Originally Posted by TEX:
Oh, we had a "pass rush," but just not sacks. Kind of like having a gun with no bullets. You're not gonna stop many people once they figure out the gun isn't loaded.
I do believe that Veach went into this offseason not believing that Clark would be here, which explains his, "revamp the DL" comments.
It's still a horrible move to keep somebody around with that much of a history of coming up short of expectations, particularly when you're trying to shift and change the culture to a defense that's young, tackles well, and plays with hustle. But I think that might explain why we've been very, "Mehhhh... we'll make a move only if it fits the budget" about the entire DL. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
Oh, we had a "pass rush," but just not sacks. Kind of like having a gun with no bullets. You're not gonna stop many people once they figure out the gun isn't loaded.
This is an incredibly stupid metaphor. It's more like saying that shooting someone only affects them if you get a headshot. That's what you're saying.
The Chiefs were the third best in the league in hurries per dropback. Only the Bills and Broncos hurried QBs more.
They were fourth worst in sacks.
Maybe - just maybe - the thinking was that the pass rush wasn't the problem but that blown coverages allowing pressured QBs to get out of trouble was the problem.
But no, let's just all say "pressure doesn't matter" en route to a FIFTH consecutive AFC championship.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
You mean Daniel Sorensen, the undrafted Free Agent who played the position credibly for 3-4 years before hitting a wall?
Yeah, probably needed to use a 2nd rounder to replace that instead of addressing potentially the worst defensive line in football. Seems like a wise use of scarce resources.
Again I think the DE class dried up by our pick. Only pick in range was Drake Jackson and Nik Bonitto who I wasn’t that high on.
Cook was my least favorite pick but I understood it. I wanted Travis Jones.
What we know is Cook has excellent athleticism (4.45 40), size and physicality. I don’t know if it’s gonna translate but we’ll see.
He covered the TE pretty well in college. If he can do that in the NFL at even a marginal level it’s a big win. [Reply]
The problem is that a net wash just isn't good enough. The line was super thin WITH Ingram. Now it's a complete shit-show. We have 1 obvious starting caliber NFL player on the entire damn depth chart for DL (Jones). Another in Karlaftis that we all think is probably at that level but he is still just a rookie and about half this 1st round is going to struggle to contribute this year. It happens every year. Karlaftis might be among them.
The rest are depth pieces on a good day. That's just wholly unacceptable for a team that purports to be a contender.
It was looking like a net wash back when the F/A signing period was effectively over.
Once draft season started and no trades had been made, or significant signings, it was clear we'd get a 1st round DE followed by a vet of some sort.
They'll still be signing a "vet of some sort". It won't be Ingram, but i have no doubts that a Clowney, Houston or Dunlap could come in and provide at least what Ingram did and likely more.
And even with that addition, that's still a far cry from a "rebuild of the DL". If the plan is to add 1 vet and then call it good, then this isn't a rebuild. It's effectively the same damn DL + a rookie.
Now, we can't rule out the possibility of both a vet F/A acquisition AND a trade.
If we add one Vet, it's lackluster. If they could add say....a Clowney/Houston/Dunlap AND trade for Quinn....well now got something. At least for this season. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
The same folks that insist Brett Veach is some hyper-aggressive mauler of the draft who attacks to get 'his' guys will turn around and say "hey, it's not his fault Drake Jackson went one pick before we took a 3rd safety at 62..."
If Veach is some hyper-aggressive wizard who knows everyone that's going to get taken and where, does not not stand to reason that he didn't feel the need to move up for Jackson?
Or is he fallible? And maybe, just maybe, shit went sideways on him. Not just with the draft at DL, but in FA and here with Ingram.
Nah - just 5D chess and it was his plan to just neglect the DL until freakin' June.
Nah-I think it says they didn’t think much of Drake Jackson and thought highly of Bryan Cook [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Umm they weren’t just replacing him. They were replacing Mathieu too. And the only safety on the roster will be a FA next year.
Originally Posted by saphojunkie:
This is an incredibly stupid metaphor. It's more like saying that shooting someone only affects them if you get a headshot. That's what you're saying.
The Chiefs were the third best in the league in hurries per dropback. Only the Bills and Broncos hurried QBs more.
They were fourth worst in sacks.
Maybe - just maybe - the thinking was that the pass rush wasn't the problem but that blown coverages allowing pressured QBs to get out of trouble was the problem.
But no, let's just all say "pressure doesn't matter" en route to a FIFTH consecutive AFC championship.
Good god.
About 3 pressures/game just walked out the door.
Again - even if you want to cite pressure rates as dispositive, Ingram was easily our most consistent and reliable source of those once he arrived. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
It was looking like a net wash back when the F/A signing period was effectively over.
Once draft season started and no trades had been made, or significant signings, it was clear we'd get a 1st round DE followed by a vet of some sort.
They'll still be signing a "vet of some sort". It won't be Ingram, but i have no doubts that a Clowney, Houston or Dunlap could come in and provide at least what Ingram did and likely more.
And even with that addition, that's still a far cry from a "rebuild of the DL". If the plan is to add 1 vet and then call it good, then this isn't a rebuild. It's effectively the same damn DL + a rookie.
Now, we can't rule out the possibility of both a vet F/A acquisition AND a trade.
If we add one Vet, it's lackluster. If they could add say....a Clowney/Houston/Dunlap AND trade for Quinn....well now got something. At least for this season.
Probably what’s expected. But guys need to get this out of their head. We weren’t replacing a position group. This wasn’t a “we need to renovate the DL” like we did the OL last year.
The whole defense was shit outside of like 3 players. Secondary was terrible, DL was terrible. Neimann was terrible. Then we also had to fix the WR core after Tyreek left.
There’s only so much you can do in one offseason. But hey think of it this way: how bad would it be if we hadn’t traded Tyreek and had the resources to fix a lot of this shit? [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Umm they weren’t just replacing him. They were replacing Mathieu too. And the only safety on the roster will be a FA next year.
Thornhill was benched. They aren’t happy with him. He’s gonna after this year.
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Thornhill was benched. They aren’t happy with him. He’s gonna after this year.
Needed to get a replacement
I’m not so sure of that, but it’s at least a possibility that should be considered.
I don’t they “aren’t happy with him” currently, but even if they expect a good year from him, they might be preparing for the possibility that he walks. [Reply]