PDA

View Full Version : Mock #1 1/24/2011



Pages : [1] 2

stevefuller
01-24-2011, 10:30 PM
1st)Nate Solder-OT
This completes o-line,, as we have signed Logan Mankins-LG allowing us to slide B Waters to center.
Alberts/Mankins/Waters/Lilja/Solder

2nd)Randall Cobb-WR
This completes rebuild receiving corps, as we have, signed Santana Moss-WR to go along with D-Bowe/McCluster/Moss/Cobb/Young

3rd)Titus Young-WR
5'11" 178 sub 4.4

4th)Sione Fua-NT
5th)Brandon Fusco-C
5th)Greg Romeus-OLB
6th)Ricky Stanzi-QB
7th)Dion Lewis-RB
7th)Matt Szczur-WR

Boxermm187
01-24-2011, 11:00 PM
waters center??? titus young i like. been following him for a while

Jrudi
01-24-2011, 11:05 PM
1.) Stephen Paea- DT Oregon State
Stud NT that can play both 4-3 and 3-4. Run Stopper, not a great pass rusher, but that's not what the Chiefs are looking for in their NT, Haley wants to stop the run, and this guys was quoted on CBS sports.com as being as big as a coke machine and just as hard to move. Also a team captain and high character.

2.) Demarcus Love- OT Arkansas
Stud OT that is a monster run blocker (as I said with my first pick Haley want to stop the run, and run the ball), has 3 years of full time playing experience in the tough SEC, Team Captain. Will step in and solidify our RT position.

3.) Randall Cobb WR Kentucky/Titus Young WR Bosie St.
Not sure if Cobb will be available here (If so it will be a steal, he's versatile, and if on the field the same time as McCluster it could be dangerous), if not Young will be the best that is left. We need speed opposite Bowe and he can help take the top off the D. I have them waiting until the 3rd to take a wr because I think they will sign Breastin or Doucett from Arizona. I like the Santanna Moss idea, didn't realize he was a free agent, only thing I don't like about it is that we haven't had good luck signing over the hill FA WR's in the past few years.

4.) Kelvin Shepard- ILB LSU
Inspirational leader of the LSU Defense. Another 3 year starter in the tough SEC. Will rotate with Belcher.

5. Marcus Gilbert- OT Florida
Another Team Captain, 3 year starter in the SEC. Played both LT and RT in college, protected Tebow's blind side for 2 years. High Character, Hard worker. will add depth to the line at either side down the line.

6. Greg McElroy- QB Alabama
Experienced starter, better than our current former Alabama QB. Has won a championship. Played in SEC. Smart, hard worker. Heard this kid on ESPN radio before the National championship. Couln't tell he was a college student... Impressed with how he carried himself and talked about defenses.

Don't know many more prospects this late in the draft.

Other prospects to keep and eye on:

Ahmad Black: SS FLA
Greg Little: ILB Michigan St.
Jerrell Powe NT- Ole Miss
Stefen Wisniewski- C/G Penn State

slc chief
01-24-2011, 11:05 PM
i dont want to wait untill the 5th round to get our linebacker.unless they address it through free agency.i want a dominate defense that will win us some championships

Boxermm187
01-24-2011, 11:10 PM
randall cobb
Strengths

QB/WR/RB - One of the most versatile players in the draft
Dynamic playmaker - displays insticts and vision
Cat quick with excellent change of direction
Tremendous production - 94 receptions 1,014 receiving yards in 2010, 400+ yards rushing in 2009 and 2010, 28 combined TDs (2009 and 2010)
Tough - fights for yardage and willing to go over the middle
Ideal wildcat guy - recruited as a quarterback (4 starts at UK)
Dangerous returner - elusive in the open field
Excellent intangibles and character
Consistent production - made an impact versus elite competition
Three year starterWeaknesses

May not be an every down type - more of a slot receiver/wildcat/returner
Still developing as a receiver - needs to refine route running
Undersized
More quick than fast - lacks breakaway speed (a 4.5 guy)seems like DMC too me. not a good fit since we have a player his style. titus young seems like the better deal from the two

Boxermm187
01-24-2011, 11:11 PM
i dont want to wait untill the 5th round to get our linebacker.unless they address it through free agency.i want a dominate defense that will win us some championships
defense wins championships....so right!!! look who is in the super bowl

stevefuller
01-24-2011, 11:13 PM
waters center??? titus young i like. been following him for a while
Talked about moving Waters to center for a couple years now

stevefuller
01-24-2011, 11:22 PM
defense wins championships....so right!!! look who is in the super bowl

Address LBer via free agency

Barrett Rudd, David Hawthorne,David Harris, Steven Tulloch, Paul Poslusny,Stephen Cooper, ernie Sims, Thomas Davis, Chad Greenway and LaMarr Woodley are all free agents.

Boxermm187
01-24-2011, 11:24 PM
Talked about moving Waters to center for a couple years now
won't happen

stevefuller
01-24-2011, 11:28 PM
1.) Stephen Paea- DT Oregon State
Stud NT that can play both 4-3 and 3-4. Run Stopper, not a great pass rusher, but that's not what the Chiefs are looking for in their NT, Haley wants to stop the run, and this guys was quoted on CBS sports.com as being as big as a coke machine and just as hard to move. Also a team captain and high character.

2.) Demarcus Love- OT Arkansas
Stud OT that is a monster run blocker (as I said with my first pick Haley want to stop the run, and run the ball), has 3 years of full time playing experience in the tough SEC, Team Captain. Will step in and solidify our RT position.

3.) Randall Cobb WR Kentucky/Titus Young WR Bosie St.
Not sure if Cobb will be available here (If so it will be a steal, he's versatile, and if on the field the same time as McCluster it could be dangerous), if not Young will be the best that is left. We need speed opposite Bowe and he can help take the top off the D. I have them waiting until the 3rd to take a wr because I think they will sign Breastin or Doucett from Arizona. I like the Santanna Moss idea, didn't realize he was a free agent, only thing I don't like about it is that we haven't had good luck signing over the hill FA WR's in the past few years.

4.) Kelvin Shepard- ILB LSU
Inspirational leader of the LSU Defense. Another 3 year starter in the tough SEC. Will rotate with Belcher.

5. Marcus Gilbert- OT Florida
Another Team Captain, 3 year starter in the SEC. Played both LT and RT in college, protected Tebow's blind side for 2 years. High Character, Hard worker. will add depth to the line at either side down the line.

6. Greg McElroy- QB Alabama
Experienced starter, better than our current former Alabama QB. Has won a championship. Played in SEC. Smart, hard worker. Heard this kid on ESPN radio before the National championship. Couln't tell he was a college student... Impressed with how he carried himself and talked about defenses.

Don't know many more prospects this late in the draft.

Other prospects to keep and eye on:

Ahmad Black: SS FLA
Greg Little: ILB Michigan St.
Jerrell Powe NT- Ole Miss
Stefen Wisniewski- C/G Penn State

I love Pie-UH.
Just don't think he'll ever fall to #21
I want him more than anyone not named Von Miller at #21.

:sign0087:

tornadospotter
01-24-2011, 11:43 PM
Being a Nebraska fan, I would love to have Barrett Ruud as a Chief.

chiefskicker4
01-25-2011, 01:17 AM
1. Justin Houston OLB Georgia
2. Derek Sherrod OT Mississippi State
3. Kris O'Dowd C USC
4. Akeem Dent ILB Georgia
5. Kendrick Ellis DT Hampton
5. John Clay RB Wisconsin
6. Kentrell Lockett DE Mississippi
7. Chris Owusu WR Stanford
7. T.J. Yates QB North Carlonia

josh1971
01-25-2011, 03:14 AM
Talked about moving Waters to center for a couple years now

Who has been talking about it for a couple years now?

slc chief
01-25-2011, 09:02 AM
defense wins championships....so right!!! look who is in the super bowl

not even the superbowl look at who advanced in the playoffs. ravens,jets,steelers,bears,packers. every one of those teams have a dominant defense.and the only reason the packers are in is because there defense has stepped it up huge.stopping matt ryan.michael vick and only allowing the bears 14 points

4everchiefsfan25
01-25-2011, 10:48 AM
1st)Nate Solder-OT
This completes o-line,, as we have signed Logan Mankins-LG allowing us to slide B Waters to center.
Alberts/Mankins/Waters/Lilja/Solder

2nd)Randall Cobb-WR
This completes rebuild receiving corps, as we have, signed Santana Moss-WR to go along with D-Bowe/McCluster/Moss/Cobb/Young

3rd)Titus Young-WR
5'11" 178 sub 4.4

4th)Sione Fua-NT
5th)Brandon Fusco-C
5th)Greg Romeus-OLB
6th)Ricky Stanzi-QB
7th)Dion Lewis-RB
7th)Matt Szczur-WR
What about John Asamoah? We drafted him this year to take Brian Waters spot

Jrudi
01-25-2011, 11:34 AM
Yeah since we are picking #21 it is tough to predict, a lot depends on who is still available.

And honestly i have like 3 or 4 different ideas of who we would pick at 21.

With this mock I have Peae as our 1st round, if we do this I think we will address LB through FA.

If we take a LB like Von Miller, or Akeem Ayers in round one, I think we will take someone like Jerrell Powe DT Ole Miss in like round 3.

Jrudi
01-25-2011, 12:13 PM
1. Justin Houston OLB Georgia
2. Derek Sherrod OT Mississippi State
3. Kris O'Dowd C USC
4. Akeem Dent ILB Georgia
5. Kendrick Ellis DT Hampton
5. John Clay RB Wisconsin
6. Kentrell Lockett DE Mississippi
7. Chris Owusu WR Stanford
7. T.J. Yates QB North Carlonia

Sherrod likely won't be there at pick 53, He's already projecting as a late first round pick this early, so even if he isn't a first round pick, he will likely be an early 2nd and not there when we are up again.

If he was then it would be a steal. That is why I have us taking Demarcus Love in the 2nd. He hopefully should still be available .

kckidd8870
01-25-2011, 02:52 PM
Draft Pouncey in the first round.
LT Albert,LG Mankins,C Pouncey,RG Asamoah,RT B. Rich
I think B Rich will be better next year.Get some Tackles
in here to compete for the right tackle spot.Who knows,waters might want to retire.Plus he has lost alittle bit.Put Mc Cluster in the slot and leave him there.There not using him right.

chiefnut
01-25-2011, 06:57 PM
Draft Pouncey in the first round.
LT Albert,LG Mankins,C Pouncey,RG Asamoah,RT B. Rich
I think B Rich will be better next year.Get some Tackles
in here to compete for the right tackle spot.Who knows,waters might want to retire.Plus he has lost alittle bit.Put Mc Cluster in the slot and leave him there.There not using him right.

I'd rather wisnewski than poncy for center, pouncy is super at pulling and is a great guard but has trouble w/big NT's at center. wisnewski was all big ten at center for 2 years and at guard for 1 year so he could go either way.

brdempsey69
01-25-2011, 06:59 PM
Draft Pouncey in the first round.
LT Albert,LG Mankins,C Pouncey,RG Asamoah,RT B. Rich
I think B Rich will be better next year.Get some Tackles
in here to compete for the right tackle spot.Who knows,waters might want to retire.Plus he has lost alittle bit.Put Mc Cluster in the slot and leave him there.There not using him right.

Pouncey didn't help himself by electing not to participate in the Senior Bowl and Pioli is down there, now. One of the players the Chiefs have already interviewed is BC OT Anthony Castonzo. I like this lineup better:

LT Castonzo,LG Albert,C Kirkpatrick or O'Dowd,RG Asamoah,RT B. Rich

stevefuller
01-25-2011, 10:17 PM
Pouncey is off Pioli's chart.
Did anyone see Scott on the NFL channel last night?
He views the kids coming to compete as essential.

chiefskicker4
01-25-2011, 11:29 PM
1. Anthony Castanzo OT Boston College
2. Stefen Wisniewski OC Penn State
3. Greg Little WR UNC
4. Christian Ballard DT Iowa
5. Akeem Dent ILB Georgia
5. Will Hill S Florida
6. John Clay RB Wisconsin
7. Wayne Daniels OLB TCU
7. T.J. Yates QB UNC

Lazeye
01-26-2011, 01:34 AM
1st)Nate Solder-OT
This completes o-line,, as we have signed Logan Mankins-LG allowing us to slide B Waters to center.
Alberts/Mankins/Waters/Lilja/Solder

2nd)Randall Cobb-WR
This completes rebuild receiving corps, as we have, signed Santana Moss-WR to go along with D-Bowe/McCluster/Moss/Cobb/Young

3rd)Titus Young-WR
5'11" 178 sub 4.4

4th)Sione Fua-NT
5th)Brandon Fusco-C
5th)Greg Romeus-OLB
6th)Ricky Stanzi-QB
7th)Dion Lewis-RB
7th)Matt Szczur-WR
I can not find this anywhere
But I did dee where the fadiers got al saunders signed today as OC

Jrudi
01-26-2011, 11:19 AM
Pouncey is off Pioli's chart.
Did anyone see Scott on the NFL channel last night?
He views the kids coming to compete as essential.

