Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
You have to stay 3-4 if you keep Ford. He's really only a situational pass rusher in a 4-3, and the franchise money is too much in that case.
If we stay 3-4 I'm not opposed although I think I'd rather move to a 4-3 as I think we have a few pieces that would fare better in that alignment than 3-4, namely Speaks and Kpass. Also, it helps your ILB's, so you would have, say, Speaks, Kpass, O'Daniel, and Hitchens all helped by the 4-3 or you stay in a 3-4 and commit $15m plus to Ford and have the same issues with your LB corps.
shrug.
You and I see the same things; this personnel is already best suited for a 4-3...it appears Veach has been drafting for a 4-3 already (Speaks and Kpass, especially). It leaves Dee Ford as the odd man out. Do we franchise him and trade him? That may be the best scenario... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
You have to stay 3-4 if you keep Ford. He's really only a situational pass rusher in a 4-3, and the franchise money is too much in that case.
If we stay 3-4 I'm not opposed although I think I'd rather move to a 4-3 as I think we have a few pieces that would fare better in that alignment than 3-4, namely Speaks and Kpass. Also, it helps your ILB's, so you would have, say, Speaks, Kpass, O'Daniel, and Hitchens all helped by the 4-3 or you stay in a 3-4 and commit $15m plus to Ford and have the same issues with your LB corps.
shrug.
Originally Posted by rabblerouser:
You and I see the same things; this personnel is already best suited for a 4-3...it appears Veach has been drafting for a 4-3 already (Speaks and Kpass, especially). It leaves Dee Ford as the odd man out. Do we franchise him and trade him? That may be the best scenario...
If Ford isn't suited for 4-3, then goodbye. And thought of franchising such an un-franchise-worthy player makes me vomit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
You have to stay 3-4 if you keep Ford. He's really only a situational pass rusher in a 4-3, and the franchise money is too much in that case.
If we stay 3-4 I'm not opposed although I think I'd rather move to a 4-3 as I think we have a few pieces that would fare better in that alignment than 3-4, namely Speaks and Kpass. Also, it helps your ILB's, so you would have, say, Speaks, Kpass, O'Daniel, and Hitchens all helped by the 4-3 or you stay in a 3-4 and commit $15m plus to Ford and have the same issues with your LB corps.
shrug.
I get it. 3-4 or 4-3 is not the decision that we as fans are going to be making. That’s hopefully for our next DC. But given our current situation, giving up on Ford seems like a really bad decision given the rest of our roster and what we’re set up to do. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Aspengc8:
probably because they had a top 10 defense 3 years ago when they didnt have key players injured all season?
Yeah, well that sort of mindset might be a clue as to why Andy doesn't yet have a SB victory, and why the Chiefs are going on year 49 of not participating in said contest. That's a lot of loyalty.
Let's hope Berry's return takes us to being a great defense, but I'm not thinking it will. Lord knows they've place a lot of stock in a man that hasn't played a full game in two years. A bit thin for my liking... [Reply]
Ford's a plus pass rusher; unfortunately, he's strictly that. In a 3-4 you can make that work. In a 4-3, not so much. Either way, $15m plus is a lot for a once dimensional player. [Reply]
Other than the numbers how much of the defensive play has Reid seen? He sits on the bench with Mahomes. That’s how much Reid is trusting the Old Man Sutton. Think about it. I’d like to know how in-depth Reid’s tape review is of our defense week to week. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Coach:
You can change the players, bench players, whatever, but the core issue is still the defensive coordinator.
I mean I dont disagree Sutton sucks but Nelson clearly isnt an outsider corner and that open field miss Hitchens had on that TD drive isnt on Sutton. [Reply]