course of the season. And they just have to win one or two series on D with that offense behind them, and their opponents become more and more 1-dimensional, allowing you to blitz the passer all day, and that blitz can be your best weapon against the run, as well, if you’re blowin’ things up and have SPEED.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 12:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Thx, Bewsaf. Grist for one of the best football threads I've seen in awhile.
When we’re speculating about what these bottom-tier teams might do, I have to shake my head at ANY of ‘em picking QB that high. Look at Stafford in Detroit. He seems well on his way to being pretty good AND hobbled by injury. It’s like NEEDING to roll a 7 on one throw, when, even though you’ve done everything you can to narrow it down to the most likely roll (best QB available), setting the table first means a roll of 6, 7, or 8 will get it done for you.
The remarks about QB are interesting, especially the ones about Ache-man’s Cowboys. I would argue that it was risky to throw him into the fire as a rookie, the way they did, and I think the beatings he took shortened his career. Because of all the synergies taking place on a football team, I generally argue for setting the table for QB, but OTOH, a sub-par QB can make it tougher to develop other position groups – the WRs maybe don’t develop because the QB lacks leadership, vision, or accuracy, turning potential prima donna receivers into perennial whiners. I just know I hate seeing rookie QBs thrown into awful situations (David Carr) and the big investment is wasted, for reasons beyond the QB’s control.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 12:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Those are good points for thought
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 17, 2009 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rather than look at "either/or" on which positions to draft
I think Pioli looks at opportunity from anywhere it comes from. Look for a bunch more of “non-sexy” picks, IMO. He will only hit on 1-4 per year. The biggest impact will be the “non-sexy” free agents.
http://www.eagletribune.com/pusports/local_story_329104543?keyword=secondarystory+page=0
Pioli’s best work, pre-dynasty, was with free agents. And we’re not talking of the “Moss” variety. Were talking, as NFL execs call them, “street free agents,” which are usually minimum-salary guys.
We’re talking names like Roman Phifer, Charles Johnson, David Patten, Grey Ruegamer, Jermaine Wiggins, Bert Emmanuel, Antowain Smith, Marc Edwards, Bobby Hamilton, Anthony Pleasant, Bryan Cox, Otis Smith, Terrell Buckley, Matt Stevens and Riddick Parker, all who started, yes started, on a Patriots Super Bowl team.
Heck, do you remember the name Fred Coleman? You should.
The “street free agent” was out of football when Pioli signed him in November 2001. He had only two career receptions in the NFL; his first was a 46-yarder, converting a third down and leading the Patriots to a winning touchdown against the then-first place Jets in December.
These players don’t grow on trees like they do for college coaches. Some are found on Tuesday afternoons about 3,000 miles away from home.
Here were Pioli’s key draft selections:
2000: Tom Brady (199th overall)
2001: Richard Seymour (6th), Matt Light (48th)
2002: Jarvis Green (126th)
2003: Ty Warren (13th), Eugene Wilson (36th), Asante Samuel (120th), Dan Koppen (164th)
2004: Vince Wilfork (21st), Ben Watson (32nd)
2005: Logan Mankins (32nd), Ellis Hobbs (84th), Nick Kaczur (100th), James Sanders (133rd)
2006: Laurence Maroney (21st), Stephen Gostowski (118th)
2007: Brandon Meriweather (24th)
"The way this works is you string together some good games, some good practices and you get momentum and you gain confidence," linebacker Mike Vrabel said. "It can be a real positive for your team. It builds on itself."
by cpa913 on Dec 17, 2009 12:50 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Wrecked.
Any body think we make a move for Mankins?
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'll wreck a move for Mankins
"The way this works is you string together some good games, some good practices and you get momentum and you gain confidence," linebacker Mike Vrabel said. "It can be a real positive for your team. It builds on itself."
by cpa913 on Dec 17, 2009 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I just read
- He wants a big pay-day.
- He would prefer to remain a Patriot.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 3:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Vrabel and Seymour would have preferred to remain a Patriot too
"The way this works is you string together some good games, some good practices and you get momentum and you gain confidence," linebacker Mike Vrabel said. "It can be a real positive for your team. It builds on itself."
by cpa913 on Dec 17, 2009 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
AND
it wouldn’t be smart for him to say
“I’d like a big paycheck, but I’d prefer NOT to be a Patriot”
considering the Pats will likely make some effort to keep him
* "I doubt anyone will miss Connor Barth except UCrawford"
* the LB corps may become the biggest strength of the Chiefs in 2009
* The OL is NOT as bad as you think it is... give it time, and you'll see improvement this season
* Stats are for losers
by stagdsp on Dec 17, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
Main thing I’m taking from this is that there are some options out there. But I think the Patriots ought to be feeling some urgency about keeping the good parts of their line and upgrading it.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 17, 2009 10:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They definitely should think about that, although the defense is probably more of a concern.
