If you've followed the Chiefs' offseason much at all, you've heard The Question, to wit: (how) can the Chiefs be any better on defense when their only significant addition was Gunther Cunningham?
If you've followed the Chiefs' offseason much at all, you've heard The Question, to wit: (how) can the Chiefs be any better on defense when their only significant addition was Gunther Cunningham?
A few thoughts on that. First, who says Gunther was the only significant addition? I do remember an amateur draft occurring sometime in April, and someone named Junior being drafted in the second round. That could make a huge difference.
From what I understand, professional football defenses perform at a very high level, and the difference between #1 and #32 isn't all that big...particularly since the Chiefs don't need to have the #1 defense. Sometimes all it takes is the addition of one extra person to shore up a weak link. And the two weak areas of KC's defense were the heart of the defensive line and Middle Linebacker after Maz got hurt. One could easily argue the second was the most important, because the Chiefs defense performed far better in the first half of the season than the second. But Kavika Mitchell gained valuable experience playing for Maslowski. He didn't perform well enough last year, but he's taking multi-game starting experience into training camp this summer, and that should make a tremendous difference. Moreover, a potentially-excellent linebacker in Key Fox was added to the mix through the draft. Let's not forget that the Chiefs have an excellent history of finding good talent that others miss: consider Eric Hicks, an undrafted free agent, and Scott Fujita, a 5th-round pick who played at near-Pro Bowl levels last year. Who knows if someone not expected to excel might end up being a star on defense?
But that's merely musing on variables and potentialities. There are four reasons I think KC's defense will be significantly improved next year.
One: while nearly every other team faced the task of replacing a departed key member of their defense, Kansas City retained every single player. "So what?" you say, "KC's defense wasn't that good last year, so retaining mediocre players won't help." Au Contraire, as they say in some countries without any football programs whatsoever. One of the reasons why so many free agents are considered busts are because they performed at a high level in a system they "grew up" in. Perhaps the system they played in wasn't designed for them or their strengths, specifically, but their strengths matched well enough to excel. They play in that system for 2, 3, or more years, understanding it well enough to internalize its precepts, to play instinctively rather than thinking about what needs to be done. Even if the system changes, they are still playing alongside people they know, whose abilities they are familiar with, so they know what their teammates will do and what gap they need to fill...
Take that player out and put him in a new system...and an adjustment needs to be made. The very best can make that adjustment, but not everyone is the very best. Free agent acquisitions often take more than a year to play at a top level, and shouldn't be evaluated as success or failure until after their second year, unless they are brought in specifically to be a role player. Sure, Rodney Harrison was more than that for the Patriots...but how many unheralded free agents did they sign on the cheap before they got Rodney? And Rodney was far from a sure thing, mind you; the Pats got far more out of him than anyone expected.
All of which means that even without the addition of Siavii, Fox, and Gunther Cunningham, the Chiefs would probably have a better defense just from key players like Fujita, Barber, McCleon, Sims, and Mitchell having another year of experience together.
Two: Let's not forget that players like Woods, Hicks, Wesley and Warfield earned their starting positions by playing in Gunther's system, and only Woods, perhaps, played as well under Greg Robinson.
Three (and more importantly): We must look at how the Chiefs' defense performed badly last year. Generally, the defense played worse in the second half than the first, and worse later in the year than earlier, and worse on the road than at home. Although the reasons for this aren't obvious at a glance, everything I've read says that Robinson's defense was based on predictions and out-maneuvering opponents. It is probably unfair to say that it was a passive/reactive system because he could bring blitzes at unexpected times and from unexpected directions. At its best, it did dictate to the opposing offense, and that's what you want from a top-notch defense. Unfortunately, at its worst it could be a step short all day. If the opposing offense coordinator was unpredictable and got in a rhythm, he could apparently play Robinson like a fiddle, as evidenced in Cincinnati and Minnesota.
