A quick question..but not quick enough
for a FanShot. Actually 2 questions. 1st of all, what is this Jump shit for? Jkjk but I'm tired of it.
Okay, here we go!
So! Now that we have successfully jumped, I want to see if I can change or alter some opinions, but my PRIMARY goal is to see the reasoning of the people who disagree.
First, lets get the subject and education out of the way..
Cover 2, 3-4, and 4-3. We've run all 3 in the last few years. The subject is the Safety position, specifically the Strong Safety.
Traditional 4-3 defenses utilize the Strong Safety as a run supporter. Think of a LB that plays a little deeper than the LB position. I'm going to keep this general so I'm not going to elaborate here because this is already known.
Cover 2 D's basically treat both safeties as a Free Safety. They both drop coverage and are the over-the-top defenders. Again, this is just a general explanation.
3-4 defense utilizes the SS much like the cover 2. Not exactly the same, but identical. Because of 4 LB's, the SS usually doesnt need to help as a run supporter so he's used more for coverage.
ALRIGHT. Thats out of the way. If you havent figured it out yet, I'm going to discuss Pollard, and why he SHOULD have been cut. Now if you're a Pollard fan, understand that I am/was too. Dont be so quick to go comment about how dumb of a cut it was until you finish reading this. Pollard is a traditional SS. He fits in a traditional 4-3 defense. He did NOT fit in the Cover 2 and will NOT fit in a 3-4. He hits hard, yes, but he cant cover and THAT can't be denied by anyone. Hes had 3 picks in 3 seasons compared to 7th rounder Jarrad Page's 10 INT's in 3 years. Herm Edwards was a good secondary scout, but he obviously wasnt thinking correctly in picking a hard hitting, run support, traditional Strong Safety, KNOWING he wouldnt fit in the Cover 2. At first, I thought Pollard would beast in the 3-4, because he was miscast in the Cover 2. But then I realized, he's miscast in the 3-4 as well. So have I convinced you that he doesn't fit in the 3-4 defense? I hope so. Now for the hard part..convincing why him being cut was actually a GOOD move.
Contrary to what people seem to believe, Brown was actually a Free Safety in Chicago. He's good in coverage, but he can also come down and lay the hit on a RB if necessary. He's a perfect fit for the SS in a 3-4. Brown has a history of Injuries, and Morgan is the only backup and thats why people say Pollard should not have been cut. So here's my explanation. Morgan is a good hitter also. Coming out of college, they said he has limitations in coverage. BUT, think about it this way. He was injured for alot of camp, got healthy, and made some plays. He got in a game and made some plays. He showed me that he can cover better than Pollard ever has. He still needs some work, but hes a good work in progress. He benefits because he's so much alike Mike Brown in the way he plays. Theyre nearly the same size, they both hit hard, but Brown is better in coverage. Brown's going to be helping Morgan ALOT over the course of the season. Morgan had injuries last year and at the start of this year. So now there's concern that both our starting and backup Strong Safety are injury prone and we should have kept Pollard.
Pollard had attitude problems. Look at DBowe. DBowe was a loudmouth on the field and Haley silenced him. Maybe not silenced but he brought it down to a minimum. Pollard was a loudmouth FAR past the extent that Bowe was. Haley had to tell him to shut his mouth at one point in camp, and then at another point, he got in Clancy Pendergasts face because of a disagreement. We arent the Oakland Raiders. We dont need ANY players OR coaches having altercations with eachother. I know that players have their issues and scuffles, but getting in a coaches face over a disagreement is a little too much. THEN he tried to go running to Haley who is trying to run a football team. Haley is NOT going to let ANY player be a distraction anyone, player or coach.
So, he didnt fit the scheme, another player was better fit for the scheme, and theres a young backup (though Pollard is young himself) who is showing that he can play the position thus far.
The ONLY thing I agree with on the Pollard arguement, is the trade thing. I think there are several other players on the team who could have been cut at the expense of keeping Pollard longer to get a trade done. When you start nearing the deadline to make cuts, and you start trying to throw trades around, teams back away because they want to see if you just cut them. Had we kept Pollard through the cuts, i think he would have gotten some interest.
I wonder if Gunther tries to scoop him up in Detroit.
Anyways, I just wanted to put that out there. I'm tired of the Pollard talk..thought maybe I can help silence it. But if you STILL dont agree that we should have cut Pollard, how would he fit?