Did not see him on the NFL Network. This seems like him though.

Does anyone else know of other potential Chiefs prospects that decided not to play this week?

Jrudi
01-26-2011, 11:23 AM
1. Anthony Castanzo OT Boston College
2. Stefen Wisniewski OC Penn State
3. Greg Little WR UNC
4. Christian Ballard DT Iowa
5. Akeem Dent ILB Georgia
5. Will Hill S Florida
6. John Clay RB Wisconsin
7. Wayne Daniels OLB TCU
7. T.J. Yates QB UNC

No way the Chiefs will draft this guy. Heard on the Scot Van Pelt show yesterday that this guy has some really bad character issues.

Had a 6 month long post on his Twitter account talking about using drugs every day, drinking and smoking, waking up to have sex in the morning, and supposedly his profile has him standing behind two chicks bent over in front of him.

Anyways heard it was bad stuff, and supposedly now he is backtracking what was posted because he realized it will hurt his draft stock. He said that his account had been hacked (yeah right.... for 6 months??)

This dude is not part of the right 53, I can see the Bengals or Raiders drafting him, but not the Chiefs.

stevefuller
01-26-2011, 12:00 PM
Pouncey isn't even on our board.

Nice post Jrudi....Pioli sat down with Atlanta GM( can't think of his name) and answered questions.
Stressed "scheme specific" kids has to fit scheme
Stressed character and is the person a leader
Team chemistry is above individuals.
Talked about T Jackson selection at #3 and why.
Pioli said he loves this week "players are in an uncertain setting...off campus, away from coaches and agents, he loves to see how they stand up in this kind of atmosphere"

4everchiefsfan25
01-26-2011, 12:00 PM
1. Anthony Castanzo OT Boston College
2. Stefen Wisniewski OC Penn State
3. Greg Little WR UNC
4. Christian Ballard DT Iowa
5. Akeem Dent ILB Georgia
5. Will Hill S Florida
6. John Clay RB Wisconsin
7. Wayne Daniels OLB TCU
7. T.J. Yates QB UNC
why draft another safety? We need to draft to fill holes and when all those holes are plugged up then draft for depth

Jrudi
01-26-2011, 12:32 PM
Pouncey isn't even on our board.

Nice post Jrudi....Pioli sat down with Atlanta GM( can't think of his name) and answered questions.
Stressed "scheme specific" kids has to fit scheme
Stressed character and is the person a leader
Team chemistry is above individuals.
Talked about T Jackson selection at #3 and why.
Pioli said he loves this week "players are in an uncertain setting...off campus, away from coaches and agents, he loves to see how they stand up in this kind of atmosphere"


Thomas Dimitroff.

Also for the next post.

If we draft any safety from Florida it will be Amahd Black. We probably won't be in a position to as he will more than likely be gone in the 2nd or 3rd rounds, and we don't have that strong of a need to draft one in those rounds.

I believe he is a Captain, hard worker, and lots of experience, with no known character issues. This is more of what Pioli likes.

brdempsey69
01-26-2011, 04:38 PM
I'd love to have Castonzo, but with the Pats sitting at #17 and the Giants sitting at #19, it don't look good as far as Castonzo falling to #21.

Ryfo18
01-26-2011, 04:42 PM
I'd love to have Castonzo, but with the Pats sitting at #17 and the Giants sitting at #19, it don't look good as far as Castonzo falling to #21.

I keep hearing Castonzo is getting abused at the Senior Bowl. He seems to be a little overrated as a LT prospect and probably projects more as a RT. His stock is dropping.

It's sounding more and more like Carimi is one of the most pro ready LT prospects currently (along w/ Sherrod). He's having some solid practices at the Senior Bowl.

Ryfo18
01-26-2011, 06:14 PM
Saw a quote from Texas A&M Linebacker Von Miller today. He said he patterns his game after Derrick Thomas. Too bad he won't be around at 21. I'm hearing more and more that he's pretty solid in dropping into coverage as well, which is why I thought he wouldn't be a good fit at first.

brdempsey69
01-26-2011, 09:11 PM
I keep hearing Castonzo is getting abused at the Senior Bowl. He seems to be a little overrated as a LT prospect and probably projects more as a RT. His stock is dropping.

It's sounding more and more like Carimi is one of the most pro ready LT prospects currently (along w/ Sherrod). He's having some solid practices at the Senior Bowl.

Bucky Brooks just reported on NFL.com that he's emerging as an elite OT.

http://blogs.nfl.com/2011/01/26/castonzo-solidifying-status-as-elite-offensive-tackle/

Pat Kirwin has also reported that Castonzo has looked very good. Not sure where the reports are coming from that he's getting abused.

My leaning is towards Carimi, because at the very least you get a monster RT in 2011 who provides insurance for LT, if Albert gets hurt.

Ryfo18
01-26-2011, 09:19 PM
Bucky Brooks just reported on NFL.com that he's emerging as an elite OT.

http://blogs.nfl.com/2011/01/26/castonzo-solidifying-status-as-elite-offensive-tackle/

Pat Kirwin has also reported that Castonzo has looked very good. Not sure where the reports are coming from that he's getting abused.

My leaning is towards Carimi, because at the very least you get a monster RT in 2011 who provides insurance for LT, if Albert gets hurt.

I was reading Shawn Zobel's blog. I still like Castonzo I just think Carimi seems like a future beast He wasn't asked to pass block a lot at WI but seems like he's a raw talent that can be developed.

Untitled Document (http://draftheadquarters.com/current-season/2011_Senior_Bowl/2011_Senior_Bowl_Day_Two_Practice.htm) (the part about Castonzo having a rough day. Day 3 was better for him I read).

I liked this interview with Carimi where he talks about "throwing guys around": http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/rap_sheet/index.php/2011/01/26/live-from-the-senior-bowl-wisconsin-ol-gabe-carimi-talks-about-throwing-guys-around/

brdempsey69
01-26-2011, 09:45 PM
I was reading Shawn Zobel's blog. I still like Castonzo I just think Carimi seems like a future beast He wasn't asked to pass block a lot at WI but seems like he's a raw talent that can be developed.

Untitled Document (http://draftheadquarters.com/current-season/2011_Senior_Bowl/2011_Senior_Bowl_Day_Two_Practice.htm) (the part about Castonzo having a rough day. Day 3 was better for him I read).

I liked this interview with Carimi where he talks about "throwing guys around": http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/rap_sheet/index.php/2011/01/26/live-from-the-senior-bowl-wisconsin-ol-gabe-carimi-talks-about-throwing-guys-around/

Here's a live feed of NFL Network if you got time to watch it:

Watch NFL Network Live Stream Online (http://www.firstrow.net/watch/31606/1/watch-nfl-network.html)

Ryfo18
01-26-2011, 09:49 PM
Here's a live feed of NFL Network if you got time to watch it:

Watch NFL Network Live Stream Online (http://www.firstrow.net/watch/31606/1/watch-nfl-network.html)

Thanks, wife is watching American Idol. I really like Mayock as an analyst too. I've been watching NFL Network on my TV whenever I get a chance though, this time of year is fun.

brdempsey69
01-27-2011, 03:11 AM
Got another report on Castonzo. He's showing he's the type of polished technician that you want at LT. He's certainly Pioli's type of guy, but I don't think he'll fall to the Chiefs at #21, but we never know.

NFL.com news: Purdue's Kerrigan among prospects flashing elite skills (http://www.nfl.com/seniorbowl/story/09000d5d81df014c/article/purdues-kerrigan-among-prospects-flashing-elite-skills?module=HP_cp2)

Ryfo18
01-27-2011, 12:44 PM
Keep getting different up/down reports on Castonzo, but I trust Mayock. He just said regardin Castonzo: "Starting left tackle in the league for the next ten year........Heck of a week."

brdempsey69
01-27-2011, 02:59 PM
All the top 4 OT's -- Solder, Carimi, Castonzo, Sherrod have 35+ inch arm length. No problems there. One of these guys will fall to #21.

Chiefscrazy
01-30-2011, 02:37 PM
Using a 1st rounder on a RT is not a good idea IMO! NT, WR & OC are my top choices for our 1st round pick. We should be able to find a solid RT in FA or the 4th round or later.

brdempsey69
01-30-2011, 02:56 PM
Using a 1st rounder on a RT is not a good idea IMO! NT, WR & OC are my top choices for our 1st round pick. We should be able to find a solid RT in FA or the 4th round or later.

Sure, so that Cassel can get the living hell beaten out of him in 2011 all season long against a tough schedule, just like we saw at the end of the season when they went against tough Defensive front 7's like the Raiders and Ravens & at the same time by passing on an OT in the 1st round, that can play either side, some other team takes the OT that the Chiefs pass on, and gets an immediate long term upgrade to their O-Line.

You're right, I don't know what those of us that are wanting an OT to be selected in the 1st round are thinking (sarcasm).

Three7s
01-30-2011, 05:28 PM
Sure, so that Cassel can get the living hell beaten out of him in 2011 all season long against a tough schedule, just like we saw at the end of the season when they went against tough Defensive front 7's like the Raiders and Ravens & at the same time by passing on an OT in the 1st round, that can play either side, some other team takes the OT that the Chiefs pass on, and gets an immediate long term upgrade to their O-Line.

You're right, I don't know what those of us that are wanting an OT to be selected in the 1st round are thinking (sarcasm).
I know that we need O-line, I'm just of the mindset that we need an RT and center more than LT. I know you hate Albert, that's no mystery to anyone on this board. I'd just rather finish the missing piece on the defense and get a NT in the first round.

Hopefully, we get a decent WR, RT, and center after that. Note that I didn't say OLB because I still have faith in Studebaker, unlike some here. I get that we could get some of these in FA, but you can't depend on it, especially with the CBA crap going on.

chief31
01-30-2011, 05:35 PM
I know that we need O-line, I'm just of the mindset that we need an RT and center more than LT. I know you hate Albert, that's no mystery to anyone on this board. I'd just rather finish the missing piece on the defense and get a NT in the first round.

Hopefully, we get a decent WR, RT, and center after that. Note that I didn't say OLB because I still have faith in Studebaker, unlike some here. I get that we could get some of these in FA, but you can't depend on it, especially with the CBA crap going on.

There is a mystery to that.

I had no idea that anyone around here hated Branden Albert.

Myself, I think he can be the best OG in The NFL, or a sub-par LOT.

But I don't think that anyone hates him, even as a LOT.

Three7s
01-30-2011, 05:41 PM
There is a mystery to that.

I had no idea that anyone around here hated Branden Albert.

Myself, I think he can be the best OG in The NFL, or a sub-par LOT.

But I don't think that anyone hates him, even as a LOT.
Well, I've learned to appreciate him because of the horrid LT play we had to go through in 06 and 07. You can't expect to have a guy at the level of Roaf every year.

Albert is below average to average, but he's like a pro bowler compared to the jokes we had to run out there like Svitek, Sackintosh, and those other scrubs.

Ryfo18
01-30-2011, 05:43 PM
I was thinking about this today. If the Chiefs are going to try to take a LT in this year's draft, I would love to see Waters traded (similar to how Gonzalez was a copule years back). He's still a solid NFL guard, but he's getting old. I would want a 2nd rounder at least back (who knows if he'd bring that, but going to the Pro Bowl this year can't hurt). Then Albert moves to LG and we have an extra 2nd round pick we can use to take a WR or OLB.

chief31
01-30-2011, 05:47 PM
Well, I've learned to appreciate him because of the horrid LT play we had to go through in 06 and 07. You can't expect to have a guy at the level of Roaf every year.

