Another look at our Defense (and what we need to do to fix it).
We all know how bad we've gotten. We've read the Historical posts here, or here, We've analyzed, bemoaned, condemned, heed, hawed, decried, and sobbed. We've thrown things at the TV, and swore up and down as we realized that was actually the family heirloom statuette that Aunt Millie just gave to us, and now not only is it busted but so is the TV. Which means we have to jump online, and hope beyond hope that we can find some (ahem) less than legal site streaming the game. Only to watch out beloved Chiefs screw the pooch again. We have condoled one another, and drank our Kool Aid (and if you have somehow been in a cave, look up my man Porkchop and you'll figure it out, or search out my other main man Krayfish, and get your reality check).
But what I haven't seen a lot of (asides from in the comments), is what we really need to fix up our pathetic Defense. And I'm not talking about a play maker - that one mythical being that will right the sinking ship. No I'm talking numbers. I'm talking about what our D needs to do, to become, in order to get our Team back to their rightful position; on top of the AFC West and the Division.
So with that in mind, fearless readers, jump with me to check out how our teams D has done under three different coaches, and what we need to do to get back where we belong.
Ok, so here's what I did. I looked back at the past 3 major coaches to have left their mark on our fair organization. And for the sake of full disclosure - I used www.pro-football-reference.com as my source. And yes, that also means I left out Gunther.
I compared Passing Yards Allowed, Running Yards Allowed, Total Yards/Game, and the Take away/Give away. I also have bolded each year we had a playoff appearance and Italicized the Divisional Wins. My table was a lot prettier in Word but the formatting didn't work when I posted it. Sad.
Year P Y/G R Y/G Total AVG +/-
1990 229 103 331 +26
1991 221 111 332 +11
1992 183 112 295 +18
1993 211 101 312 +10
1994 219 108 327 +12
1995 223 83 306 +12
1996 233 104 337 +3
1997 226 101 327 +14
1998 203 117 320 +1
321
2001 212 134 346 -7
2002 274 129 403 +16
2003 257 147 404 +19
2004 278 115 393 -6
2005 241 98 339 +8
377
2006 220 120 340 +4
2007 204 130 334 -11
2008 238 158 396 +5
357
2009 234 163 397 +1
The first thing that sticks out to me is the Take away/Give away margin. Look at it under Marty's reign - In any of our playoff runs we were NEVER in single digits. EVER. 7 our of 9 years we had double digit take aways and 7 out of 9 years we were in the playoffs. We NEVER averaged allowing anyone to run on us for more than 112 yrds/game per season, nor to throw on us more than 229years/game/season.
Now compare those numbers with Vermeil's tenure: not only was our D exponentially worse but in the one Playoff run we had, even with the extra 80 yards/game allowed (as compared to the average) the takeaway/give away was, gasp, in the double digits.
Rule number 1; GET OUR DEFENSE INTO THE DOUBLE DIGITS IN TAKEAWAY / GIVEAWAY.
Now compare with Herms teams. His average yards/game that we allowed was actually better than Vermeils but his +/- was way worse. And I will venture to argue that the year Herm's team got into the playoffs, all the chips fell as they needed to, the odds of which were astronomical (Denver had to lose to San Francisco, Cincinnati had to lose to Pittsburgh, and New England had to win as well!). All of which did happen. And as much as I was jumping in and out of my seat cuz that was a straight out of a Rocky come from behind, turn of events; we snuck in that year, we didn't earn it, and our record reflected that. As did the following years worth of records (9 - 7 in 05, 9 wins in the following 3 years!).
To be honest, Vermeil's D is not what I want to get back to either. He had a helluvan Offense. But letting other teams average 377 yards/game is not acceptable. And with a D like that we only made it to 1 playoff appearance in 5 years.
And if we look at this years Defense? Well I realize we have been having a heated debate back and forth on AP about whether or not our D is worse than in years past. And strictly going by the numbers, I hate to break it, but we are. Worse. Way worse. 20 yards/game worse than Vermeil's Average. 80 yards/ game worse than Marty's. So,
Rule number 2; LIMIT YOUR OPPONENTS TO LESS THAN 320 YARS /GAME.
No more games where we give up 200 yards of rushing (Oh my God, 286? Are you kidding me?) ! No more games where we give up 300 or 400 yards passing! No more. I don't want anymore 1 and dones. Period. What I want is a D that had attitude. I want a D that pulverizes. If the saying that Offense wins Games but Defense wins Championships is true. Then to make that happen, we need a D that averages less than 320 yards/game allowed and has a double digit turnover margin.
Alright AP'ers have at it. What do you think?
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.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And I'm off to England Tomorrow
So have a hell of an amazing Holiday’s Y’all and a Super Wonderful New Years!
by Eastcoastransplant on Dec 23, 2009 5:41 PM CST reply actions
Marty didn't understand offense. Vermeil didn't have a defense.
Winning the turnover battle is one thing to look for, but not the only thing. For instance a team with a shutdown defense and an offense that needs to play high-risk to score points…
Also, teams that are good at scoring, often see their yards against go up, because their opponents are forced into high-risk passing attacks to catch up, and you’re getting burned more often than if teams weren’t taking chances.
I’m not big on the numbers game. You can make any pronouncement you set out to make, by juggling the numbers, more often than not. I’m more about who’s gettin’ it done (keep) and who ain’t (cut).
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.
Agreed
I’m just talking D here. I agree that you have to have a balanced team and having too much of one or the other only hurts in the end. My argument is for what we need to do to improve our D. Not what we need to do to improve the whole team. The O is a whole other can of worms.
by Eastcoastransplant on Dec 23, 2009 5:57 PM CST up reply actions
Enjoy England :)
We need to rethink the NT problem. It will cost us Berry IMO.