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.
7 recs |
73 comments
Comments
I agree with you Petey
nice write-up
Holy Shit!!!...Peterson resigned...Am I dead?...Is This Heaven?
by RoyalsFanStuckInCardsLand on Sep 6, 2009 10:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good summation
But unfortunately I agree. What your piece does have me wondering is how involved was Gunther with the pick up Pollard? He doesn’t fit what Herm and Haley want to do. But he fits the mold of a Cunningham saftey to a tee.
And the further we get away from Herm/Gunther/Peterson, I start to wonder more and more how that relationship all worked.
by mushin on Sep 6, 2009 10:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Me, too, Mushin.
I’ve wondered if Cunningham wasn’t resentful of bein’ demoted to DC after being HC. That might explain defensive struggles since…
But Detroit passed on Pollard, FYI.
No question. Otis Taylor should be in the Hall of Fame.
by hmills110 on Sep 7, 2009 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Any word on Pollard yet?
I haven’t heard any rumors about where Pollard might end up yet, has anyone else?
Nice post Petey, agree with you on almost everything. Curious though to see where Pollard ends up & whether there might have been some trade value if we had held onto him for a while: although, I do believe cutting him now was the thing to do!!
by ttownmikey on Sep 6, 2009 10:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice write up Petey
Rec
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on Sep 6, 2009 11:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well said
Very well written, and good perspective on the situation. Agreed on all fronts (including the trade). Rec’d.
by TheScootness on Sep 6, 2009 11:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good post
I think the stronger arguments is/was about his attitude. I get that and I think that’s exactly what this was about. Attitude argument aside, I think the Chiefs cut their best player at the SS position and our defense is lesser for it.
Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
by Buck'O on Sep 6, 2009 11:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well
I thought my arguements about him not being a player fit for the system was MUCH stronger than his attitude issues.
He’s a run stopping SS. 3-4 defenses dont utilize run stopping SS’s. They utilize BALANCED safties, who generally cover, but if needed, they can provide run support. If his profile doesnt fit the requirements of the position he is playing, how is he the best player at SS?
If we were running a traditional 4-3, I’d say yes, we cut the best SS. But Brown AND Morgan BOTH cover better than Pollard. Since our SS is mostly going to be in coverage, and Pollard cant cover, I have to disagree with your opinion that we cut the best player at SS.
by Petey14 on Sep 7, 2009 7:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In all fairness...
There are a ton of packages in everyone’s defensive play book, just because you’re base defense is a 3-4 doesn’t mean that a guy that can crush people roaming over the middle of the field isn’t useful. We’ll see four down linemen, we’ll see three, hell maybe we’ll see a 2-5 or a dime and nickel or a 3-3-5 Pollard could be useful in a number of packages, moreso than maybe a 4th qb
by callmesir on Sep 7, 2009 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, but his limitations limit the configurations you can run, and the KC D is done scheming around its safety's deficits.
No question. Otis Taylor should be in the Hall of Fame.
by hmills110 on Sep 8, 2009 12:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Couldnt
have said it better.
Situations arise, we know that. Like I said in another comment, the second Pollard comes off the bench and steps on the field, they know he’s a liability in pass coverage. If the play call is a pass, you can bet the QB looks his way. If its a run, maybe they audible to a pass. You never know.
Pollard’s inability to cover the field and consistantly make tackles, especially in crucial situations, far outweigh his ability to lay the wood and get after the RB. He really wasnt even THAT good at reading the RB. He always over pursued on the cutback and bit on play action ALOT.
Saying he could contribute more than the 4th QB or 5th WR isnt good enough. Being strictly ST isnt good enough for this team. Everybody on ST will be capable of playing their respective position. Doesnt mean they’ll play it goood, but they know what they have to do. Pollard hurts this team playing as a SS, and his contributions on ST wouldnt be sufficient enough to waste a roster spot on him. You dont know what the plans are for our QB’s yet, so maybe that 4th QB has value.
by Petey14 on Sep 8, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's fair enough
I’ll accept that explanation.
Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
by Buck'O on Sep 8, 2009 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
conspiracy theory
gunther agrees to let o’callighan through in return for cutting pollard
CNN = ABC = NBC = CBS = FOX = Chris Mortenson Journalism
play better pool - http://www.sticksandstonesbilliards.com
by nayjevin on Sep 6, 2009 11:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Only they passed on Pollard.