Unless I’m mistaken, Mankins will be a restricted free agent this offseason unless a new CBA is reached, so it’s a hard play for any other team to try and acquire him. They do need to seriously look at their tackles, who get killed by speed rushers; I wouldn’t be surprised if Matt Light was in a different uniform next season.
by DanielUM on Dec 18, 2009 12:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good Post...
I like Tyson Jackson. You can tell that he is getting better the more he is playing this season. He knows his role and will eventually get to the quarterback. When he does start getting sacks I think he’ll become a beast because then he’ll be more confident.
Hali, Johnson, Vrable, Mays, Williams, Studebaker, Belcher
-Come Get Some-
by Chiefsfan85 on Dec 17, 2009 7:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I really wouldn't measure it in those terms.
Yes, once the D starts clicking, Jackson should get opportunities to get his hands on the QB, but it will be an indirect/system sort of thing. While I’m looking for his game to continue to develop, I think he’s already pretty much a beast, and what’s missing in his game is a more complete team around him, starting at the nose.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 12:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
for a 3-4 DE
I am going to say that we should expect to see…
1. ability to hold the point of attack (not get moved when play comes your way). That help the LB scrape to the play without running through trash. Tyson does this
2. ability to get off single blocks and make plays. (Tyson is getting better at this…but not yet)
3. ability to command a double team. This comes with teams knowing you can do the first two. Tyson does not command double teams yet, he is still at stage 2. So…not yet for Tyson on this one.
4. Ability to have a pass rush move and a counter move. the DE needs to be able to beat his man (man on man) from time to time. Tyson not ready yet.
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 18, 2009 7:11 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Point 4
I am yet to see him execute a rip or swim move. I’m sure we’ll see these techniques develop once he gets past teh basics of just knowing where to be on any given play.
This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.
by KCSatchmo on Dec 18, 2009 9:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
- Hold the point. check
- I think that the getting off of single blocks thing is deceptive. I think that a fair amount of the time, he’s thinking more to honoring the inside and outside shoulder of the guy he’s pushing backwards, when he’s singled-up. It looks to me like he honors his assignment more than seizing his own individual opportunities. Maybe you’re hoping for more of a 4-3 DE, in spite of yourself.
- I think he’s already commanding the double-team. Maybe I’m kidding myself. But it seems like he’s eating up 2 guys pretty much all the time.
- I’m not seeing a whole lot of “martial arts” out of him when it comes to the “rip and swim” moves Satch names. It looks like he’s mainly concentrating on playing with leverage, and keeping his feet under him. I don’t think his game is going to be about splitting blockers. I think it’ll be more about asserting a zone of control that creates a “dead zone” within which the offense simply can’t make any progress. On passing downs, I want the front 3 to crush the middle, more than pierce it.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
he is a beast. His problem right now is consistency. He’d look much better with some upgraded ILB behind him and he would look fantastic with a NT who require a double team. On those plays where he seems confident that he understand where to be and what to do, he’s very difficult to block. On the plays where he looks lost, he looks like I could block him.
This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.
by KCSatchmo on Dec 18, 2009 9:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I've definitely had the impression that his eyes saw something that wasn't there.
Even some of those, it’s hard to decide if it was outright error on his part or something that looked like a mistake, because the guy sidin’ him or the guy at his back didn’t do what he was supposed to do. I felt that way about Turk McBride, though, and he didn’t last long this year…
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 4:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I mean, about Turk, it seemed like he was pretty solid, but the team concept wasn't finishing off what he'd disrupted.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 4:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't really worried about Jackson before
And Haley made me feel even better about him the other day.
"I think the guy has a tremendous work ethic. He works before practice, during and after on technique – 24/7. He’s in here watching tape, but, again, it takes a little time. He’s a young player playing that position."
He’s not one of those guys that’s going to be content to just get paid. He’s out there working hard, trying to get better. Give him time and a good NT like hmills said and I think we’ll all be happy with him, even if he never puts up big numbers.
by bh13 on Dec 18, 2009 12:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 1:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He has no burst
He won’t get to the QB. He just doesn’t have the burst. He didn’t even get to the QB against weak offensive tackles in the college game. He’s a mauler, so as long as his job isn’t to get to the QB, he could definitely play a key role.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 18, 2009 9:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 4:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This Post is pretty gratifying.
Pretty much in-line with my un-researched and highly anecdote-based opinions. I don’t know that the system is set up to keep a team in the cellar once they’re down there, but teams that end up in the cellar are likely there because they don’t really understand what they’re doing and they throw QBs and RBs at their problems.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 1:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
On the original post:
I totally agree at the tactical level. Build the trenches. I totally disagree at the tactical level—that is, the actual names that were picked to match the larger strategy. In this case, those names were Tyson Jackson and Alex Magee. I do hope they turn out to be good players for KC, but I thought Jackson an enormous reach. I didn’t really have as much of a problem with Magee, of course.