Williams TN NT in 1st round.
maybe we could address safety position in early 2nd
Dansby or late second for the Mays spot at ILB.
Then Coach the poop out of them.
If we decide to scapegoat/replace Pendergast, Maybe Gibbs would be upgraded.
Otherwise, the LB coach from Pittsburgh might be tempted to join the good guys.
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 23, 2009 6:04 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah
A CB, NT and LB or two would go a long way. And a serious D Coordinator to coach em up. I’m not convinced of getting a solid NT out of the Draft and waiting a few years as they mature. No a solid FA NT is what I want. And then for the O line…..
by Eastcoastransplant on Dec 23, 2009 6:28 PM CST up reply actions
Perchance
the Steelers NT who is 33 or maybe another ready to retire on a huge paycheck guy.
Not that I would blame them but if you were a 3-4 d that needs a NT wouldn’t you pay a producing guy to stay? Lets bite the bullet again and get what we need, and another NT turkey in the later rounds for depth or a 4-3 DT like Edwards to Strengthen up for depth.
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 23, 2009 6:46 PM CST up reply actions
That's exactly what I'm thinking
Best case we get Pickett and Dansby in FA to address the NT and ILB
That lets us to pick up Berry or Okung in Round 1 otherwise trade down or Williams or Cody
ILB or S with 2a
G with 2b
C with 3
KR or RB or Line depth in later rounds
Nasty new D Line Coach (why do we all hate Krumrie again?)
However I am also going by the numbers
And what they say, if you want to make a correlation (which I did), is that high +/- ratio and less than 320 total yards per game allowed wins games. That is where I want our D to get to. Granted the O has to show up and put out big production too, cuz a solid D with a lackluster O gets one ultimately nowhere. But I’d LOVE to see our D look like that.
by Eastcoastransplant on Dec 23, 2009 6:31 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed
Good D’ creates Turnovers and good teams don’t turnover the ball.
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 23, 2009 6:48 PM CST up reply actions
I surely hope so
The players we need we have debated and will continue to do so, elsewhere. But without the proper coach to well, Coach em up, good players won’t produce. Yeah we need a solid D Coordinator. Clancy is not in our future.
by Eastcoastransplant on Dec 23, 2009 7:28 PM CST up reply actions
Am i wrong
Or going by those numbers shows that the team was playing and starting to play better “D” under herm, right?
yeah.
But better is relative here. Better average but worse in his third year.
by Eastcoastransplant on Dec 24, 2009 1:21 AM CST up reply actions
Where as Vermeil had a worse average
but was better in his later years (in terms of total yards allowed).
by Eastcoastransplant on Dec 24, 2009 1:27 AM CST up reply actions
Draft Eric Berry.
Get a stud safety who can turn into a playmaker.
When you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail.
RIP Chris Henry #15 (Bengals)
RIP Derrick Thomas #58 (Chiefs)
A dominant D-back is always an asset.
We’ve got a couple good ones. Nobody dominant.
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.
D Line
The D line is a huge creator of turnovers when they are good. With no pass rush with hurries, hits and sacks, the QB can wait forever to get the ball where he needs it to be. It all meshes together, but it is hard to get ints if the QB has all day, and the more the QB is hit while throwing the more bad passes, or fumbles while setting up. More passes come from stuffing the run.
I know that I was rambling on and on there, but the point is that the D line must plug the holes to cause more passing situations, then must pressure the QB to give the LBs and DBs an opportunity to go after a poorly thrown ball. Sort of what everyone does to us!
I think that Apples are not Oranges
you’re comparing teams and defenses and styles from different coaches and different eras … it’s like trying to compare the number of runs scored or home runs allowed in the dead ball era of the 70s to the steroid era of the 90’s and 2000’s
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisiton!
I'll grant you that
All I was saying is going soley by the numbers… Historically, our D, if they allowed (on average) less than 320 yards and had double digit +/- then we made it to the playoffs. Under Marty or Vermeil. So that’s where we should be aiming for again.
by Eastcoastransplant on Dec 24, 2009 1:25 AM CST up reply actions
It is Apples to Apples
And your anology is off by a mile.
Numbers do not lie. The teams going to the playoffs every year had + double digit turnover margin. Everybody knows that one of the key stats to winning is + turnover. Getting the ball back means you get an extra possession, and most likely shorter field possition.
Coaches, era’s or whatever. The fact remains, turnovers = winning. Period.
The game is the same. Only the players and equipment have changed.
Im Cakn Patna n Eatn it 2
numbers can and do lie, depending on what one looks at and the interpretation one makes
there is such a vast amount of data for almost any and everything, especially in sports, that just about anyone can take a given set of data and make it fit whatever hypothesis one chooses to support … if one so chooses to do so
raw data can be twisted and turned to “prove” practically anything, which was my point …
along with … yes, they ARE different eras, totally different styles of play, different rules as well … if you don’t think various rule changes and NFL standards and “enforced” interpretation of rules (or lack thereof) make a difference you are mistaken by a mile … the game is largely the same, but it’s still Apples and Oranges
the only numbers that count are the ones in the final score at the end of each game … those are the numbers that DON’T lie … along with W-L record … everything else is fluid
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisiton!
turnovers do correlate
But if you chase after them directly, you won’t reach the promised land. Just be fundamentally sound on D and O and the turnovers come, along with the victories. Teams that RELY on the turnovers (like Marty’s Chiefs?) are one-and-done in the playoffs against a good team that doesn’t get itself into desperate situations or is simply doesn’t make (m)any unforced errors. If you’re good enough to force mistakes (a defense that dictates more 3rd-and-longs, for instance), you will get more turnovers and more wins.
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 






