No question. Otis Taylor should be in the Hall of Fame.
by hmills110 on Sep 7, 2009 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not that i disagree
but i’ll play devil’s advocate
I think we can agree pollard is better than morgan
its arguable who is better between pollard and brown
given browns recent history of injury, we could have used pollard on a situational basis when we felt we needed more run support. That keeps brown fresher and leaves us a better option if brown goes down again.
another argument is that we just simply had room to keep him. we don’t need four quarterbacks.
by SillyHatDay on Sep 6, 2009 11:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice arguement
but I’m prepared for it.
Can we really agree that Pollard is better than Morgan or Brown? Considering hes going to do MUCH more covering than run supporting in the 3-4, is Pollard really worth anything to us? THAT is the question. And as I said in the post, in 1 preseason game, I think Morgan showed he can cover better than Pollard ever has. On Morgans diving interception..had that been Pollard, he would have tried to take the hit, the receiver possibly makes the catch and its a first down. Thats why Pollard ISNT that good as a cover safety because even when he has a chance to make a play on the ball, he tries to make the hit and kill the ball catcher and jar the ball loose. Thats great and all but if you can make the pick..then make the damn pick. Id rather have the turnover than a dropped pass by the receiver.
On a situational basis, when we need more run support, putting Pollard in might actually HURT us. Here’s a situation. It’s 3rd and 3. The opposing team has been running on us all day, notably on 3rd down. Pollard comes in, the QB recognizes and calls an audible. Pollard bites on play action (that was his biggest weakness) and the QB throws over the top. What was originally an attempt to get the first down just turned into a touchdown.
The last arguement..we may have had room to keep him, but whats the point of keeping a player who doesnt fit the system? Like Pioli and Haley have been saying..its not the best 53..its the right 53. Pollard may be the best SS, but he wasnt the right type of SS. We need someone who can cover and support the run IF necessary, not primarily.
by Petey14 on Sep 7, 2009 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
Pollard would never have gone for the pick. Hit on the receiver for a possible incompletion, guaranteed.
by TheScootness on Sep 7, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
I know there was an interview of him..I’ve been trying to find it for about an hour and I cant find it anywhere.
But I remember him being interviewed, I believe by Josh Looney (maybe not..that’d explain why I cant find it), and he mentioned not getting alot of interceptions. Pollard said himself that he prides himself on being the big hitter and getting the defense riled up.
So basically, he’d rather get a hit for an incompletion and “rile up the defense” rather than get the interception, end the drive, get the ball back on the offense and get the whole team amped up. Sounds selfish to me.
Now dont get me wrong, I’m just looking a little too close at his words, but again, we need a cover safety, not someone who can run down and deliver the big hit. Thats his problem. He’s so set on getting the big hit, especially on RB’s, that he bites HARD on playaction. Thats why he gets beat deep so often.
by Petey14 on Sep 7, 2009 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think pass coverage is big. But so is SMART play against the run.
If the front 7, in particular the interior 5 guys, are plugging the middle, and generally forcing things wide, the SS also has to mop up to the edge, and Pollard’s biting on the move up the middle, instead of “playing safety” and meeting the ballcarrier up near the LOS, after the play has been strung out wide. KC safeties, in general, have been slow to react to the cutback. It calls for headier play, which, hopefully, Mike Brown will provide and disseminate to his teammates.
A lot of those plays, the SS might appear to be silent or nonexistent, because he’s “the safety,” and the play went to the obvious place, and was snuffed by the obvious guys. What the safety is doing is understanding what he can trust his teammates to accomplish and being in position to mop up the things they aren’t responsible for.
These 3-4 OLBs are NOT as quick. They’re built for thumpin’. They ARE going to be beaten to the edge, and the ILBs and especially the SS and also the corners, need to be the guys that finish a lot of those plays to the edge. So what’s changed is there isn’t as much to do in the middle of the run defense for the Ss, but MORE to do on the edge, IMO, and that means not overpursuing to the strong side and exposing your ROLB in space to the cutback move, without help.
That’s not to say the SS has nothing to do in the middle. In fact, Mike Brown was the guy who took the FB out of the A gap, on Corey Mays’s sack in the last game. Nobody noticed him, maybe, except me. Wasn’t in on the sack. Just finished the job of giving Mays a free path to the QB.