Albert is below average to average, but he's like a pro bowler compared to the jokes we had to run out there like Svitek, Sackintosh, and those other scrubs.

I'll grant you that.

But an upgrade at LOT would also allow Albert to move to OG, where he would likely be the best player on our O-line.

I just think you unfairly stuck Brdempsey as hating Albert for wanting to see him play at a position that better suits his skills.

Three7s
01-30-2011, 05:48 PM
I was thinking about this today. If the Chiefs are going to try to take a LT in this year's draft, I would love to see Waters traded (similar to how Gonzalez was a copule years back). He's still a solid NFL guard, but he's getting old. I would want a 2nd rounder at least back (who knows if he'd bring that, but going to the Pro Bowl this year can't hurt). Then Albert moves to LG and we have an extra 2nd round pick we can use to take a WR or OLB.
NT>OLB

@chief31
I usually refer as someone "hating" when they don't like a players capabilities at a certain position, even if they could move and be better at another. I always felt that Niswanger could make a pretty good guard with his size if we decided to move him, but I still "hate" him because of his ineptness at center.

chief31
01-30-2011, 05:55 PM
I was thinking about this today. If the Chiefs are going to try to take a LT in this year's draft, I would love to see Waters traded (similar to how Gonzalez was a copule years back). He's still a solid NFL guard, but he's getting old. I would want a 2nd rounder at least back (who knows if he'd bring that, but going to the Pro Bowl this year can't hurt). Then Albert moves to LG and we have an extra 2nd round pick we can use to take a WR or OLB.

Ideally, for me, I would love to see Albert get beat out by a draft pick, or free agent, at LOT, move to LOG, and just have Waters fill in at C. Provided, of course, Weigmann retires, or leaves through free agency.

Not that I want Albert to fail at LOT. But I would love to see someone come in and play better than Albert has.

I think getting rid of Waters would be a bad idea. He is a career Chief. I'd like to see him finish his career that way.

Plus, I doubt he would bring anything higher than a mid-third round pick in return.

Ryfo18
01-30-2011, 05:56 PM
NT>OLB

@chief31
I usually refer as someone "hating" when they don't like a players capabilities at a certain position, even if they could move and be better at another. I always felt that Niswanger could make a pretty good guard with his size if we decided to move him, but I still "hate" him because of his ineptness at center.

Yes, I wouldn't mind having a NT either. I was just throwing out some positions I feel we should look to upgrade. Hopefully Paea falls to the 2nd round after his injury at the Sr. bowl. I've heard good things about him.

Ryfo18
01-30-2011, 05:58 PM
Ideally, for me, I would love to see Albert get beat out by a draft pick, or free agent, at LOT, move to LOG, and just have Waters fill in at C. Provided, of course, Weigmann retires, or leaves through free agency.

This may happen, but I don't see him making that move at this point in his career. Just doesn't seem realistic to me.


Plus, I doubt he would bring anything higher than a mid-third round pick in return.

If that's the case, then I wouldn't want to trade him. At the outside chance that he could bring back a 2nd rounder though, I wouldn't hesitate.

brdempsey69
01-30-2011, 07:08 PM
I know that we need O-line, I'm just of the mindset that we need an RT and center more than LT. I know you hate Albert, that's no mystery to anyone on this board.......

This is incorrect & you don't know what you are talking about. I have spelled it out already in another thread about what I hate regarding Albert's situation ..... but I'll spell it out again & if anyone ( including you ) doesn't understand it, then perhaps they need to have it put into braille and shoved up their arse to understand it. Here goes......

What I hate is the Chiefs insistence of playing him out of position at LT ... and it's not working ... and anyone who's watched him over the last 2 years can clearly see that. They've wasted 3 years of his NFL career with this useless experiment, when instead he could have been a bonafide replacement for Will Shields ( Albert was a Guard in college, in case you hadn't heard ) & probably would have made the Pro Bowl by now. How much do wish to wager that if Marty or Dick Vermeil were still coaching that Albert would no longer be at LT?

I think the disease regarding Albert that seemingly is plaguing the Chiefs brass & a large segment of Chiefs fans is one called "self-delusion". It started before the 2010 draft with a large number of Chiefs fans slagging potential draftees Russell Okung and Bryan Bulaga because they were humping their neighbor's dog over Eric Berry and saying stupid stuff like "we don't need a LT, we have Branden Albert" & "why take Okung as a RT at #5". I had no problem with anyone wanting Eric Berry to be drafted, even though my personal preference was Russell Okung. The problem was all the "piss on our own heads and tell ourselves it's raining" nonsense came with it, such as "a Safety like Eric Berry will make more impact than a LT will" and the continual usage of "Branden Albert is our LT" crutch, that all-in-all has amounted to nothing but A BIG LIE. The problem is this big lie isn't fooling opponents on Sundays & just how delighted do suppose that AFC West opponents & their fans -- especially the Raiders -- were when the Chiefs ignored the O-Line with their top 3 draft picks in 2010?

Also, why did the Chiefs O-Line coach want the team to draft Russell Okung at #5 in the 2010 draft as you can see in this link:

Chiefs Coach Wanted Russell Okung | KC Chiefs Blog (http://www.kcchiefsblog.com/draft/chiefs-coach-wanted-russell-okung)

And that was also posted on the Seahawks home page, so it's not speculation & don't bother with trying to tell me " well, all coaches want their teams to draft for their units" -- it's just a copout. Do you think a team like the Browns would have their O-Line coach wanting the the their team to spend a top 10 pick on an LT when they have All-Pro Joe Thomas? Not a chance. The Chiefs O-Line coach wanted Russell Okung drafted because he wasn't happy with Albert's play at LT -- that's the bottom line, whether anyone likes it or not.

I find it very interesting how people like yourself, who are failing to see the situation regarding Albert with any sense of diplomacy or even objectively, are probably the same ones that are calling for Barry Richardson's head, even though Barry gave up 5 sacks all year in his 1st year as a starter & Albert gave up 6 or 7 in the last 4 regular season games, alone and this is his 3rd year as a starter at LT.

So the truth is I don't hate Albert, it's the f#cked-up situation that the Chiefs have put him in that's neither profitable to him, nor the need to shore up an o-Line that's been in dire need of it since Willie Roaf and Will Shields retired going back to 2006.

STOP USING BRANDEN ALBERT AS AN EXCUSIVE CRUTCH TO NOT TAKE A STELLAR OT IN THE 1ST ROUND OF THE DRAFT IF ONE IS AVAILABLE.

Three7s
01-30-2011, 07:28 PM
Funny, I've always felt the same way, only about the D-line. I just think defense is far more important than offense. I get that you want THE BEST O-LINEMAN, but you can't argue that we were god awful at Safety, and was a far worse position than O-line.

While we could go O-line in the 1st round this year, I really really hate Ron Edwards and I want him gone. (yes I mean HATE)

brdempsey69
01-30-2011, 07:47 PM
Funny, I've always felt the same way, only about the D-line. I just think defense is far more important than offense. I get that you want THE BEST O-LINEMAN, but you can't argue that we were god awful at Safety, and was a far worse position than O-line.

While we could go O-line in the 1st round this year, I really really hate Ron Edwards and I want him gone. (yes I mean HATE)

So be it, regarding how you feel regarding Ron Edwards, that's your discretion. I'd like a Quality NT to come in and spell him & take over for him full-time in the near future.

Yes, I can argue that the team was just as bad on the O-Line as they were at Safety in 2009. You take away Jamaal Charles and the Chiefs are drafting #1 or #2 in 2010, instead of #5. And when it comes to the draft, Safety is the easiest position to fill, and there were many good Safeties that the Chiefs could have had in the 2nd round and lower. Nate Allen was playing just as well as Berry before his injury and T.J. Ward also played just as well. I don't care who's over-hyped Berry or him getting invited to the Pro Bowl -- that's a classic case of the fans making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. At no time in NFL history has any Safety been more valuable than a stellar LT to any team.

Ryfo18
01-30-2011, 07:51 PM
So be it, regarding how you feel regarding Ron Edwards, that's your discretion. I'd like a Quality NT to come in and spell him & take over for him full-time in the near future.

Yes, I can argue that the team was just as bad on the O-Line as they were at Safety in 2009. You take away Jamaal Charles and the Chiefs are drafting #1 or #2 in 2010, instead of #5. And when it comes to the draft, Safety is the easiest position to fill, and there were many good Safeties that the Chiefs could have had in the 2nd round and lower. Nate Allen was playing just as well as Berry before his injury and T.J. Ward also played just as well. I don't care who's over-hyped Berry or him getting invited to the Pro Bowl -- that's a classic case of the fans making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. At no time in NFL history has any Safety been more valuable than a stellar LT to any team.

Troy Polamalu. And you can just look at how the Steelers do w/ and without him. Last year they weren't even a playoff team and he was gone most of the year.

Three7s
01-30-2011, 07:59 PM
So be it, regarding how you feel regarding Ron Edwards, that's your discretion. I'd like a Quality NT to come in and spell him & take over for him full-time in the near future.

Yes, I can argue that the team was just as bad on the O-Line as they were at Safety in 2009. You take away Jamaal Charles and the Chiefs are drafting #1 or #2 in 2010, instead of #5. And when it comes to the draft, Safety is the easiest position to fill, and there were many good Safeties that the Chiefs could have had in the 2nd round and lower. Nate Allen was playing just as well as Berry before his injury and T.J. Ward also played just as well. I don't care who's over-hyped Berry or him getting invited to the Pro Bowl -- that's a classic case of the fans making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. At no time in NFL history has any Safety been more valuable than a stellar LT to any team.
I get it, it's a matter of preference. To each his own.

brdempsey69
01-30-2011, 08:02 PM
Troy Polamalu. And you can just look at how the Steelers do w/ and without him. Last year they weren't even a playoff team and he was gone most of the year.

Nope, his abscence wasn't the sole reason the Steelers struggled in 2009, they were beat up all over the place. It's never that simple as one Safety missing from the lineup causing the entire team to collapse. Not having him didn't help, but he's missed time this year, and the Steelers have been able to carry on.

Let's see what happens in the Super Bowl without their starting Center against the Packers.

Ryfo18
01-30-2011, 08:13 PM
Nope, his abscence wasn't the sole reason the Steelers struggled in 2009, they were beat up all over the place. It's never that simple as one Safety missing from the lineup causing the entire team to collapse. Not having him didn't help, but he's missed time this year, and the Steelers have been able to carry on.

Let's see what happens in the Super Bowl without their starting Center against the Packers.

I'm more getting at, and tending to agree with Three7's, that defense is more important, and you don't need a force field at LT. I mean, it's no coincidence that something like 8 of the last 10 super bowl champs have been in the top 5 in scoring defense (I think Indy and New Orleans are the exceptions). Or that 4 of the top 6 scoring defenses this year were all in the AFC/NFC Championship games, and in either case the better scoring defense won and is now in the Super Bowl.

Jonathan Scott gave up 3 sacks in the divisional round against Terrell Suggs. Steelers won.

D'Brickashaw Ferguson is one of the best LT's in the league, he's not in the Super Bowl.

Chad Clifton (who is by no means an elite LT) got hurt in the AFC championship game and the Packers still managed to win. And the Steelers already managed to win with Pouncey out against the Jets.

And as far as the Chiefs defense goes, last year we were the 4th worst in scoring defense, this year top 10. Berry is part of that improvement, along with Kendrick Lewis. Our safety play was absolutely atrocious in 2009.

slc chief
01-30-2011, 08:39 PM
a dominant defense will get you a superbowl run more often than a dominate offense ask the cowgirls

brdempsey69
01-30-2011, 08:40 PM
I'm more getting at, and tending to agree with Three7's, that defense is more important, and you don't need a force field at LT. I mean, it's no coincidence that something like 8 of the last 10 super bowl champs have been in the top 5 in scoring defense (I think Indy and New Orleans are the exceptions). Or that 4 of the top 6 scoring defenses this year were all in the AFC/NFC Championship games, and in either case the better scoring defense won and is now in the Super Bowl.

Jonathan Scott gave up 3 sacks in the divisional round against Terrell Suggs. Steelers won.

D'Brickashaw Ferguson is one of the best LT's in the league, he's not in the Super Bowl.

Chad Clifton (who is by no means an elite LT) got hurt in the AFC championship game and the Packers still managed to win. And the Steelers already managed to win with Pouncey out against the Jets.