If Robinson was correct, the play would be stopped dead by the defense, but if he guessed wrong, players were completely out of position to back each other up. If Robinson was wrong, only one defensive player with perfect execution was in position to prevent catastrophe, i.e., a huge gain. The problem with that weakness is it doesn't take account of the other team's offensive playmakers. And so, it seems Robinson's system depended on Robinson's mind for success...which kinda makes sense regarding the overall failure, since the longer you play a game, the farther you are into the seaon, and the more years you are in the NFL, the more your trends and tendencies are chartable and predictable. Which brings us right back to the general truths about the Chiefs' defense: better earlier and worse later.
Every system has flaws, both offense and defense. But Gunther's system relies less on chess-like moves and more on disruption. It allows players to play, rather than fill roles and positions. In Gunther's system, the star will not be the coordinator, but the player who performs well...and that could be anyone. It doesn't matter who steps it up, because Gunther's system doesn't necessarily depend on a shut-down corner, a rangy linebacker, a ball-hawking safety, or a disrupting lineman. Rather, it allows any player with decent instincts to be in a position to become that player.
Fourth: Moreover, Greg Robinson's defense, like any defense, played far better with a lead than when trying to catch up. When the Chiefs had leads, Wesley, Warfield, Barber, Fujita, Woods, Sims, et al, looked like Super Bowl players. Playing from behind and looking for a stop, they looked as frustrated and incapable as could be. Clearly, one way to improve the defense would also be to improve the offense. While it may seem like an impossible task, the Chiefs may have actually done that.
Even without the addition of Gunther, the early indications from mini-camp practices are that the Chiefs struck gold (or at least silver...) with picks Kris Wilson (TE/WR) and Sammie Parker (WR). WR was one of the less-bright spots for the Chiefs, and one reason for the loss to the Colts was the mediocre performance by the WR corps, allowing the Colts to key on Tony Gonzales. If Parker displaces Boerigter or pushes him to overcome a significant sophomore slump, things should open up for the passing offense. Even if the WR corps doesn't show significant improvement, Kris Wilson is catching everything thrown to him, and his blocking ability makes him a nice twin threat when paired with Tony G. Al Saunders is too good to not exploit all the match-up problems created with the addition of Wilson.
And the most significant departure, heck, the only significant departure was OT John Tait. To tell the truth, the guy has never really impressed me. I hoped for big things from him, but he's shown immaturity and whininess since day one. His departure would be addition through subtraction just from the removal of a simmering source of resentment stemming from the initial contract obligations and exacerbated by his unceremonious switch to RT when Willie Roaf arrived. But the Chiefs did even better by signing two solid OL free agents (Bober and Welbourn, both starters for other teams), the continued development of strong OL picks from 2003, and the surprising ability of 2004 pick Kevin Sampson. This all results in an astounding level of depth at a position that was dangerously thin just last year. The only thing they can't replace is the chemistry of seasons of playing together...but I gotta think that RT is easily the least important as far as chemistry goes.
And from all accounts, Trent Green has stepped it up another level. If true, he will be playing at an All-Pro/Hall of Fame level, and that should strike fear in the hearts of opposing head coaches and coordinators.
As it stands, Kansas City doesn't need to go after anyone in free agency this year. If the perfect situation arises, they can sign someone, but they don't need to. They have the depth to overcome injuries (which they didn't last year), a top-notch offense, a defensive coordinator generally regarded as one of the best in the game, and a team poised and hungry for a Super Bowl title.
Bottom line: the only weakness last year was the defense when behind in close games. The best way to fix this is to make sure you are always ahead, and the Chiefs did take steps to upgrade the offense. The second best way to fix this is have a system that allows players to succeed, and the Chiefs did this with the addition of Gunther. The third best way to fix this is to grow a solid defense by retaining your own players and allowing experience and competition to result in the best team executing the best teamwork on the field. The Chiefs did this, too. I'm expecting big things this year...