No question. Otis Taylor should be in the Hall of Fame.
by hmills110 on Sep 7, 2009 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both are important
Thats why Pollard is gone. He was decent (I’m not going to say good until he stops missing tackles and starts wrapping up, whereever he plays)
Brown – Cover and Support
Pollard – Support.
Hmmm..thats a tough decision. Especially since another player is much like Brown, much younger than Brown, and can learn alot from Brown.
by Petey14 on Sep 7, 2009 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree that he was an iffy fit.
The issue I have with releasing pollard has more to do with the fact that when you look at the last 5 or 6 players on a 53 man roster, you should be looking at talent above all else, not perfect fit.
Also, I have a problem with this guy being listed as some kind of loudmouth troublemaker. I hadn’t heard any reports about this ever before, suddenly a brash coach comes in, several people all of a sudden have this problem. I’m not okay with him being cut because it looks like a dumb ass power play rather than being what’s best for the chiefs.
Overall, I liked the post and agree that there probably won’t be a dropoff in play from the SS position. You make great points, but my particular issues aren’t answered by your post.
by callmesir on Sep 6, 2009 11:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice! Haha
It was an ego play and it sucks!
Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
by Buck'O on Sep 6, 2009 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with the comment and most of your previous post
Pollard definitely was better than a 5-6 WR or 4 QB on the 53 :)
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on Sep 7, 2009 12:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But apparently wasn't better than Morgan
Negative Ghost Rider the pattern is full...
by cpa913 on Sep 7, 2009 12:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Above my pay grade to make that call:)
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on Sep 7, 2009 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh...
I would be hardpressed to find too many personell guys that agree with that point, although my speculation is only opinion as well, it’s my opinion that pollard was probably better than morgan, and his cutting was more of a power play than it was a move designed to make the chiefs a better team. Don’t cut one of your more productive players because you had a conflict just to point out who’s in charge
by callmesir on Sep 7, 2009 12:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The issue is has Pollard found a new team yet?
He wasn’t PS eligible and has to find a team that is willing to sign a contract with him.
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on Sep 7, 2009 12:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he is truly a 4-3 SS they are fewer teams to sign with than last year.
maybe 14 and they might be set at the position. Pollard is vulnerable in skill set and would be better served to ramp up the knowledge/skills to compete with all safeties or LB’s in the NFL
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on Sep 7, 2009 12:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And a last point, as former/current military
what would you do if one of your subordinates chose not to upgrade/refine his skills although you had requested or ordered such previously. Through their insubordnation they affected the whole unit?
Now, Put yourself in Haley’s shoes and say he Fucked up. Haley’s job is not life or death and I am sure he would be the first to agree on that. But, he does have a job he was hired to do in the best fashion he knows how. We all do not have the capability to play football, But, Every damn one of us has the capability to manage personnel given the right background and Haley definitely knows more about football than anyone that has EVER signed on to this AP. Just my rant
Let's Kick some ASS in 09 or Die trying
by Steve_Chiefs on Sep 7, 2009 1:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
have to agree here
i liked pollard, always liked a hard hitter, but if cutting a guy shows the rest of the team “who’s boss”/creates more of a team first mentality then it’s the right move; teams with a bunch of me first players don’t win chanpionships.
by E.C. on Sep 7, 2009 2:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ur probably right..
the cut had to be about the arguement with def coordinator the other day….cant see waivin a 3rd yr hard-hitter for anything other than that.
"The receivers are an integral part of the passing game." - Hank Stram
by kcfansinceakid on Sep 7, 2009 3:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem I have
Is when that statement takes away from the talent level of the team. I’m not all about trying to prove a point to a guy because of one incident. I’ve never heard a negative word about his attitude before just a couple of weeks ago. When multiple people have run ins with the same person, you have to start thinking is it the one guy, or is it just everyone else???
by callmesir on Sep 7, 2009 4:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You never heard a negative word about anyone under Herm's watch
Even when LJ was out in the papers bashing the brass, Herm didn’t return fire. We have a very incomplete vision of how the team interacts. And no doubt Haley can be caustic. But if you’re boss is caustic at work do you get in his face? At the end of the day these guys are still going to work. And most of them have been coddled as star players to one degree or another. They’ve never been told “Get with the program OR ELSE”.
by mushin on Sep 7, 2009 7:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it was a "power play."