Anyway, one side of the trench has been properly dug, so unless there’s a prime nose tackle out there, it’s time to address the other side.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 18, 2009 8:15 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
He may have been a reach at 3
But it isn’t as though we picked a guy with 3rd round talent. The guy was projected top 15 by everyone.
This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.
by KCSatchmo on Dec 18, 2009 9:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not by everyone
But by a number of people, I guess. Gil Brandt in particular said he’d be a top-five pick, while another couple of retired scouts said he’d be top-ten. Most of those were projections on where he’d be drafted, though, not where he should have been drafted. I projected Eli Manning as the #1-overall pick, but felt he should have gone at least 20 picks later than that. Where a guy goes and where he should have gone aren’t the same thing, and those projections about Jackson are based on draft position, not value.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 18, 2009 9:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We'll just differ on the definition of
“enormous reach” then.
This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.
by KCSatchmo on Dec 18, 2009 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To me, an enormous reach:
In the top five, it’s anyone whose talent wasn’t worthy of a pick in the top ten. Jackson wasn’t worthy of a top ten pick.
In 6-10, it’s more like anyone who didn’t belong in the top 15.
In 11-20, it’s someone who didn’t belong in the first round.
In 21-32, it’s someone who didn’t belong in the top 50.
Beyond that, it’s more of a dart board. But at the very top, a reach is someone taken before he really should have gone, and an enormous (or big, or anything indicating a larger-than-garden-variety type) reach is magnified by the graphs of expense and trade value the closer one gets to the #1-overall pick.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 18, 2009 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The discussion you two are having is interesting
Every year draft analyst sit down and look over college players. Based on their opinion (that they try to back up with stats), they attempt to rank all the college players that might want to enter the college draft.
After ranking them they look at where a team would draft them (the round) if any NFL team actually cared what they thought.
Then they say things like, “that team got good value on that selection”…as if the rankings they came up with was scientific.
The “value” thing is kinda humorous when I think about it. As if there is really this concrete truth that a player “should have been” drafted at certain spots. They also say things like “reach”…again, like there is some kind of cosmic worth that can be captured and mathematically quantified and converted into a z-score so we can all know if our team selected the correct player.
In the end, these “rankings” are only opinions. They don’t tell you anything in regard to how the player will respond to NFL challenges and whether the player will ever become a successful starter.
Bewsaf
by Bewsaf on Dec 18, 2009 1:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right, of course
But if it’s valid to consider a comparison in the abilities of past top-five picks and the guys drafted around him, Tyson Jackson was a reach.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 18, 2009 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
By most known measures, a reach, yes. Inarguable.
Thx for convo.
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 18, 2009 4:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I dunno
I guess if your drafting third and can’t find a partner for a 1st round trade-down, then you’re stuck with giving SOMEONE a big contract— just hope they perform well and meet a need. Looking at the Chiefs’ options in 2009, I don’t see many others in the first half of the round who were alternatives and who are really lighting things up this year (e.g., not everyone in Seattle seems hugely happy with Aaron Curry up to this point).
by Wheatboy74 on Dec 18, 2009 10:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point.
Without the foundation being laid, stained-glass windows over the portico are a waste. That’s how I feel about high-dollar LBs, when you’re not done in the trenches.
This is not to say that I don’t value great QB/RB/LB, but of all the position groups, these 3 are the ones whose success and long-term health are most dependent on the play of other position groups. So you beef up those position groups, FIRST, and then, fairly regularly, GOOD choices at QB/RB/LB turn into GREAT choices. They’re the 1st guys who take the heat when things are going poorly and the 1st to take the credit when things are going well.
Also, if you take care of the trenches, you’re much likely to be successful in developing the 1st-round Ferraris you select later on at QB/RB/LB. But you definitely want to set the table for them, for the best shot at succeeding with them.
I look at Stafford in Detroit, and he’s already taken lots of career-threatening hits. And I think Calvin Johnson would be having a MUCH bigger year if they’d fixed their O-Line, and given WHOEVER they had at QB more time in the pocket more often. It’s a real credit to the toughness and perseverance of all those 1st-round QBs who DO survive the unnecessarily brutal gauntlet through which their DESPERATE franchises run them, but do you really think Tom Brady would EVER have made it as a starter on a team that hadn’t prepared the way for a great arm and so-so feet?
Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.
by hmills110 on Dec 19, 2009 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent!! Wonder how the Browns look, they have floundered for 10 years since coming back. Mangini took a center first…we all cried, but Mack is turning out to be pretty good. He also took Mangold and a couple of def playmakers with NYJ so here is hoping he turns it around. See ya Sun :)
http://prideofcleveland.blogspot.com/
by Red-Right-88 on Dec 18, 2009 3:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Pioli is going about this the right way???????????
You can’t give away good players (starters) and get nothing in return and replace them with backups and expect to get better. That’s insane.
by brainsmasher on Dec 29, 2009 12:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