And as far as the Chiefs defense goes, last year we were the 4th worst in scoring defense, this year top 10. Berry is part of that improvement, along with Kendrick Lewis. Our safety play was absolutely atrocious in 2009.

Safety play wasn't all that dramatically much better in 2010. The real reason for Defensive improvement was a revamped Defensive front 7 that a did a much better job at stopping the run & rushing the passer. Try putting Berry & Lewis with the 2009 front 7 that was like a sieve and the results would be marginal at best, if any at all.

People are such suckers for the cliche "defense wins championships" , but if you closely examine the Chiefs post season failures that have occurred since their SB win in '69, it's been primarily because of a lack of balance regarding both sides of the ball ( '71 squad & '93 squads excluded ). In '92, '95 & '97, they had championship caliber defenses, but lack of Offense lead to one and done in the post season. In 2003, they had the Offense, but the Defense had collapsed and one and done, again. The point is that you have to have BOTH to win championships. I have yet to see an exception to that, and that includes the 2000 Ravens, 2007 Ravens, '63 Bears, you name it.

And the Ravens this year did more to lose that game, than the Steelers did to win it, by making inexcusable mistakes. Packers Offense sputtered after Clifton went out and they won against a 3rd string QB.

josh1971
01-30-2011, 08:47 PM
a dominant defense will get you a superbowl run more often than a dominate offense ask the cowgirls

Or KC during the whole time Vermiel was coach. HUGE offensive numbers- no defense.


I'm not sure Ron Edwards is someone worth "Hating"- I mean, hate is a pretty intense emotion.

But I too, think he ought to be gone, and replaced with someone much more talented at the position. I wonder what a line consisting of Tyson Jackson-Shaun Smith- Glenn Dorsey would be like...

Still, I'd like to see us get someone stellar in there at 'drain plug'.

Jrudi
01-30-2011, 09:25 PM
Using a 1st rounder on a RT is not a good idea IMO! NT, WR & OC are my top choices for our 1st round pick. We should be able to find a solid RT in FA or the 4th round or later.

So RT's aren't supposed to be taken in the 1st rnd but you think a center should be? doesn't make sense to me.

just because of pouncey last year doesn't mean centers will be the next hot position to take in the 1st rnd. I think the top rated OC is projected in the 2nd.

I would rather draft a tackle than a center at #21

brdempsey69
01-30-2011, 09:33 PM
Or KC during the whole time Vermiel was coach. HUGE offensive numbers- no defense.


I'm not sure Ron Edwards is someone worth "Hating"- I mean, hate is a pretty intense emotion.

But I too, think he ought to be gone, and replaced with someone much more talented at the position. I wonder what a line consisting of Tyson Jackson-Shaun Smith- Glenn Dorsey would be like...

Still, I'd like to see us get someone stellar in there at 'drain plug'.

You might very well see that scenario in 2011 & that would be a good one.

OK, lets say a NT with the #21 pick. Here's a guy to consider

Phillip Taylor, Baylor, NFL Draft - CBSSports.com - NFLDraftScout.com (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1117626)

Phil Taylor of Baylor. Had great Senior Bowl. 6-4, 337-pound frame. Does have a checkered history, however. Does Pioli maybe trade down and take him, or roll the dice at #21 or wait till the 2nd or 3rd round and take the best NT or not even take one at all, as was the case in 2010?

And I'm not going to point any fingers at Ron Edwards, but he did get wore out as the season went on. Smith was supposed to be the one spelling him, but TJ's injury forced Smith into a full-time starting position at DE & certainly didn't help Edward's cause any ( not making excuses for him, that simply was the nature of the beast ).

Jrudi
01-30-2011, 09:36 PM
Nope, his abscence wasn't the sole reason the Steelers struggled in 2009, they were beat up all over the place. It's never that simple as one Safety missing from the lineup causing the entire team to collapse. Not having him didn't help, but he's missed time this year, and the Steelers have been able to carry on.

Let's see what happens in the Super Bowl without their starting Center against the Packers.


The weakest part of the Steelers team is their o-line and they are in the SB.

The reality is there are a number of ways to build a successful team. The GM determines what is more important to that specific team.

One thing both SB teams have in common is stout defenses. I do agree we need help on Offense but a stout defense will help us go further into the playoffs and contend for Super Bowls.

brdempsey69
01-30-2011, 10:22 PM
The weakest part of the Steelers team is their o-line and they are in the SB.

The Steelers O-Line problems are due to injuries & they've had a fair share of luck in both their playoff wins, as well as the other teams shooting themselves in the foot.



The reality is there are a number of ways to build a successful team. The GM determines what is more important to that specific team.

So what? That doesn't mean they're always right or even have the credentials to be there to begin with. Often times, 2 or 3 high schools kids using a Ouija board can do a better job drafting & managing player personell than some of the GM's I've seen over the years. See Matt Millen. The best GM in Chiefs history was Don Klosterman. He had a track record few could match & I'll bet money that he would not have taken a Safety over a superb pass-blocking LT at #5 in the draft.



One thing both SB teams have in common is stout defenses. I do agree we need help on Offense but a stout defense will help us go further into the playoffs and contend for Super Bowls.


That's absolute bullsh!t !! The Chiefs defense played well enough for them to win that playoff game against the Ravens. They were on the field way too much in the 2nd half due to Offensive ineptitude --- 4 turnovers in 3rd quarter and -23 yards in total Offense after that 4th down play that got stuffed, and last, but certainly not least, the inability to protect the passer when the Ravens knew the Chiefs had to throw the ball. No defense is going to win any championships when you have those type of Offensive statistics.

You have to have BOTH Offense and Defense, and both the Packers and Steelers have had just enough of both to get them where they are.

Ryfo18
01-30-2011, 10:53 PM
Safety play wasn't all that dramatically much better in 2010. The real reason for Defensive improvement was a revamped Defensive front 7 that a did a much better job at stopping the run & rushing the passer. Try putting Berry & Lewis with the 2009 front 7 that was like a sieve and the results would be marginal at best, if any at all.

C'mon, plays of 40 yards or more were cut in half (20 to 10) and there were no run plays over 40 yards. Sure the front 7 helps too, but the main point is the back end wasn't getting beat. I mean, it's safe to assume that most plays of 40 yards or more resulted in scores as well...That's 70 more points, which takes the Chiefs from the top 10 in scoring defense, to the bottom 10. My only point is that Eric Berry was not a bad pick at all and he's had a very positive impact on the defense.

Ryfo18
01-30-2011, 11:00 PM
Nope, his abscence wasn't the sole reason the Steelers struggled in 2009, they were beat up all over the place. It's never that simple as one Safety missing from the lineup causing the entire team to collapse. Not having him didn't help, but he's missed time this year, and the Steelers have been able to carry on.

Let's see what happens in the Super Bowl without their starting Center against the Packers.

Of course it wasn't the sole reason, but it was the main reason. In games he played their defense averaged 13.8 points against and they were 4-1. In games he didn't play their defense averaged 23.2 points against and they were 5-6. Everyone was talking about this last year.

brdempsey69
01-30-2011, 11:19 PM
C'mon, plays of 40 yards or more were cut in half (20 to 10) and there were no run plays over 40 yards. Sure the front 7 helps too, but the main point is the back end wasn't getting beat. I mean, it's safe to assume that most plays of 40 yards or more resulted in scores as well...That's 70 more points, which takes the Chiefs from the top 10 in scoring defense, to the bottom 10. My only point is that Eric Berry was not a bad pick at all and he's had a very positive impact on the defense.

Correction, Berry had a slight impact on the Defense & he wasn't the best pick -- that's my point. A lot of times in Pass Defense he was a pigeon & was nowhere close to being the player he was hyped up to be in that area. Perhaps he'll be better in that in his 2nd year -- we'll see. The biggest & most positive impact on Defense was from Coach Crennell and his assistants. Also the schedule was much easier than the previous year, now wasn't it? Not going to have that luxury in 2011 and they're going to need help from the Offense in the form of being able to move the ball and score points -- and that will start up front with the O-Line.

Of course, if people want to rest their laurels on the smoke and mirrors of 2010, then by all means write letters to Pioli asking him to ignore the O-Line in the upcoming draft & if he listens to you -- and I suspect he might -- well then I hope everybody grinds their teeth & feels great from the frustration of seeing the Chiefs Offense continually turn the ball back over to the other team with the Defense spending the greater majority of the game on the field.

THINK BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO PLATOONS -- and right now the Offensive needs are greater than the Defensive needs.


Of course it wasn't the sole reason, but it was the main reason. In games he played their defense averaged 13.8 points against and they were 4-1. In games he didn't play their defense averaged 23.2 points against and they were 5-6. Everyone was talking about this last year.

And how many of those games during that stretch did they allow kick returns for TD's to inflate that 23.2 average? Including their game at KC? It wasn't the main reason, it was part of it to an extent. What about this season, when he wasn't there? And the game against NE when he was?

Bringing Polamalu into the discussion regarding Berry is ludicrous. Two different players, two different men, from two different walks of life, playing for 2 different teams.

Ryfo18
01-30-2011, 11:27 PM
Correction, Berry had a slight impact on the Defense & he wasn't the best pick -- that's my point. A lot of times in Pass Defense he was a pigeon & was nowhere close to being the player he was hyped up to be in that area. Perhaps he'll be better in that in his 2nd year -- we'll see. The biggest & most positive impact on Defense was from Coach Crennell and his assistants. Also the schedule was much easier than the previous year, now wasn't it? Not going to have that luxury in 2011 and they're going to need help from the Offense in the form of being able to move the ball and score points -- and that will start up front with the O-Line.

Of course, if people want to rest their laurels on the smoke and mirrors of 2010, then by all means write letters to Pioli asking him to ignore the O-Line in the upcoming draft & if he listens to you -- and I suspect he might -- well then I hope everybody grinds their teeth & feels great from the frustration of seeing the Chiefs Offense continually turn the ball back over to the other team with the Defense spending the greater majority of the game on the field.

THINK BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO PLATOONS -- and right now the Offensive needs are greater than the Defensive needs.

Agree, but if the best player available at 21 is a defensive guy at a position we need, by all means we should grab him.

brdempsey69
01-30-2011, 11:38 PM
Agree, but if the best player available at 21 is a defensive guy at a position we need, by all means we should grab him.

I really don't believe that will be the case. More likely, you'll see Offensive and Defensive players pretty much grouped together as far as ratings of BPA go at that spot. Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if anywhere to 12-15 Defensive players come off the board in the 1st 20 picks. Of course, if the top 3 OT's & WR's are off the board & you have some stellar pass rushers that are still there, then common sense and logic would have you take one of those guys & the Chiefs do need one.

Jrudi
01-31-2011, 06:43 PM
Correction, Berry had a slight impact on the Defense & he wasn't the best pick -- that's my point. A lot of times in Pass Defense he was a pigeon & was nowhere close to being the player he was hyped up to be in that area. Perhaps he'll be better in that in his 2nd year -- we'll see. The biggest & most positive impact on Defense was from Coach Crennell and his assistants. Also the schedule was much easier than the previous year, now wasn't it? Not going to have that luxury in 2011 and they're going to need help from the Offense in the form of being able to move the ball and score points -- and that will start up front with the O-Line.

Of course, if people want to rest their laurels on the smoke and mirrors of 2010, then by all means write letters to Pioli asking him to ignore the O-Line in the upcoming draft & if he listens to you -- and I suspect he might -- well then I hope everybody grinds their teeth & feels great from the frustration of seeing the Chiefs Offense continually turn the ball back over to the other team with the Defense spending the greater majority of the game on the field.

THINK BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO PLATOONS -- and right now the Offensive needs are greater than the Defensive needs.



And how many of those games during that stretch did they allow kick returns for TD's to inflate that 23.2 average? Including their game at KC? It wasn't the main reason, it was part of it to an extent. What about this season, when he wasn't there? And the game against NE when he was?

Bringing Polamalu into the discussion regarding Berry is ludicrous. Two different players, two different men, from two different walks of life, playing for 2 different teams.

Yeah 92 total tackles is just a small impact on the defense. I mean it only landed him as the 2nd leading tackler on the team behind DJ with 121.

I mean Polamalu could get 92 tackles in his sleep... Oh yeah he only had 38 Total tackles his rookie year.