So trying to justify or refute the move with that as premise isn’t something I’d do.
I liked the move because it agreed with what I was seeing on the field. Haven’t see a WHOLE lot from the other DBs to justify their promotion, so THAT remains in question, but the departure of Pollard gave me some hope for more 3rd down stops, in particular. More picks. More passes defensed.
No question. Otis Taylor should be in the Hall of Fame.
by hmills110 on Sep 7, 2009 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
retraining....
you retrain someone’s ass till they get it, or get so tired of retraining they can at least pretend to do it… ha… but football isn’t the army.
Everyone is giving Haley the benefit of the doubt, but he’s always the common denominator. Frankly, I don’t think he has the skill set to lead/manage people. He may know football, (which has yet to be seen) but he certainly doesn’t manage people well. That’s part of any job that requires leadership. He may know more about football than I do, but I’m almost positive I could have scored 20 plus points a game with fiz, boldin and warner. Run the ball up the gap just enough to keep the D honest and throw jump balls to those two guys the rest of the day… easy peesy.
by callmesir on Sep 7, 2009 4:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can only retrain so many times
Before you start sending them to non-Judicial punishment for minor infractions. Come on. You can’t tell me you never saw a shitbag get ran out of the military on a rail. I don’t know how officers work, but with the enlisted you ride a fuck-up till they give you a major infraction, then give them the option of becoming a civilian.
Football isn’t the military. They don’t have to make it look pretty. Pioli just cuts.
by mushin on Sep 7, 2009 7:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're spot on
I’ve seen nco’s ride a fuck up countless times in order to find an excuse to get rid of them, but it just seems that the whole team is a fuckup now that haley is in town, you can’t run out every player… ha…
by callmesir on Sep 7, 2009 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's a list of 53 that haven't been run out of town
return volley…ha…
by mushin on Sep 7, 2009 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if trading TG...
Was really about getting a return, or if it was he fact that they were aware that he’d have issues with the new regime, and they couldn’t go through the PR nightmare that would be a public spat with a future hall of famer and a guy that had been the face of the franchise for a decade…. It was bad enough with waters, but how many of us would be taking haley’s side had he been a dick to TG?
by callmesir on Sep 7, 2009 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Haley has a lot to do with it as far as "spats" go
TG was in fights with Carl and Herm last year. I think this is just how Pioli operates. Look at the players that have been shown the door in NE over the years. Milloy, Samuels, Law, Seymour, etc… All of them were fan favorites and there was outrage. Pioli/Bellicheck just flat out don’t care about who are the fan favorites. They want a team that wins. Every year the pats do something that make me scratch my head, but it’s hard to argue with the results
by mushin on Sep 7, 2009 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lol
So how well do you know Haley to think he doesnt have the skillset to lead/manage people? And how is it “yet to be seen” if he knows football?
They were 5th in the league in yards, but 30th in points. Its a little easier to defend the pass as the offense gets close the the goal line. Cant stretch the field. THAT is why its important to have a running game. Cards had NO running game. So your plan to run the ball up the gap and keep the D honest..isnt going to work. 30th in rushing yard per game. That makes a team 1 dimensional. Its not “easy peesy” when teams KNOW that youre going to throw the ball.
by Petey14 on Sep 7, 2009 7:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
obviously I wasn't building an entire offense....
just a general concept…. I think that his lack of managment skills has been on full display since he’s been here in his treatment of veteran, productive, grown men. I’ll repeat that alot of people could rack up yards with the talent they had… he’s n unproven head coach we’ll find out what he knows soon enough and when we go 2-14 again, i promise not to say i told you so. i could see players giving up on this guy
by callmesir on Sep 7, 2009 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So..
do you want a head coach who just lets the players do what they want, like Herm Edwards did? You keep speaking of the talent that Arizona had. What Talent did they have outside of Fitz and Boldin? Warner proved he cant play without receivers, and dont try to say a QB is only as good as his WR’s when trent green put up 4000+ yards in atleast 3 seasons with NO WR’s. Tom Brady did alot too without WR’s before Moss and Welker.
Arizona has talent at RB but the OL cant run block for shit and their pass blocking isnt great, but serviceable.