Comments (6)
Point 1 is inane. Retainin... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Tom | July 7, 2004 7:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Point 1 is inane. Retaining every single member of a lousy squad is not a bonus. You can claim that retention in a system is a plus, but they won't be in the same system, so your point is . . . pointless. KC didn't lose anyone on D, because no other team wanted any of their trash.
Point 2 is valid. If those few guys played better under Gunther once, they could again. But even under Gunther they weren't more than servicable, so how can you expect more from them this time around?
Point 3 is gibberish. You did nothing to explain why it was they played poorly when they did. You didn't point out a single specific weakness or failing. "Oh, other teams just figured them out" is an excuse, not analysis.
Next, any defense is guesswork and Robinson didn't suit up last I checked. It's up to players to make plays. More excuses without analysis.
Gunther's system probably will yeild better results, but KC is still playing with lousy talent and no depth. So they go from the 29th ranked D to the 25th? 22nd? 20th? Big deal.
Point 4 is more gibberish. If KC was behind, then it was BECAUSE the D sucked, the D didn't suddenly suck because they found themselves behind.
You whine about Tait's whining, but offer no evidence that he didn't play well. Your opinion of him vs his replacements is at odds with every other opinion I've read on this so far.
1. Posted by Tom | July 7, 2004 7:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 7, 2004 19:51
2. Posted by Nathan | July 8, 2004 12:57 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Tom,
How do you explain the Chiefs' 9-0 record, then, since some of the wins required excellent defensive play to pull out? How do you explain that that Rudy Johnson was able to run so far after making only one guy miss before the next player was able to pull him down...and that Johnson was so wide open on the TD pass in KC's first loss? A good defensive coordinator leaves some safety help, a good scheme puts people in the right position to make plays.
Look at all the games, sir. Watch the tape. The huge plays scored on KC that gave up the bulk of the yardage were due to bad alignments and bad calls, not bad performances by the players. It was pure idiocy to blitz from the position covering Randy Moss, and when Culpepper threw to that vacated area before the blitz could get to him, the resulting TD signified the rout was on. The Vikes' OC had gotten inside Greg's head.
One stop would have given KC the win over the Colts, or at least a good chance to win. One stop could have put the Chiefs in the driver's seat over Denver...but Greg Robinson couldn't deliver even one. I watched both games, and the defenders didn't give up...they were pressing to try to get that stop, but Robinson's ever-more risky calls just dug deeper holes.
But your terse response merely pronounces my assertions "inane", "nonsense", "gibberish" and "guesswork". I guess that's your right. But this sentence, "the D didn't suddenly suck because they found themselves behind" reveals a near-complete ignorance of the game of professional football, so I guess you deserve a pass.
Fortunately, this is the time of year when anyone's opinions are equally valid, and equally meaningless until they actually play a regular season game. I think our boys will do far better than you expect. I assume you are man enough to return and eat your crow...?
2. Posted by Nathan | July 8, 2004 12:57 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 8, 2004 00:57
3. Posted by Tom | July 8, 2004 2:03 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Only the weak-minded need to fall back on the "You don't know anything about football" line. Makes you sound like a grade school crybaby. I suppose that after reading what passes for "in depth analysis" from you, I shouldn't be surprised.
KC couldn't keep up with Denver in either game. The fact that they couldn't get that "one stop" any time they desperately needed it, is proof that you're putting your hopes for next season ahead of reality.
The sad fact is, the players took themselves out of position. Again, players play, coaches don't. It wasn't a one time deal. It happened again and again and again. That 29th place ranking was earned week after week all season long, not over the course of just a few bad games. Did Robsinson contribute? He had to. But don't sit there all starry-eyed and pretend it wasn't earned in at least equal part by the players on the field.
I notice you don't dispute a single point that I made, you just piss and moan about some of my word choices. Again, you've done exactly nothing to prove your theory.