Actually comparing Berry's rookie stats to a certain person with the last name of Reed look pretty similar.

Berry: 92 Total Tkls, 77 solo; 15 assists, 2 scks, 13 passes defended; 4int's, 1 TD, 54 yd long int return.

Reed: 85 Total Tkls; 71 solo; 14 assists; 1 sck, 12 passes defended; 5 int's; 59 yd long int return.

Pretty similar, sounds like a small impact to our D to me too. I think we should just get rid of him and bring Pollard back.

brdempsey69
01-31-2011, 06:53 PM
Yeah 92 total tackles is just a small impact on the defense. I mean it only landed him as the 2nd leading tackler on the team behind DJ with 121.

I mean Polamalu could get 92 tackles in his sleep... Oh yeah he only had 38 Total tackles his rookie year.

Actually comparing Berry's rookie stats to a certain person with the last name of Reed look pretty similar.

Berry: 92 Total Tkls, 77 solo; 15 assists, 2 scks, 13 passes defended; 4int's, 1 TD, 54 yd long int return.

Reed: 85 Total Tkls; 71 solo; 14 assists; 1 sck, 12 passes defended; 5 int's; 59 yd long int return.

Pretty similar, sounds like a small impact to our D to me too. I think we should just get rid of him and bring Pollard back.

And how many TD passes given up? Did you see the Pro Bowl yesterday? I did and he clearly looked like he didn't belong.

Funny you should mention Pollard as he looks like a Pollard clone to me.

You can worship him all you want to, but he's got a long ways to go to prove that he was worth the #5 overall pick in the draft. He's got talent & he's got potential, but as of right now, he's way over-hyped.

Jrudi
01-31-2011, 07:04 PM
And how many TD passes given up? Did you see the Pro Bowl yesterday? I did and he clearly looked like he didn't belong.

Funny you should mention Pollard as he looks like a Pollard clone to me.

You can worship him all you want to, but he's got a long ways to go to prove that he was worth the #5 overall pick in the draft. He's got talent & he's got potential, but as of right now, he's way over-hyped.


I watched as well, and it was the PRO BOWL. they might as well have played two hand touch. You could see all the players jogging around.

I guarantee you both coaches had a speech that said "remember we are here to have a good time, a clean entertaining game, and no injuries. Even tough I know that each of you are competitive or else you wouldn't be playing this game, let's keep it at about 75% speed, no hard hits or cheap shots. It doesn't matter who wins, lets just have fun and put on a show."

I'm not saying he is the savior of our franchise... But I am on Ryfo18's side in this argument, in saying you aren't giving him enough credit for the solid rookie campaign he put together for us. He is and will continue to develop into a good player for this team. Not every 1 round pick is going to amount to an All pro level talent, but I think he does have the making of a player who will become a game changer for our defense.

MoShak123
01-31-2011, 07:05 PM
I dont know why in the World People Are Hating on Brian Waters the man is a pro bowler yet some people want to move him to center and put jon Asomoah in his spot. I think this a terrible idea and he is a monster OG. Sign Vincent Jackson and Draft Peae and go from there

70 chiefsfan70
01-31-2011, 07:08 PM
Yeah 92 total tackles is just a small impact on the defense. I mean it only landed him as the 2nd leading tackler on the team behind DJ with 121.

I mean Polamalu could get 92 tackles in his sleep... Oh yeah he only had 38 Total tackles his rookie year.

Actually comparing Berry's rookie stats to a certain person with the last name of Reed look pretty similar.

Berry: 92 Total Tkls, 77 solo; 15 assists, 2 scks, 13 passes defended; 4int's, 1 TD, 54 yd long int return.

Reed: 85 Total Tkls; 71 solo; 14 assists; 1 sck, 12 passes defended; 5 int's; 59 yd long int return.

Pretty similar, sounds like a small impact to our D to me too. I think we should just get rid of him and bring Pollard back.


Those are very impressive numbers for any player, even more so by a rookie.

slc chief
01-31-2011, 07:16 PM
And how many TD passes given up? Did you see the Pro Bowl yesterday? I did and he clearly looked like he didn't belong.

Funny you should mention Pollard as he looks like a Pollard clone to me.

You can worship him all you want to, but he's got a long ways to go to prove that he was worth the #5 overall pick in the draft. He's got talent & he's got potential, but as of right now, he's way over-hyped.
sorry but this is one of the dumbest comments i have ever read.judging a defender in the pro bowl wow.berry is the man look at his rookie stats all the proof is what he did this year overhyped my a##

chief31
01-31-2011, 07:31 PM
Nope, his abscence wasn't the sole reason the Steelers struggled in 2009, they were beat up all over the place. It's never that simple as one Safety missing from the lineup causing the entire team to collapse. Not having him didn't help, but he's missed time this year, and the Steelers have been able to carry on.

Let's see what happens in the Super Bowl without their starting Center against the Packers.

Did they get there without a stellar LOT?

When was the last time The Steelers, the Super Bowl-winningest team in The NFL, had a stellar LOT?


At no time in NFL history has any Safety been more valuable than a stellar LT to any team.

This is where you invited Polamolu's name into the discussion.

Last season, when he was out of the lineup, they didn't just lose alot. They lost to terrible football teams. (@ 4-12 KC; Home Vs 5-11 Oak; and @ 5-11 Cle.) And with Troy, they were able to trounce teams like The Vikings, Chargers and Packers.

And he is the MVP of The Steelers. And should be considered for NFL MVP.

He may be the exception to the rule. But he is one of the most valuable players in the entire league.


The point is that you have to have BOTH to win championships. I have yet to see an exception to that, and that includes the 2000 Ravens, 2007 Ravens, '63 Bears, you name it.



Well, The 2000 Ravens had some guys come out and run off some clock during the post season, same as any team. But the defense had to play well enough to make up for a poor offense. And they did.

I agree with the basis that you are presenting, that you want balance. And that The Chiefs are in far better shape on defense, than they are on offense.

There are plenty of Super Bowl teams, winners, or losers, that I can see calling balanced.

But I think the majority are generally stacked, statistically, on one side, or the other.

But I agree that all of those teams strive to achieve a better balance, by bringing their weaker half up to the level of their stronger half.

I just think that you are going a bit over the top with these "Never" and "No exceptions" kind of comments, to try and prove your points.

And you really don't have to, because those points are quite valid. And some people are just going to feel like there are stronger points.

I have argued against "defense wins championships" before. And I still am still on the "con" side of it.

But I think it a great argument. Primarily because there is evidence for both sides of the debate.

Teams with better defenses and running games do seem to have a little bit more success than the passing offenses do.

But recent rule changes (Pass interference) may have balanced that out some.

Anyway, I don't think that either debate (LOT Vs Safety, or Defense wins championships) is quite as lop-sided as it is made to sound.

brdempsey69
01-31-2011, 07:31 PM
sorry but this is one of the dumbest comments i have ever read.judging a defender in the pro bowl wow.berry is the man look at his rookie stats all the proof is what he did this year overhyped my a##

And this is one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen. Is that all you looked at was the stats? What about TD passes given up? Did you even watch the games? What was seen in the Pro Bowl was seen repeatedly throughout the season. Your statement about him being "the man" just further illustrates what I said about being over-hyped. "The man" on the Chiefs defense this season was Tamba Hali.

chief31
01-31-2011, 07:38 PM
I dont know why in the World People Are Hating on Brian Waters the man is a pro bowler yet some people want to move him to center and put jon Asomoah in his spot. I think this a terrible idea and he is a monster OG. Sign Vincent Jackson and Draft Peae and go from there


How is that hating?

It is suggesting that he is good enough to play an even more important position.

The reason for moving him would be that he is far from a young guy, and we seem to have a very young guy who is ready to step in. As well as allowing Waters to fill, what may be, a major hole in our offense, should Weigmann not return.

brdempsey69
01-31-2011, 07:51 PM
Well, The 2000 Ravens had some guys come out and run off some clock during the post season, same as any team. But the defense had to play well enough to make up for a poor offense. And they did.


This is a misconception as far as the Ravens offense being poor in 2000. They were poor through the first part of the season when Tony Banks was their starting QB. When Dilfer took over as their starting QB, their Offense came to life. Here's the proof:

Baltimore Ravens Schedule at NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/teams/schedule?team=BAL&season=2000&seasonType=REG)

Just look at what happened from week 10 onward. They had a 1300+ rusher in Jamaal Lewis, a solid O-Line with a stellar LT named Jon Ogden & they hit for some big-play TD's through the air in the postseason. They were not a poor Offense from week 10 on, and like I said that is a misconception.

Ryfo18
01-31-2011, 07:53 PM
And how many of those games during that stretch did they allow kick returns for TD's to inflate that 23.2 average? Including their game at KC? It wasn't the main reason, it was part of it to an extent. What about this season, when he wasn't there? And the game against NE when he was?

Bringing Polamalu into the discussion regarding Berry is ludicrous. Two different players, two different men, from two different walks of life, playing for 2 different teams.

I didn't go far enough to look that up. But I did look it up for the games that Troy P. played. The Steelers gave up kick return TDs in 3 of those 5 games, thus inflating the 13.8 number I gave you earlier when Polamalu was in the lineup. And they only lost one of those games. I can say with 100% certainty that Troy Polamalu is a HUGE reason for the Steelers success.

Like Berry, I also wouldn't call Polamalu's strong point his pass coverage. The fact of the matter is that he takes a lot of risks and more often than not he puts himself in the right place to make big plays. He's certainly not anything more than average though if he's lined up man to man on a guy. The Steelers can get beat through the air, just as Tom Brady showed us.

I should clarify that I'm not saying Berry is anywhere near where Polamalu is at this point in Polamalu's career. I definitely think he has the potential to be though, and that is worth drafting at #5. One other thing that is not talked about a lot, Berry did not miss a single down this year. He was in on EVERY single defensive play. That's huge, especially for a guy that is sacrificing his body on several plays a game.

brdempsey69
01-31-2011, 08:05 PM
I didn't go far enough to look that up. But I did look it up for the games that Troy P. played. The Steelers gave up kick return TDs in 3 of those 5 games, thus inflating the 13.8 number I gave you earlier when Polamalu was in the lineup. And they only lost one of those games. I can say with 100% certainty that Troy Polamalu is a HUGE reason for the Steelers success.

I also wouldn't call Polamalu's strong point his pass coverage. The fact of the matter is that he takes a lot of risks and more often than not he puts himself in the right place to make big plays. He's certainly not anything more than average though if he's lined up man to man on a guy. The Steelers can get beat through the air, just as Tom Brady showed us.

Agreed. As for man-to-man this is the area that I'd like to Berry improve as he's faster than Polumalu. I don't dispute that Polumalu makes the Steelers Defense better, but at the same time I can't ignore the fact that he's had the good fortune to have a talented front 7 to help him out, same as Ed Reed.

Anyway, Berry does have a lot of room for improvement to justify his draft status, and anyone who watched the Chiefs games this year ought to know that.



I should clarify that I'm not saying Berry is anywhere near where Polamalu is at this point in Polamalu's career. I definitely think he has the potential to be though, and that is worth drafting at #5. One other thing that is not talked about a lot, Berry did not miss a single down this year. He was in on EVERY single defensive play. That's huge, especially for a guy that is sacrificing his body on several plays a game.

Well, as for Berry not missing any plays, the Chiefs in general have had good fortune to not get bit by the injury bug. It's not surprising that Berry didn't miss any plays, as he never did in college.

brdempsey69
01-31-2011, 08:39 PM
Back on topic. Fine and well, I'll get on the Defensive bandwagon with the Chiefs first pick at #21. As I said in another thread, though, if that's the case, then I really believe that LSU OT Joseph Barksdale is a guy that the Chiefs need to try and take in the 2nd or 3rd round. He'll give them quality depth at OT right from the get-go, and probably take a starting OT position in year 2, if not at some point in year 1. He's the best pass-blocking OT in this draft & a good solid pick in the 2nd round, steal in the 3rd round.

chief31
01-31-2011, 08:43 PM
This is a misconception as far as the Ravens offense being poor in 2000. They were poor through the first part of the season when Tony Banks was their starting QB. When Dilfer took over as their starting QB, their Offense came to life. Here's the proof:

Baltimore Ravens Schedule at NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/teams/schedule?team=BAL&season=2000&seasonType=REG)

Just look at what happened from week 10 onward. They had a 1300+ rusher in Jamaal Lewis, a solid O-Line with a stellar LT named Jon Ogden & they hit for some big-play TD's through the air in the postseason. They were not a poor Offense from week 10 on, and like I said that is a misconception.