So you think with the loss of TG and Pollard, we’re equal to last season? You’re out of your mind. 1 player doesnt make a difference on each side of the ball. You wont be saying “I told you so” because we wont go 2-14 again.
The ONLY thing that was a mistake by Haley was telling Waters that he coulda brought in 22 guys off the street and won more than 2 games. I was pissed about it too. But at the same time, Waters showed up in KC unannounced, demanding to meet with Pioli and demanding to meet with Haley. In a professional organization, its no surprise how Waters was treated. If I showed up at my jobs corporate office and DEMANDED to speak with the GM, I’d get doors slammed in my face and laughed at. Things like that need to be scheduled. You cant just show up unannounced and think the top guys are going to drop everything and attend to ONE player, whether hes the best player on the team, or the worst.
Based on what we have to go by, the team has improved on both sides of the ball. Our sacks-allowed-per-game has decreased, even though our OL hasnt been upgraded much, our sacks on defense have increased, our rushing yards have increased, our run stopping has improved and we havent even opened up the playbook and let the starters play a full game yet.
I know preseason hardly tells what will happen in the regular season, but its hard to deny that the team doesnt look better than at any point last year. Our biggest problem area just improved a little bit more with our new RT.
by Petey14 on Sep 7, 2009 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree with your take on the last 5 or 6
Where you go strictly for talent should be your practice squad. Then you can coach them into being a perfect fit. The active roster HAS to have guys who are the best fit to do a specific job.
Chiefs go 9-7. LJ makes 1400 yards. DBowe makes 1200 yards. Defense #18.
by Zodeman on Sep 7, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
Keeping Pollard at the expense of another player when Pollard doesnt FIT the defense, is a bad move. What makes you think that he can just learn how to cover? Some guys have the vision and understand what is happening and the READ the play and jump routes. Pollard cant read a developing play. He can only read the ball carrier but hes terrible at reading what the OTHER guys are doing.
It would be unfair to Pollard to keep him in a system where he doesnt fit. Its unfair to the Chiefs to have a player who cant do his job the way it needs to be done.
by Petey14 on Sep 7, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he is reading the ballcarrier, but he still runs himself out of position for the cutback.
No question. Otis Taylor should be in the Hall of Fame.
by hmills110 on Sep 7, 2009 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
let me take a baseball approach.
For the longest time people looked at simple batting stats in determining a players worth in baseball, and a guy with horrible D and a good bat always got a big payday, however with the advent of stats like wins above replacement, that takes into account a player’s defensive abilities, you get a better overall idea of the player’s skillset. While he does struggle some in coverage, he still offers and overall skillset that is valuable to this team in some capacity. If he makes on bonecrushing hit on special teams and forces a fumble, he’s already more valuable than the 4th qb. Talent prevails about fit on the last few teams. While his skill set isn’t perfect, he still offers something more valuable than the 50th or so player that may not ever get on the field.
by callmesir on Sep 7, 2009 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but with baseball
You get to have a whole minor league farm system to find out how a guy plays. We don’t have that luxury. All the coaches can do is put 45 guys on the field on game day and they all have to contribute in some way. Some will be doing things none of us notice but will be crucial to the gameplan. The 53 on the roster gives the coaches some leeway in who is going to do what job adjusted to opponent.
I was actually shocked Pollard was let go because for the last couple of years I thought he was a pretty good player. However, I’m not a football coach and don’t review the tapes. If he was all that talented, it wouldn’t be Monday afternoon with him not being claimed by someone yet.
Chiefs go 9-7. LJ makes 1400 yards. DBowe makes 1200 yards. Defense #18.
by Zodeman on Sep 7, 2009 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Struggles some
in coverage is an understatement. For every big hit/FF theres either a missed tackle or blown coverage. Theres NO room for that on this team.
Morgan is better in coverage than Pollard. I saw more coverage from Morgan this preseason than I’ve seen from Pollard in 3 seasons! Because of that, Morgan is the better fit. If Morgan is a better fit, that puts Pollard at 3rd string.
Pollard can hit. Hard. What else can he do? He’s not a good open field tackler, hence the missed tackles. He can lay the wood when the ball carrier doesnt have a chance to get away, but ANY player can lay the big hit if the ball carrier is froze for whatever reason (off balance, just made the catch, coming through a hole, etc)
Pollard is NOT a sure tackler just because he led the team in tackles! He led the team in tackles because the LB’s werent doing their jobs.
