Was thinking, the weird thing about the Chiefs Tackling is that the Coverage units are lights out, they dont even look remotely close to conceding big yards and the tackling is very good. So leads me to think it is the scheme. [Reply]
You want something to bitch about? It's Bob's complete and total faith in veterans.
Ron Parker can fuck up every single play and he is never taken off the field meanwhile Lucas stumbled in a coverage where he might have had a pick had he not where the ball still wasn't completed...Murray took his spot and he barely played the rest of the game. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
You want something to bitch about? It's Bob's complete and total faith in veterans.
Ron Parker can **** up every single play and he is never taken off the field meanwhile Lucas stumbled in a coverage where he might have had a pick had he not where the ball still wasn't completed...Murray took his spot and he barely played the rest of the game.
Give them time. They are still learning the BS system. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
You want something to bitch about? It's Bob's complete and total faith in veterans.
Ron Parker can fuck up every single play and he is never taken off the field meanwhile Lucas stumbled in a coverage where he might have had a pick had he not where the ball still wasn't completed...Murray took his spot and he barely played the rest of the game.
And Murray played well too...
Basically every bad play was on one player on Sunday. Don't know why people are trying to make it seem like putting Murray in was a bad call. If Ron Parker simply goes to his spots, Denver probably doesn't even get to 14 points.
That's been what Htis has been talking about and what dj has talked about (other than the Patriots game). Sutton seems to be calling good plays but players aren't executing. It's just simple shit like tackling and blowing coverages players just keep fucking up on for some reason. Scheme seems fine though. Posted via Mobile Device [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
And Murray played well too...
Basically every bad play was on one player on Sunday. Don't know why people are trying to make it seem like putting Murray in was a bad call. If Ron Parker simply goes to his spots, Denver probably doesn't even get to 14 points.
That's been what Htis has been talking about and what dj has talked about (other than the Patriots game). Sutton seems to be calling good plays but players aren't executing. It's just simple shit like tackling and blowing coverages players just keep fucking up on for some reason. Scheme seems fine though. Posted via Mobile Device
So why the refusal to pull Parker off the field? Maybe that's why Veach initially cut him cause Bob won't take him off the field even if he's awful. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Danguardace:
Was thinking, the weird thing about the Chiefs Tackling is that the Coverage units are lights out, they dont even look remotely close to conceding big yards and the tackling is very good. So leads me to think it is the scheme.
Only guy who made GOOD tackles is O'Daniel. We definitely have an issue with tackling. Its improving over the first few games but still a problem. LB's and secondary need to spend some time on tackles during practice. And please don't come up with this story that pro's are not supposed to spend time practicing fundamentals. Most NFL teams do that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
So why the refusal to pull Parker off the field? Maybe that's why Veach initially cut him cause Bob won't take him off the field even if he's awful.
It might possibly be that he's a "field general" for the secondary. The communicator now that Berry is injured. That's the only reasonable explanation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
It might possibly be that he's a "field general" for the secondary. The communicator now that Berry is injured. That's the only reasonable explanation.
That's exactly what it is.
I can't believe nobody can see it. They have nobody back there that can actually read the offense. They're all young guys with very little experience.
Veach cut Parker initially because they thought Berry would be back. [Reply]
I doubt this will happen, at least not this year-but I think it was an interesting comment from Reid when asked what he thought the future of defense in the NFL was and he said "interior pressure". It's like five steps from the interior DL to the QB and like nine steps from the edge.
Most teams feature short to intermediate passes due to the threat of pressure, so the ball is coming out quick.
This requires linebackers who can cover. LB's who can cover are going to be lighter, which means they can get swallowed up on running plays by much bigger OL, right?
I'd like to see a base defense that is: 4 DL: Jones, Nnadi, Williams, Speaks (Bailey rotates at both DE and DT on pass downs, Speaks can pop in to DT and Ford to rush end on pass downs) with a 3 LB set that is: Ford, Hitchens, O'Daniel.
It's a 'heavy nickel' basically. The extra lineman should help keep blockers off your LB'ers, who should be more free to flow to the ball on run plays. As much as we like to run man, just have O'Daniel spy the RB.
If the problem is confusion, just simplify the fuck out of it and play see ball get ball. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
I doubt this will happen, at least not this year-but I think it was an interesting comment from Reid when asked what he thought the future of defense in the NFL was and he said "interior pressure". It's like five steps from the interior DL to the QB and like nine steps from the edge.
Most teams feature short to intermediate passes due to the threat of pressure, so the ball is coming out quick.
This requires linebackers who can cover. LB's who can cover are going to be lighter, which means they can get swallowed up on running plays by much bigger OL, right?
I'd like to see a base defense that is: 4 DL: Jones, Nnadi, Williams, Speaks (Bailey rotates at both DE and DT on pass downs, Speaks can pop in to DT and Ford to rush end on pass downs) with a 3 LB set that is: Ford, Hitchens, O'Daniel.
It's a 'heavy nickel' basically. The extra lineman should help keep blockers off your LB'ers, who should be more free to flow to the ball on run plays. As much as we like to run man, just have O'Daniel spy the RB.
If the problem is confusion, just simplify the **** out of it and play see ball get ball.
Agree on your analysys. Except for the fact that we've been running a 3-4 which is basically same as an "old school" 5-2 since the 2 OLB are in charge of rushing the QB and setting an edge on run plays.
On a 4-3 as the one you mention you either keep Ford in the backfield - and loose our best pass rusher - or you have him blitz all the time, which brings us back to a 3-4 / 5-2 with O'Daniel instead of Ragland. And I can't see how O'Daniel can replace Ragland as an ILB, when our soft spot is the runs.
I'd rather keep the 3-4 as it is with O'Daniel at SS. As a base formation, and if Hitchens is available. [Reply]
I agree the D needs to change to a 4-3.
getting gouged on the run coz theres no dominate nose tackle and the LBs cant make plays because they are fighting thru blockers all the time.
Hitchens came from a 4-3 D and was effective making plays.
Put him into a 3-4 setup and he cant play downhill.
Combination of wrong scheme and putting round pegs in square holes.
Add to that you got nickle backs as starting corners and oh yeah a lack of talent in a free safety who is clueless. [Reply]