No misconception at all. When the playoffs arrived, there was nothing but defense.

And there is no way that you feel like that offense was anywhere near the level of that defense, even for the games that you selected.

And if you do think that is a balanced team that won The Super Bowl, then there has never been an unbalanced team.

That offense didn't manage 300 yards of total offense in any, of the four postseason games that they played. They averaged just 225 yards of total offense per playoff game. By the way, that's dead last amongst teams that played more than one playoff game. (7) And would have ranked 31st during the regular season.

Meanwhile, the defense made their opponents look just as horrid, only with 12 turnovers.

Dead last in offense, and they won The Super Bowl.

What is your definition of the word "balance"?

Maybe they managed to not be horrible for a few regular season games, but, even then, they were nowhere near being "balanced" with a defense that allowed just 10 points per game that year.

brdempsey69
01-31-2011, 09:27 PM
No misconception at all. When the playoffs arrived, there was nothing but defense.

And there is no way that you feel like that offense was anywhere near the level of that defense, even for the games that you selected.


I never said that their Offense was near the level of their Defense. But the statement you just made about "nothing but defense' is not true at all. I watched all those games that they played in the that post season. Their Offense scored when it was needed to help them seize a foothold in those games, making those average yards per game irrelevant.




And if you do think that is a balanced team that won The Super Bowl, then there has never been an unbalanced team.

That offense didn't manage 300 yards of total offense in any, of the four postseason games that they played. They averaged just 225 yards of total offense per playoff game. By the way, that's dead last amongst teams that played more than one playoff game. (7) And would have ranked 31st during the regular season.

Meanwhile, the defense made their opponents look just as horrid, only with 12 turnovers.

Dead last in offense, and they won The Super Bowl.

What is your definition of the word "balance"?

Maybe they managed to not be horrible for a few regular season games, but, even then, they were nowhere near being "balanced" with a defense that allowed just 10 points per game that year.



Yes, I do think that was a balanced team even if their Offense wasn't at the level of their Defense. If they hadn't had Dilfer there to inject some life into their Offense and would have had to go with Tony Banks the rest of the season as their starting QB, then they don't get to the Super Bowl, even with that great Defense.

My definition of balance is having an Offense that can move the ball score points when it's needed & the Ravens Offense did that in the 2000 post-season. I don't care about those average yards per game because it doesn't mean they were totally inept. They wouldn't have won the SB if their Offense had been totally inept. They certainly weren't spectacular & certainly without that great Defense, they don't get there, but the point is, their Defense did not and could not do it alone. I think your definition of balance is the Offense being just as spectacular as the Defense or vica-versa, which doesn't happen very often.

If want an example of inept Offenses being paired with great Defenses, look no further that the '92, '95, and '97 Chiefs ( Marty caused that by jerking Rich Gannon out of the starting lineup before the playoffs ). Each of those teams were one and done in the post-season. That's what I mean by balanced -- meaning being sufficient, which the Ravens Offense was in the 2000 post-season -- not totally inept, like the Chiefs teams listed above.

slc chief
01-31-2011, 09:38 PM
if the chiefs had a dominant defense. with the offense they have right now. i would like our chances at making a run at the superbowl.it is obvious we need upgrade at the 0-line and a true no#2 receiver.but i like our chances of feeling those needs via free agency give me a good line backer with our first round pick.i do not like the lb's that are available through free agency this year.other than a few that will most likely resign with their currant teams

brdempsey69
01-31-2011, 09:47 PM
if the chiefs had a dominant defense. with the offense they have right now. i would like our chances at making a run at the superbowl.it is obvious we need upgrade at the 0-line and a true no#2 receiver.but i like our chances of feeling those needs via free agency give me a good line backer with our first round pick.i do not like the lb's that are available through free agency this year.other than a few that will most likely resign with their currant teams

They had dominant defenses in '95 and '97 with Offenses very much like what they have now & where did they wind up in the post-season? One and done. No way is this Offense good enough to get them to a Super Bowl, even with a dominant Defense -- not with their O-Line getting demolished by good Defensive front 7's.

chief31
01-31-2011, 10:26 PM
I never said that their Offense was near the level of their Defense. But the statement you just made about "nothing but defense' is not true at all. I watched all those games that they played in the that post season. Their Offense scored when it was needed to help them seize a foothold in those games, making those average yards per game irrelevant.



Yes, I do think that was a balanced team even if their Offense wasn't at the level of their Defense. If they hadn't had Dilfer there to inject some life into their Offense and would have had to go with Tony Banks the rest of the season as their starting QB, then they don't get to the Super Bowl, even with that great Defense.

My definition of balance is having an Offense that can move the ball score points when it's needed & the Ravens Offense did that in the 2000 post-season. I don't care about those average yards per game because it doesn't mean they were totally inept. They wouldn't have won the SB if their Offense had been totally inept. They certainly weren't spectacular & certainly without that great Defense, they don't get there, but the point is, their Defense did not and could not do it alone. I think your definition of balance is the Offense being just as spectacular as the Defense or vica-versa, which doesn't happen very often.

If want an example of inept Offenses being paired with great Defenses, look no further that the '92, '95, and '97 Chiefs ( Marty caused that by jerking Rich Gannon out of the starting lineup before the playoffs ). Each of those teams were one and done in the post-season. That's what I mean by balanced -- meaning being sufficient, which the Ravens Offense was in the 2000 post-season -- not totally inept, like the Chiefs teams listed above.

So by balance, all you mean is winning, even if one side of the ball does a far below average job?

The worst offense, partnered with the best defense is balance?

Well, now I see why we are just destined to disagree on this.

I am bound by logic.

Sorry man. I think you are top-notch contributor to the site, and a real smart guy. But I see no logic in trying to post the 2000 Ravens as balanced.


2000 Ravens
Offense / Defense
Yards - 16th / Yards - 2nd
Scoring - 14th / Scoring - 1st

1997 Chiefs
Offense / Defense
Yards - 14th / Yards - 11th
Scoring - 5th / Scoring - 1st

1995 Chiefs
Offense / Defense
Yards - 14th / Yards - 2nd
Scoring - 12th / Scoring - 1st

1992 Chiefs
Offense / Defense
Yards - 25th / Yards - 5th
Scoring - 7th / Scoring - 13th





The only real difference in those teams, is that one of them won in the postseason, as terribly unbalanced as that was.

Those Ravens allowed an average of 5.8 points per game in the 2000/01 postseason. And the defense and ST, not including the kicker, scored an average of six points per game.

That team didn't need an offense. The fact that they were able to hit a couple of big plays, and alot of FGs that were handed to them by TOs that the defense caused, is what was irrelevant.

Ryfo18
01-31-2011, 10:28 PM
They had dominant defenses in '95 and '97 with Offenses very much like what they have now & where did they wind up in the post-season? One and done. No way is this Offense good enough to get them to a Super Bowl, even with a dominant Defense -- not with their O-Line getting demolished by good Defensive front 7's.

Ok I finally went back and watched that train wreck of a game, and I've got to be honest, the O-line played pretty good. If you go look at the sack numbers, obviously it doesn't look pretty. Every single sack though I counted to 5 before Cassel went down. The only exception was the tuck-rule that got overturned. They blitzed hard from the right and the whole line collapsed and Cassel really had no time.

The one time that Albert gave up a sack it was well after Cassel should have thrown the ball. The rest of the 2nd half he passed block very well and didn't give up another hit.

The problem? Receivers were not getting open. If I can count to 5 every time that Cassel gets sacked, then it's gotta be on the receivers (or Cassel just refusing to throw the ball).

This is why we need to take a WR early. I think Pioli goes either OLB/NT and WR in the 1st two rounds and gets some Oline depth in the 3rd round and later (seems to be how he works regarding the O line). Of course, this might all change if they make a move for a FA WR like Jones or Breaston. Needless to say, after watching that game we need someone that can get open when Bowe has coverage rolled to him.

chief31
01-31-2011, 10:55 PM
The one time that Albert gave up a sack it was well after Cassel should have thrown the ball. The rest of the 2nd half he passed block very well and didn't give up another hit.



I don't have time to back through the whole game right now, but...

Albert gave up a sack because3 he got beaten, badly, by Suggs. Had Cassel thrown to his first option, then it wouldn't have happened. But he was not allowed time to find a second. 3.7 seconds. Not horrible. But you expect better than that from the blind side.

The other play I faulted him on was the flea-flicker attempt. He blocked nobody. And the man he should have blocked got pressure before Cassel could throw it.

Not that Branden did a horrible job in that game. But I do fault him on both of those plays.

slc chief
01-31-2011, 11:01 PM
And this is one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen. Is that all you looked at was the stats? What about TD passes given up? Did you even watch the games? What was seen in the Pro Bowl was seen repeatedly throughout the season. Your statement about him being "the man" just further illustrates what I said about being over-hyped. "The man" on the Chiefs defense this season was Tamba Hali.

tamba was the man this year so was flowers,berry,dorsey and dj for parts of it anyway(dj).i dont care how much you love to argue.you do not get voted to the pro bowl and get instent respect from people who have played the position in the nfl(rod woodson,rodney harrison). by not having a solid rookie debut. does he have room for improvement in his coverage. duh yeah he was a rookie last year.what next woodson and harrison dont know what they are looking for when it commes to safeties in the nfl. give it up man berry is going to be a pro bowler for many years to come.

Ryfo18
01-31-2011, 11:13 PM
I don't have time to back through the whole game right now, but...

Albert gave up a sack because3 he got beaten, badly, by Suggs. Had Cassel thrown to his first option, then it wouldn't have happened. But he was not allowed time to find a second. 3.7 seconds. Not horrible. But you expect better than that from the blind side.

The other play I faulted him on was the flea-flicker attempt. He blocked nobody. And the man he should have blocked got pressure before Cassel could throw it.

Not that Branden did a horrible job in that game. But I do fault him on both of those plays.

You're right I watched the sack again, I must have counted on the slow mo replay b/c I got right about 3.7. He gave up on his block, Cassel had looked at two options though and neither was open.

brdempsey69
02-01-2011, 12:01 AM
So by balance, all you mean is winning, even if one side of the ball does a far below average job?

The worst offense, partnered with the best defense is balance?

Well, now I see why we are just destined to disagree on this.

I am bound by logic.

Sorry man. I think you are top-notch contributor to the site, and a real smart guy. But I see no logic in trying to post the 2000 Ravens as balanced.


2000 Ravens
Offense / Defense
Yards - 16th / Yards - 2nd
Scoring - 14th / Scoring - 1st

1997 Chiefs
Offense / Defense
Yards - 14th / Yards - 11th
Scoring - 5th / Scoring - 1st

1995 Chiefs
Offense / Defense
Yards - 14th / Yards - 2nd
Scoring - 12th / Scoring - 1st

1992 Chiefs
Offense / Defense
Yards - 25th / Yards - 5th
Scoring - 7th / Scoring - 13th


The only real difference in those teams, is that one of them won in the postseason, as terribly unbalanced as that was.

Those Ravens allowed an average of 5.8 points per game in the 2000/01 postseason. And the defense and ST, not including the kicker, scored an average of six points per game.

That team didn't need an offense. The fact that they were able to hit a couple of big plays, and alot of FGs that were handed to them by TOs that the defense caused, is what was irrelevant.


Didn't need an Offense, huh?. Then why the change of QB's at midseason? To bolster the Offense, of course, and make their team less one-dimensional and more....psssst, what's that word again?....BALANCED. Sorry, but those big play TD's were not irrelevant, they were huge in determining the outcome of those games. They were not the worst Offense in the NFL that year & even though they may have had the worst statistics in the post season, they were not inept -- they scored points when they needed to & if they hadn't, then they don't get to the Super Bowl and win it, even with that great Defense.

