Call it an overreaction if youd like. The he was brought in to improve the defense and it's only gotten worse. Even in our 4 wins the defense wasnt better than last year for the most part.
If Booker/Lindsay go for over 180 rushing like 4 other teams have against us, and Rodgers & Co. come in and out up 30 it's time to pull the plug on this clown. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
My brand is recognizing failure early and move on from it. Yours is to keep the failure around longer. Just two completely different approaches.
Again, Ill take my approach over yours every time.
Again, what defensive wizard do you have in mind that would NOT be failing given the current state of the defense?
It doesn’t matter who we hired, you’d be firing them right now because nobody would be doing a significantly better job. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
That's what we all thought after last season.
heh.
The Chiefs, over the last 3 games have given up on average 186 yards on the ground. That's insane to me. I don't recall ever seeing that at the pro-level. Those are the numbers you'd expect from a DII College program.
What's even more insane that just boggles my mind is that despite that, the Chiefs are still NOT the worst rush defense in the NFL. There's actually two teams that manage to be worse.
Over the last 3 games the Browns have given up an avg of 206 rushing yards.
The Bengals have given up an average of 200. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Again, what defensive wizard do you have in mind that would NOT be failing given the current state of the defense?
It doesn’t matter who we hired, you’d be firing them right now because nobody would be doing a significantly better job.
I dont have anyone in mind. I just know I see total fail on defense. I know the defense was terrible last year and its arguably worse this year. I know Ive seen the same thing in the past and what course was taken and that it ended in miserable failure. Maybe my approach is completely wrong and yours is correct? I just wonder what might have been had KC gotten rid of past DC's sooner rather than later. Dont want a repeat of the past, especially with a DC who has a suspect history. [Reply]
The Chiefs, over the last 3 games have given up on average 186 yards on the ground. That's insane to me. I don't recall ever seeing that at the pro-level. Those are the numbers you'd expect from a DII College program.
What's even more insane that just boggles my mind is that despite that, the Chiefs are still NOT the worst rush defense in the NFL. There's actually two teams that manage to be worse.
Over the last 3 games the Browns have given up an avg of 206 rushing yards.
The Bengals have given up an average of 200.
Had Jax and Oak pounded the rock we would probably have the worst rushing defense in the league. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
I dont have anyone in mind. I just know I see total fail on defense. I know the defense was terrible last year and its arguably worse this year. I know Ive seen the same thing in the past and what course was taken and that it ended in miserable failure. Maybe my approach is completely wrong and yours is correct? I just wonder what might have been had KC gotten rid of past DC's sooner rather than later. Dont want a repeat of the past, especially with a DC who has a suspect history.
You're putting way too much emphasis on the DC and coaches in general. Often times they aren't the difference maker unless you have a rare bird that can truly give your team a strategic advantage like an Andy Reid or a Bill Bilicheat.
Otherwise when you look around the league you see mostly the same trend: When given talent the D is good. When not, it's not.
Spags resume should tell you that. Sutton's resume should tell you that. Look at Wade Philips in LA. All of a sudden that Chargers D doesn't look so formidable with their key starters out. So i guess Gus Bradley can't coach a D all of a sudden?
TALENT is what wins football games. The players. [Reply]
The Chiefs, over the last 3 games have given up on average 186 yards on the ground. That's insane to me. I don't recall ever seeing that at the pro-level. Those are the numbers you'd expect from a DII College program.
What's even more insane that just boggles my mind is that despite that, the Chiefs are still NOT the worst rush defense in the NFL. There's actually two teams that manage to be worse.
Over the last 3 games the Browns have given up an avg of 206 rushing yards.
The Bengals have given up an average of 200.
So many teams have went to a speed/stop the pass mentality with the proliferation of high-octane passing in the NFL combined with the changes in rules that benefit passing offenses...so now, the best thing to do to take advantage of those defenses is to out physical them with power running. [Reply]
Originally Posted by rabblerouser:
So many teams have went to a speed/stop the pass mentality with the proliferation of high-octane passing in the NFL combined with the changes in rules that benefit passing offenses...so now, the best thing to do to take advantage of those defenses is to out physical them with power running.
Yeah i agree.
I think what you're seeing is that pendulum swinging back to a degree. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
You're putting way too much emphasis on the DC and coaches in general. Often times they aren't the difference maker unless you have a rare bird that can truly give your team a strategic advantage like an Andy Reid or a Bill Bilicheat.
Otherwise when you look around the league you see mostly the same trend: When given talent the D is good. When not, it's not.
Spags resume should tell you that. Sutton's resume should tell you that. Look at Wade Philips in LA. All of a sudden that Chargers D doesn't look so formidable with their key starters out. So i guess Gus Bradley can't coach a D all of a sudden?