Apparently he’s not good enough in ST to be the 5th safety. You think he’s more valuable than a 4th qb. But if we’re able to trade Thiggy (which is lookin doubtful after his latest performances) then Thiggy automatically becomes more valuable than Pollard since we couldnt even get a 7th for him.
by Petey14 on Sep 7, 2009 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
being a coverage guy and going for the int...
and whiffing while giving up a big play is just as bad as going for a big hit and whiffing, at least if you lay down a big hit it makes recievers a little nervous about going across the middle.
Since we don’t know what will happen in the next few days, AS of right now, Pollard is more valuable as a ST player than our 4th qb or our 800th linebacker…
I’m not pissed he’s gone because I thought he was the best player ever, I just think it was an ego driven move, that doesn’t really help the team.
College football is the NFL’s version of the minor leagues, but my arguments has more to do with the fact that pollard’s overall contributions will outweigh what a terrance copper or a 4th qb or and 800th lineback will.
by callmesir on Sep 7, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its pointless
to argue over a player who would have been a 3rd stringer. Brown and Morgan both cover better than Pollard. The only ST contributions Pollard has made in his past are some punt blocks. I could be wrong, but to my knowledge, I dont think he even blocked one last year.
ST shouldnt be an aspect to make the team. Being a capable backup to a position AND being a contributer on ST is what Haley is looking for. Versatility. If Pollard can ONLY contribute on ST, which takes up a small portion of the rest of the game, whats the point in having him?
Sure you could argue the point of keeping Copper or a 4th QB, but Idk why youre saying the 800th LB. We ARE playing a 3-4, so we need atleast 8 LB’s. We have 9. 2 of them are older and probably wont be with the team longer than 2 seasons. Dont you think having them on the team helps the younger LB’s? The ones who are likely going to be replacing the old ones? I think so. It’s not like we have 9 old ass LB’s or 9 young ass LB’s without a clue.
College football is NOTHING like the Minor leagues. More than half of those guys dont even go professional. Out of all the college football programs across the country and the thousands of players, only 256 of them get drafted. The CFL is the closest thing to the minor leagues of football. Considering Copper is listed as the 2nd WR behind Bowe and Engram behind Bradley, I get the impression that Copper is the Slot except on 3rd down where Engram will come in. Copper could have a bigger impact on the team than you think.
by Petey14 on Sep 7, 2009 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess you're right
about the baseball thing if you really consider minor league baseball professional baseball, but I’d be willing to guess there are about the same number of players that play professional baseball after being in the minors are the same as the percentage that play in the nfl after being in college….
anyway, that was off topic… The whole idea is that pollard is probably a better football player and has at least been a more productive football player than matt gutierrez or studebaker or mcbride or copper or mcgraw or morgan or savage. I think he had the ability to contribute more than these guys, but he was cut for the wrong reasons. I’m not saying he’s the best football player on the planet but he has some uses
by callmesir on Sep 7, 2009 6:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are way off base and missing the point.
Studebake, mcbride, morgan, savage, etc.. all have some upside. Pollard has shown us who he is. Hes a “big hitter” but not much else. Why keep a player on the rostor who doesn’t fit the system when you have players that do fit the system but just need some time to develop? P
Don't blame me, I voted for content of character.
by paratrooper on Sep 7, 2009 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's alot to be said for
Keeping the known quantity…. although generally generally keeping the known quantity is usually only helpful when you have a contending team, so maybe you have a point. But what’s the point of keeping a guy with upside if that upside won’t contribute and pollard had a good chance to contribute…..
Just because you’re unable to understand an analogy doesn’t mean that they’re way off… let’s focus on the actual discussion instead of taking potshots just for the hell of it…
by callmesir on Sep 7, 2009 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you must be a butter bar.
Don't blame me, I voted for content of character.
by paratrooper on Sep 8, 2009 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?!
Yes..I do consider Minor League Baseball professional baseball. They get PAID to play baseball, do they not? CFL players get PAID to play, dont they? That makes them professional players. You dont have to be in the NFL, NBA or MLB just to be a professional in the respective sport.