Sorry, but there are differences between the 2000 Ravens & those Chiefs teams listed above. The Ravens had a better O-Line than any of those Chiefs teams that included a ....what's that you say again?.... stellar LT named Jon Ogden. And Jamaal Lewis ran for over 100 yards twice in the post season in 2000. Their receiver corps was better than the '92 and '95 Chiefs squads and at least equal to the '97 squad. Like I said before, the Ravens Offense in the 2000 was sufficient, but not inept like the Chiefs squads that were mentioned. I never said the 2000 Ravens Offense was as good as their Defense. But, they were not totally one-dimensional, they had just enough Offense when they needed it.


tamba was the man this year so was flowers,berry,dorsey and dj for parts of it anyway(dj).i dont care how much you love to argue.you do not get voted to the pro bowl and get instent respect from people who have played the position in the nfl(rod woodson,rodney harrison). by not having a solid rookie debut. does he have room for improvement in his coverage. duh yeah he was a rookie last year.what next woodson and harrison dont know what they are looking for when it commes to safeties in the nfl. give it up man berry is going to be a pro bowler for many years to come.

I don't care who's hyping him up & I'm not giving up anything as I stand by what I said -- I know what I saw when I watched the games. His getting voted to the Pro Bowl doesn't mean squat. Who was AFC's leading QB sacker, but yet didn't get initially voted to the Pro Bowl (Tamba Hali)? That should tell anyone with any common sense that the Pro Bowl voting is based on more on a popularity contest than actual production on the field.


As for being a Pro Bowler for many years -- nobody knows that for certain. If he does, then great, but then again for all anybody knows he could become another injury casualty like 1990 1st rd pick Percy Snow and 2000 1st rd pick Sylvester Morris -- one season and done.


Ok I finally went back and watched that train wreck of a game, and I've got to be honest, the O-line played pretty good. If you go look at the sack numbers, obviously it doesn't look pretty. Every single sack though I counted to 5 before Cassel went down. The only exception was the tuck-rule that got overturned. They blitzed hard from the right and the whole line collapsed and Cassel really had no time.

The one time that Albert gave up a sack it was well after Cassel should have thrown the ball. The rest of the 2nd half he passed block very well and didn't give up another hit.

The problem? Receivers were not getting open. If I can count to 5 every time that Cassel gets sacked, then it's gotta be on the receivers (or Cassel just refusing to throw the ball).

This is why we need to take a WR early. I think Pioli goes either OLB/NT and WR in the 1st two rounds and gets some Oline depth in the 3rd round and later (seems to be how he works regarding the O line). Of course, this might all change if they make a move for a FA WR like Jones or Breaston. Needless to say, after watching that game we need someone that can get open when Bowe has coverage rolled to him.

As much as I wished that the one game against the Ravens was a one-time abomination for the O-Line, we'd all be just kidding ourselves if we believed that. It happened multiple times against the type of Defensive front 7's that they are going to have face at least twice as often outside the division & let's not forget in the division, as well.

I agree that WR help is needed, but if Pioli does employ the strategy of just drafting for depth in the later rounds for the O-Line it's more than likely going to backfire on him. He'd be much better served to try and draft a talented OT and a talented Center that can come in and help right now somewhere in the upper rounds. It's inevitable that they are going to have draft some young talent for the O-Line & the time to start is now. Putting it off year after year does not make the problem go away, it only makes it worse.

Ryfo18
02-01-2011, 12:24 AM
As much as I wished that the one game against the Ravens was a one-time abomination for the O-Line, we'd all be just kidding ourselves if we believed that. It happened multiple times against the type of Defensive front 7's that they are going to have face at least twice as often outside the division & let's not forget in the division, as well.

All I was trying to say was that on watching it again, it was not at all a bad game by the O-line. Cassel had plenty of time to throw just about all game. I just rewatched, I was uncomfortable watching him sit in the pocket and look through his progressions before taking a sack. There was a bad play on the Suggs sack by Albert, and the tuck rule play the right side of the line got blew up. Outside of that, I was pretty impressed with how much time they gave him to throw.

I think we'd both agree that the Patriots line is very solid, and they played a lot of the teams we'll have to play next year. Just taking a look across the board (all of these guys were picked by Pioli):

RT - Sebastian Vollmer (Rd 2 pick 58)
RG - Dan Connolly (Practice Squad FA)
C - Dan Koppen (Rd 5 Pick 164)
LG - Logan Mankings (Rd 1 pick 32)
LT - Matt Light (Rd 2 Pick 48)

Pioli does seem to have a knack for finding guys outside of Rd 1 (Mankins was the last pick in the 1st round and is one of the best guards in the league). A guy like Barksdale makes a lot of sense in Rd 2/3. Him or some other schmuck we don't have our eye on yet that Pioli and his scouting department has identified. Not saying it will happen b/c I think he's projected late round 1 early round 2, but a guy like Wisniewski at Center in Rd 2 would also be solid.

brdempsey69
02-01-2011, 12:48 AM
All I was trying to say was that on watching it again, it was not at all a bad game by the O-line. Cassel had plenty of time to throw just about all game. I just rewatched, I was uncomfortable watching him sit in the pocket and look through his progressions before taking a sack. There was a bad play on the Suggs sack by Albert, and the tuck rule play the right side of the line got blew up. Outside of that, I was pretty impressed with how much time they gave him to throw.

I think we'd both agree that the Patriots line is very solid, and they played a lot of the teams we'll have to play next year. Just taking a look across the board (all of these guys were picked by Pioli):

RT - Sebastian Vollmer (Rd 2 pick 58)
RG - Dan Connolly (Practice Squad FA)
C - Dan Koppen (Rd 5 Pick 164)
LG - Logan Mankings (Rd 1 pick 32)
LT - Matt Light (Rd 2 Pick 48)

Pioli does seem to have a knack for finding guys outside of Rd 1 (Mankins was the last pick in the 1st round and is one of the best guards in the league). A guy like Barksdale makes a lot of sense in Rd 2/3. Him or some other schmuck we don't have our eye on yet that Pioli and his scouting department has identified. Not saying it will happen b/c I think he's projected late round 1 early round 2, but a guy like Wisniewski at Center in Rd 2 would also be solid.

I picked up on what you saying about the Ravens game -- and I think we both agree that the game seemingly came undone on that botched 4th down play. But what happened against the Raiders twice was a whole different story.

I really believe that Barksdale has a chance to make to #55 as he's been labeled as an underachiever ( I'll gladly take an underachiever that gave up no sacks in every game played in 2010 in the 2nd round ). Asamoah was projected as a 2nd rounder & fell to them in the 3rd round and he wasn't labeled as an underachiever, although that group of O-Lineman in 2010 was far deeper than this year. Regardless, OT should come in the top 2 rounds as your graph of the Pats suggests.

Other Center candidates are Fusco and Kirkpatrick. 4th or 5th round for one of these guys.

Ryfo18
02-01-2011, 01:12 AM
Asked a couple "draftniks" about Barksdale and they both said "around the 5th round." Granted, these guys aren't Mike Mayock, but they do their homework. If that's the case, I would definitely say he seems like a good fit. Raw talent, and like you said never gave up a sack...Where did you see that?

Worries me that he played Right Tackle while Ciron Black played LT, who wasn't even drafted last year...

Ryfo18
02-01-2011, 02:04 AM
I found the article posted on Jan 22, 2011 before the East-West Shrine game:

interview,east west shrine,joseph barksdale,lsu | National Football Report (http://thenationalfootballreport.com/?p=2194)

Cool thanks for the info. Just watching Ciron Black be slated as a mid rounder last year and then not getting picked OR signed to a practice squad raises a flag for me regarding Barksdale. I don't know enough about him though as a player to say he's a steal. From what I hear he's a pretty raw prospect that would need some development, which is understandable for a mid round guy.



If he lasts until the 5th round and the Chiefs get him with one their two 5th round picks, it'll be the biggest draft day steal for the O-Line since Will Shields in the 3rd round in 1993.

Where did our 2nd 5th rounder come from? I'm trying to find out which picks we have exactly. I can't find the compensation for Page either.

brdempsey69
02-01-2011, 02:10 AM
Asked a couple "draftniks" about Barksdale and they both said "around the 5th round." Granted, these guys aren't Mike Mayock, but they do their homework. If that's the case, I would definitely say he seems like a good fit. Raw talent, and like you said never gave up a sack...Where did you see that?

Worries me that he played Right Tackle while Ciron Black played LT, who wasn't even drafted last year...

I found the article posted on Jan 22, 2011 before the East-West Shrine game:

interview,east west shrine,joseph barksdale,lsu | National Football Report (http://thenationalfootballreport.com/?p=2194)



KC-How do you feel the season went?
JB-I feel it went really well. I feel I did very well. Definitely alot better than last year, that was one of my goals. I didn’t give up any sacks, that was another one of my goals.

If he lasts until the 5th round and the Chiefs get him with one their two 5th round picks, it'll be the biggest draft day steal for the O-Line since Will Shields in the 3rd round in 1993.



Cool thanks for the info. Just watching Ciron Black be slated as a mid rounder last year and then not getting picked OR signed to a practice squad raises a flag for me regarding Barksdale. I don't know enough about him though as a player to say he's a steal. From what I hear he's a pretty raw prospect that would need some development, which is understandable for a mid round guy.


Where did our 2nd 5th rounder come from? I'm trying to find out which picks we have exactly. I can't find the compensation for Page either.

From the Alex Magee trade to TB. Black stunk up the combine last year. If Barksdale can make a decent combine showing, he should be drafted.

chief31
02-01-2011, 07:25 PM
Didn't need an Offense, huh?. Then why the change of QB's at midseason? To bolster the Offense, of course, and make their team less one-dimensional and more....psssst, what's that word again?....BALANCED. Sorry, but those big play TD's were not irrelevant, they were huge in determining the outcome of those games.

First game, against The Broncos...

Denver Broncos at Baltimore Ravens - December 31st, 2000 - Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200012310rav.htm)

Defense allowed three points. Just give 'em a couple of FGs, and that's all.

Second game, against The Titans...

Baltimore Ravens at Tennessee Titans - January 7th, 2001 - Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200101070oti.htm)

Defense allows ten points, but scored on an INT TD, and a Blocked FG for another TD.

No offense needed.

Third game, against The Raiders...

Baltimore Ravens at Oakland Raiders - January 14th, 2001 - Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200101140rai.htm)

Defense allowed three points, and caused five turnovers.

Kick a couple of FG off of those Turnovers, and no need for any more points.

Super Bowl, against The Giants...

Baltimore Ravens vs. New York Giants - January 28th, 2001 - Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200101280nyg.htm)

The defense allowed seven points, and scored on a KR TD and an INT Return TD>

No need for the offense.




They were not the worst Offense in the NFL that year & even though they may have had the worst statistics in the post season, they were not inept -- they scored points when they needed to & if they hadn't, then they don't get to the Super Bowl and win it, even with that great Defense.

All they needed was to have a little bit of time run off the clock, and a Kicker.


Sorry, but there are differences between the 2000 Ravens & those Chiefs teams listed above. The Ravens had a better O-Line than any of those Chiefs teams that included a ....what's that you say again?.... stellar LT named Jon Ogden. And Jamaal Lewis ran for over 100 yards twice in the post season in 2000. Their receiver corps was better than the '92 and '95 Chiefs squads and at least equal to the '97 squad. Like I said before, the Ravens Offense in the 2000 was sufficient, but not inept like the Chiefs squads that were mentioned. I never said the 2000 Ravens Offense was as good as their Defense. But, they were not totally one-dimensional, they had just enough Offense when they needed it.

Then you don't mean "balanced". Because that is what it means. Even, from one side, to the other.

brdempsey69
02-01-2011, 07:40 PM
First game, against The Broncos...

Denver Broncos at Baltimore Ravens - December 31st, 2000 - Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200012310rav.htm)

Defense allowed three points. Just give 'em a couple of FGs, and that's all.

Second game, against The Titans...

Baltimore Ravens at Tennessee Titans - January 7th, 2001 - Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200101070oti.htm)

Defense allows ten points, but scored on an INT TD, and a Blocked FG for another TD.

No offense needed.

Third game, against The Raiders...

Baltimore Ravens at Oakland Raiders - January 14th, 2001 - Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200101140rai.htm)

Defense allowed three points, and caused five turnovers.

Kick a couple of FG off of those Turnovers, and no need for any more points.

Super Bowl, against The Giants...

Baltimore Ravens vs. New York Giants - January 28th, 2001 - Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200101280nyg.htm)

The defense allowed seven points, and scored on a KR TD and an INT Return TD>

No need for the offense.


That a bunch of baloney. Their Offense hit for some big play TD's in 3 of those games. If their Offense had not scored points or moved the ball to some degree, they wouldn't have won the SB. You are suggesting that they could have won if their Offense had gone 3 and out on every possession. I watched those games & I know that's not the case.