TALENT is what wins football games. The players.
I’ve said this over and over and people still don’t get it.
Did Martindale go from great to awful in one year too? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
You're putting way too much emphasis on the DC and coaches in general. Often times they aren't the difference maker unless you have a rare bird that can truly give your team a strategic advantage like an Andy Reid or a Bill Bilicheat.
Otherwise when you look around the league you see mostly the same trend: When given talent the D is good. When not, it's not.
Spags resume should tell you that. Sutton's resume should tell you that. Look at Wade Philips in LA. All of a sudden that Chargers D doesn't look so formidable with their key starters out. So i guess Gus Bradley can't coach a D all of a sudden?
TALENT is what wins football games. The players.
Yeah, but-
Clark, Mathieu, Ogbah, Okafor, Wilson, Lee, Breeland, Claiborne, all new.
Jones, Hitchens, Fuller, all plus players previously. Ward and Thornhill young and supposedly ascending.
Same story.
I was a Spags supporter, but I'm scratching my head.
Why are so many guys that were good elsewhere looking like SHIT when they suit up in red?
What the fuck is going ON?
I expected some sloppiness due to a complete overhaul and that it would take a little while to gel, but they get their asses whipped at the line of scrimmage, and the linebackers can't tackle for shit. Same as last year.
I think the secondary might be a little bit better, but can't tell, because nobody really has to pass much to beat us.
It's talent. Okay, well, Clark's never looked like shit before. Hitchens looked like he was going to be a stud in Dallas. Fuller was the highest rated slot corner in football before he got here. Okafor and Ogbah were supposedly great run stuffers, fair to middlin' pass rushers.
We should be at least good against the run; and by season's end at this pace, we'll be historically bad.
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
Yeah, but-
Clark, Mathieu, Ogbah, Okafor, Wilson, Lee, Breeland, Claiborne, all new.
Jones, Hitchens, Fuller, all plus players previously. Ward and Thornhill young and supposedly ascending.
Same story.
I was a Spags supporter, but I'm scratching my head.
Why are so many guys that were good elsewhere looking like SHIT when they suit up in red?
What the fuck is going ON?
I expected some sloppiness due to a complete overhaul and that it would take a little while to gel, but they get their asses whipped at the line of scrimmage, and the linebackers can't tackle for shit. Same as last year.
I think the secondary might be a little bit better, but can't tell, because nobody really has to pass much to beat us.
It's talent. Okay, well, Clark's never looked like shit before. Hitchens looked like he was going to be a stud in Dallas. Fuller was the highest rated slot corner in football before he got here. Okafor and Ogbah were supposedly great run stuffers, fair to middlin' pass rushers.
We should be at least good against the run; and by season's end at this pace, we'll be historically bad.
WHAT THE FUCK.
It doesn't make sense.
They're fucking soft. SOFT.
You've got two guys on that list that were good elsewhere. And one of them is still good here.
Clark - Yeah wtf is up with this guy, i'll give you this one.
Mathieu - As advertised.
Ogbah - A bust in Cleveland and was brought over more as a flyer. He was a straight swap for Eric Murray who never going to make the team. That should tell you enough.
Okafor - JAG
Wilson - A career back up in Dallas.
Lee - Loads of potential and athletic ability, but "what ifs" aside, he too was a bust in NY.
Breeland - Decent corner but more of lateral move from Steven Nelson than an upgrade. I know he was pimped a lot here along with everyone else that was signed, but he had some clear stats that showed CP was just homering and people chose to ignore it.
Claiborne - Remains to be seen, but he's another guy that never lived up to his draft status. A solid but unspectacular player and honestly we havent see enough of him in KC to say either way.
Jones -All pro worthy and his run defense (lack of) is overblown.
Hitchens - JAG. I said it when they signed him. I said it last year too. He's a nobody that had one decent season.
Fuller - As i said when we traded for him, he too is more of an unknown than a commodity. He had one bad season and one good season before coming to KC.
Ward - Looks improved from last year so lets hope he continues to trend upwards. But he wasn't a commodity coming to KC. He was a depth player for Dallas and rarely saw the field.
Thornhill - Looks like he has the athleticism and tenacity to play in this league, but he's still a rook and clearly still learning on the job.
*******
So to that point, this idea that they were good elsewhere is a complete myth that was propped up by annual fan off-season optimism and homerism.
So that whole list you have there you got 2 guys that were proven good and still are, 1 guy who should be really good and for some reason isn't, a promising rookie and then a whole bunch of guys who never did jack shit in this league for more than one season and some even less. [Reply]