The same number of college players make it to the NFL as the minors players reach the major leagues? Uhhh..there are ALOT more college teams than minor league baseball teams, therefore the number is NOT close. Idk what in the world you are thinking with that. You know baseball players play college ball too right? They get drafted from college or whereever they played if outside the country. THEN they either make the team or get sent to minors. In football, if they get drafted and dont make a team, they either end up on the practice squad or try out in the CFL.
Your “NCAA is like the minors of football” analogy was WAY off, made NO sense, and had nothing to do with football. I’m not trying to be an A-Hole, but me and apparently others find NO logic in this baseball talk.
How do you know he was cut for the wrong reasons? You dont know why he was cut. If he’s sitting on the bench WITH Gut, Stude, Mcbride, copper, mcgraw, morgan or savage, how is he a more productive football player? He wouldnt be a starter..he DOESNT FIT the system! And you want to keep a guy who can ONLY contribute on special teams? If Brown got hurt, we’d be in trouble with Pollard because his inability to play in coverage. Hes a liability in the secondary and ST is such a small portion of the game. We have other talent that can play ST (McGraw, Morgan maybe even others that you listed) McGraw and Morgan can play Safety IF NEEDED, AND contribute on ST. Pollard would only be able to play ST and THAT is a pretty good reason to cut a player, not including his character.
by Petey14 on Sep 7, 2009 7:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't leave out Washington.
He’s gonna get minutes, and it might not be an either/or thing with Flowers for that to happen. Just might be an extra corner on the field at the expense of a McGraw or a Morgan.
No question. Otis Taylor should be in the Hall of Fame.
by hmills110 on Sep 8, 2009 12:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't compare
NCAA football to minor league baseball. You can always send a prospect back down to the minors but you can’t send Pollard back to school to learn to cover.
Don't blame me, I voted for content of character.
by paratrooper on Sep 7, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
is this really what people are going to focus on now???
holy crap everyone gets lost in my analogies…
by callmesir on Sep 7, 2009 6:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
because your analogies
are way off.
Don't blame me, I voted for content of character.
by paratrooper on Sep 7, 2009 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
LBs weren't doing their jobs, because the d-line wasn't doing theirs.
I’m slow to diss on last year’s LBs (except maybe Pat Thomas, who’s long gone), because the d-line was always going for the big play, losin’ their feet, and leaving gaping openings for QBs and RBs.
No question. Otis Taylor should be in the Hall of Fame.
by hmills110 on Sep 7, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Id def. agree
but that doesnt mean they LB’s werent doing their jobs either. They werent playing gaps correctly. We heard this ALL last season from Herm. “We need to learn to play our gaps correctly. Thats important for this type of defense”. Does that sound like something we heard nearly every week?
by Petey14 on Sep 7, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Turns out
It wouldnt have been a horrible move to try him as a LB
i have to think that the leading tackler on our team could have come in handy somwhere else. Whether it be Saftey, LB, or hell even Special teams. ID rather have Pollard than Mcbride anyday.
by deflep1691 on Sep 7, 2009 8:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
He's just too small
Demarrio is fairly small for a LB and Pollard is smaller than him (even though by only about 15 lbs)
Also, dont look into Pollard being the leading tackler too much. The only reason he led in tackles is because teams ran right at him and busted past the front 7.
I think they should start keeping track of missed tackles too. He missed alot, but made alot too. I remember when he chased down McFadden and caught him. But I also remember like 2 plays later and missed Fargas.
by Petey14 on Sep 7, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have a problem with Pollard not being a starter.
My concern with the release comes in depth. Morgan better be ready to play ( and I must admit he suprised me a bit the last couple of games). Mike Brown is a playmaker and a very good safety and definitly an upgrade in my opinion over Pollard when healthy, but there is the problem. There is no way that Brokie Brown lasts 16 games. I do not have a problem giving Pollard’s spot to someone else, but I think we may regret the release from a depth and special teams perspective.
by saskwatch on Sep 7, 2009 10:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
We'll definitely be keeping an eye on Brown.
Haley’s been watching him up close for months, and he’s in and Pollard’s out.
No question. Otis Taylor should be in the Hall of Fame.
by hmills110 on Sep 7, 2009 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Love Pollard but not the team for him anymore.
Touchdown
Kan..Sa...CITY
-Mitch Holthus
by 90,32,58,31,16 on Sep 7, 2009 12:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 





