KC does not have the defensive talent to get the job done and isn't even stacked offensively. The only reason KC made the playoffs at all was because they played one of the weakest schedules in the league. They played exactly four games against three offensively tough teams last year. In those four games they gave up 23, 34, 45 and 45 points.
Add to that Holme's age, and a repeat of his '03 stats is nothing but a daydream.
If you want to get down to it, even KC's O wasn't that hot, except against defensive weaklings, which made up most of their schedule.
Sure, Green had five 300+ yard games. But he also had five sub 200 yard games. Holmes ran for more than 100 yards exactly 3 times. He ran for less than 75 yds 4 times. So their O-line wasn't doing it's job, either.
If you can't come up with anything better than "Oh huh!" and "You don’t know anything about football!", don't bother.
3. Posted by Tom | July 8, 2004 2:03 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 8, 2004 02:03
4. Posted by Nathan | July 8, 2004 8:34 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
With the exception of rare exceptions, all defenses play far better when ahead by two touchdowns than behind by two touchdowns. Denying this merely makes you look ignorant. I'm sorry, but it does. Go talk to any coach and tell him that playing from behind doesn't make things harder on a defense, and be ready for gales of laughter.
In any case, please take a look at the title again: "Comments and Guesses". I don't pretend any of it is fact. No one has shown up training camp, and even training camp doesn't reveal that much. This is my opinion, and there are the reasons I feel the way I do: I feel the players are underestimated. You try to assert it is a fact that they are mediocre. If you are so indisputably correct, why aren't you working as a scout? Are you a millionaire yet from sports betting? Or are you just sharing your views like I am? Are you even a Chiefs fan? If not, then I think I probably have watched and studied my boys play more than you have. That can lead to "homer"-ism, or it can lead to insight. I freely admit I'm somewhat of a Homer, but I also often hit the nail on the head.
But I'm content to let the guys play and see what happens. If I turn out to be wrong, I'll be writing about it here. If you turn out to be wrong, I expect you to show up and take your lumps.
I will close with reminding you that many of the things you said about the Chiefs was said about the Rams before they won their Superbowl (also won with a ridiculously easy schedule), and also about the Patriots before their first Superbowl win, as well. Conventional wisdom, such as you repeat, is often wrong. We shall see.
4. Posted by Nathan | July 8, 2004 8:34 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 8, 2004 20:34
5. Posted by Tom | July 8, 2004 9:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You appear ignorant when you flip flop reality and say they are playing poorly because they are behind, rather than that they are behind because they are playing poorly. I'm sorry, you just do. Got talk to any coach and tell him that his team fell behind because they were playing great until the got behind, then they suddenly started to fall apart, and be ready for gales of laughter.
So your opinion as a fan, which is based on nothing but wishful thinking, is fine, but mine, which is drawn from probability based on the facts, is crap unless I'm a scout or a millionaire? You just can't comment without sticking your tongue out and making some kind of childish remark. Why are you so threatened by an opposing opinion that you must try to invalidate it with constant personal attacks? Right, it's because you can't back up your opinions in a real debate so must, again, rely on fallacies reserved for the weakminded.
The Rams didn't just add a D coordinator and call it good. They upgraded defensive personnel. They also had far better offensive personnel. KC is a shadow of that transitional Rams team.
The Pats situation wasn't anywhere close to the same. Their team is built like nothing Dick Vermeil ever even attemtped, their organization is run like nothing that came before them. KC and the Rams are both top down teams. The Pats were and remain bottom up. If you want to look more ignorant than you already have, keep putting the Pats and KC on the same level.
5. Posted by Tom | July 8, 2004 9:23 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 8, 2004 21:23
6. Posted by Nathan | July 11, 2004 1:52 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I don't know what your problem is. You seem to enjoy distorting what I say and then insulting me for it.
Takes all kinds, I guess. I really enjoyed the article you wrote, however. If you'd said a few more of those things instead of just slinging insults from the get-go, I might have reacted differently.
6. Posted by Nathan | July 11, 2004 1:52 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 11, 2004 01:52