All they needed was to have a little bit of time run off the clock, and a Kicker.



Nope. They needed timely TD's from their Offense and that was what they got.



Then you don't mean "balanced". Because that is what it means. Even, from one side, to the other.

That's your definition, not mine. Mine is not being one-dimensional when it comes to football. We are not talking about a weigh-scale here. The only team I can recall that finished 1st in the league in Offense and Defense and won the SB was the '72 Dolphins.

chief31
02-01-2011, 08:08 PM
That a bunch of baloney. Their Offense hit for some big play TD's in 3 of those games. If their Offense had not scored points or moved the ball to some degree, they wouldn't have won the SB. You are suggesting that they could have won if their Offense had gone 3 and out on every possession. I watched those games & I know that's not the case.

Pretty close. See below....




All they needed was to have a little bit of time run off the clock, and a Kicker.

They didn't manage 300 yards of offense, rushing and passing, combined, in any one of those games. Against The Titans, they only got 134 yards, total, and only had 6 first downs for the game.

Maybe they had a few good games during the regular season. But, once the playoffs came along, they were poor.



Nope. They needed timely TD's from their Offense and that was what they got.

What did they need the extra points for? Showmanship?

They scored three TDs in the first game, but only needed six points to win.

After that, the Defense/Return game accounted for just as many TDs as the offense, which was more than their opponents.

57 points (excluding defensive scoring and ST/Return TDs), divided by four games is 14 points per game. How low should it be to be considered 'inept'?


That's your definition, not mine. Mine is not being one-dimensional when it comes to football. We are not talking about a weigh-scale here.

Would you prefer Merriam-Websters' definition?

brdempsey69
02-01-2011, 11:01 PM
Pretty close. See below....


They didn't manage 300 yards of offense, rushing and passing, combined, in any one of those games. Against The Titans, they only got 134 yards, total, and only had 6 first downs for the game.

Maybe they had a few good games during the regular season. But, once the playoffs came along, they were poor.


No, they weren't poor. Just efficient enough. They did play against pretty good Defenses, as well. The Chiefs teams of '92, '95 and '97 were poor.




What did they need the extra points for? Showmanship?


Never heard of a team not trying for an extra point, except when the score a TD in overtime.



They scored three TDs in the first game, but only needed six points to win.

After that, the Defense/Return game accounted for just as many TDs as the offense, which was more than their opponents.


Not in the AFC championship game against the Raiders. They hit a 96-yard TD pass in that game that was the games only TD. Like I've said already, their Offense put points on the board when it was needed. Plus, they had a 100 yard rusher in 2 of those games. The Chiefs squads in '92, '95, and '97 didn't.



57 points (excluding defensive scoring and ST/Return TDs), divided by four games is 14 points per game. How low should it be to be considered 'inept'?


How about the 0, 7 , and 10 points scored by the Chiefs '92, '95, and '97 squads. That's barely over 5 points per game. How many wins? Zero. That's inept.



Would you prefer Merriam-Websters' definition?



No, I prefer my own, regardless if anyone chooses to agree with it or not.

chief31
02-02-2011, 12:18 AM
No, they weren't poor. Just efficient enough. They did play against pretty good Defenses, as well. The Chiefs teams of '92, '95 and '97 were poor.




Never heard of a team not trying for an extra point, except when the score a TD in overtime.



Not in the AFC championship game against the Raiders. They hit a 96-yard TD pass in that game that was the games only TD. Like I've said already, their Offense put points on the board when it was needed. Plus, they had a 100 yard rusher in 2 of those games. The Chiefs squads in '92, '95, and '97 didn't.



How about the 0, 7 , and 10 points scored by the Chiefs '92, '95, and '97 squads. That's barely over 5 points per game. How many wins? Zero. That's inept.



No, I prefer my own, regardless if anyone chooses to agree with it or not.I am done.

If having the worst offense in the playoff, and the best defense is your idea of balance, then it is useless to bother.

You don't care what the words you use actually mean. So you may actually be saying that that offense was bad, but just don't know how to properly use the words.

And it doesn't make any sense to debate with someone who is going to use a made-up language.

brdempsey69
02-02-2011, 01:02 AM
I am done.

If having the worst offense in the playoff, and the best defense is your idea of balance, then it is useless to bother.


You are referring to "Worst Offense" in the form of average yards per game, but you have to consider they played 4 postseason games & against some good Defenses. Okay, so the Broncos averaged more yards per game in that one game they played against the Ravens & lost, than the Ravens did in 4 games in that same post-season.

You know what that proves? It proves the saying used by a one of Len Dawson's greatest rival QB's back when Lenny was playing -- former Raiders QB Daryle Lamonica:

"It's not statistics that count, it's points on the scoreboard"

The Ravens Offense did put the points on the board when they needed them. The average yards per game does not negate that fact.



You don't care what the words you use actually mean. So you may actually be saying that that offense was bad, but just don't know how to properly use the words.


I never said they were bad or inept. I've said all along that they were efficient & put points on the board when it was needed. Were they spectacular? No. And that's not surprising, given they played some decent Defenses in that post season run. But they did a good job taking care of the ball and not repeatedly turning it over in their own territory. And no way do they win the SB if they go 3 and out every time.



And it doesn't make any sense to debate with someone who is going to use a made-up language.

LOL, you can call it what you want, but my analysis still stands. And that is that you have to have both Offense and Defense to get to the SB and win it. Granted, one platoon may be better than the other, but you have be efficient to a degree on both sides ... in other words some semblance of BALANCE -- not totally one dimensional -- as was the case with the '92, '95, '97 & 2003 Chiefs squads.

What do you suppose would have happened if the 2003 Chiefs Squad would have had the Defense from '95 or '97 playing with that 2003 Offense, instead of the 2003 Defense that completely collapsed late in the season and made them one-dimensional heading into the post season? Or if Joe Montana had been able to stick around and QB those '95 and '97 squads? I'll leave you to conjecture that.

Ryfo18
02-02-2011, 02:19 AM
I think we need a thread: "How the 2000 Ravens won the Super Bowl and why the Chiefs 90's teams had no chance." :punk: :punk:

brdempsey69
02-02-2011, 03:04 AM
I think we need a thread: "How the 2000 Ravens won the Super Bowl and why the Chiefs 90's teams had no chance." :punk: :punk:

Hey, I tried to go back on topic, and will do so again. Solder is listed as the top pick by the thread starter. I say no, not at #21 because he's not a finished product by any means, he's still a work in progress. But at #55 in the 2nd round, I'd take a stab at him.

Three7s
02-02-2011, 04:11 AM
I am done.

If having the worst offense in the playoff, and the best defense is your idea of balance, then it is useless to bother.

You don't care what the words you use actually mean. So you may actually be saying that that offense was bad, but just don't know how to properly use the words.

And it doesn't make any sense to debate with someone who is going to use a made-up language.
Good for you. I figured out pretty quickly that dempsey is hell-bent on his opinion and will not waiver one bit. I have no doubts that brdempsey is a good person and a passionate football fan, it's just pointless to continue on a hapless debate.

As for my take on the Ravens offense of 2000, I agree with chief31 completely. ANY offense can score at times, even the freaking Chiefs of 2007-2009. Will they win with that kind of offense? Not without the Ravens defense.

brdempsey69
02-02-2011, 05:07 AM
Good for you. I figured out pretty quickly that dempsey is hell-bent on his opinion and will not waiver one bit. I have no doubts that brdempsey is a good person and a passionate football fan, it's just pointless to continue on a hapless debate.


And that's where you got it all wrong. I didn't just give an opinion, I provided examples time and again to back it up.



As for my take on the Ravens offense of 2000, I agree with chief31 completely. ANY offense can score at times, even the freaking Chiefs of 2007-2009. Will they win with that kind of offense? Not without the Ravens defense.

Nobody said they could have won the SB in 2000 without that great Defense. What was said was: Even with that great Defense, they couldn't have done it without some semblance of Offense.

chief31
02-02-2011, 01:25 PM
Good for you. I figured out pretty quickly that dempsey is hell-bent on his opinion and will not waiver one bit. I have no doubts that brdempsey is a good person and a passionate football fan, it's just pointless to continue on a hapless debate.

As for my take on the Ravens offense of 2000, I agree with chief31 completely. ANY offense can score at times, even the freaking Chiefs of 2007-2009. Will they win with that kind of offense? Not without the Ravens defense.

Yeah. I like him. I even agree with just about all of his opinions about needing to be a balanced team. As well as the importance of a LOT over a Safety.

But there is no sense in debating someone who is going to make up definitions for words, just to not admit misspeaking.

Boxermm187
02-02-2011, 02:00 PM
cheers for the present and future!!!!!!!! the past is the past. GO CHIEFS!!!:bananen_smilies046: :chiefs:
A lot of GM's and not enough fans!
In Scott Pioli we trust!

brdempsey69
02-02-2011, 02:49 PM
Yeah. I like him. I even agree with just about all of his opinions about needing to be a balanced team. As well as the importance of a LOT over a Safety.

But there is no sense in debating someone who is going to make up definitions for words, just to not admit misspeaking.

LOL, I didn't know there was a pre-requisite to conform to grammar police policies on this forum. I don't know what I was thinking. What's next? Do I have to go before a judge and have the judge say " your guilty of misspeaking -- so bayliff, wack his pee-pee".

Sorry, but I spelled it out time and again why I defined things the way I did & my analysis still stands, regardless if one likes it or not. You can call it misspeaking if it makes you feel better, but I made it quite clear where I was coming from & I stand by it.

chief31
02-02-2011, 03:32 PM
LOL, I didn't know there was a pre-requisite to conform to grammar police policies on this forum. I don't know what I was thinking. What's next? Do I have to go before a judge and have the judge say " your guilty of misspeaking -- so bayliff, wack his pee-pee".

Sorry, but I spelled it out time and again why I defined things the way I did & my analysis still stands, regardless if one likes it or not. You can call it misspeaking if it makes you feel better, but I made it quite clear where I was coming from & I stand by it.

Yeah, I get it. Your idea of balance is winning, regardless of what the word balance means.

Good for you.

brdempsey69
02-02-2011, 03:44 PM
Yeah, I get it. Your idea of balance is winning, regardless of what the word balance means.

Good for you.

Well, if you wish to harbor ill-will for something that petty, so be it.

Now, if would kindly let this thread get back on topic, as I have twice tried to do, it would be greatly appreciated.

chief31
02-02-2011, 04:02 PM
Well, if you wish to harbor ill-will for something that petty, so be it.

Now, if would kindly let this thread get back on topic, as I have twice tried to do, it would be greatly appreciated.

So you are asking me not to respond, so as to get the thread back on track? And you have done that twice? When?

You even responded when I was done, and talking to someone else. See below....





Good for you. I figured out pretty quickly that dempsey is hell-bent on his opinion and will not waiver one bit. I have no doubts that brdempsey is a good person and a passionate football fan, it's just pointless to continue on a hapless debate.

As for my take on the Ravens offense of 2000, I agree with chief31 completely. ANY offense can score at times, even the freaking Chiefs of 2007-2009. Will they win with that kind of offense? Not without the Ravens defense.
Yeah. I like him. I even agree with just about all of his opinions about needing to be a balanced team. As well as the importance of a LOT over a Safety.

But there is no sense in debating someone who is going to make up definitions for words, just to not admit misspeaking.

I was already done with it then. I didn't respond to your last comments at that point.

Also, determining what kind of balance we want for this team is directly relevant to a draft discussion. That's how we got to the topic of The Ravens.

Not that I mind threads going off-topic . It is going to happen, as that's how discussion works.

Anyway.... No ill-will here. I even stated that I think you are a great member of the site, and that I like you here.

I am quite capable of debate without grudges.

brdempsey69
02-02-2011, 04:19 PM
So you are asking me not to respond, so as to get the thread back on track? And you have done that twice? When?

You even responded when I was done, and talking to someone else. See below....





I was already done with it then. I didn't respond to your last comments at that point.

Also, determining what kind of balance we want for this team is directly relevant to a draft discussion. That's how we got to the topic of The Ravens.

Not that I mind threads going off-topic . It is going to happen, as that's how discussion works.

Anyway.... No ill-will here. I even stated that I think you are a great member of the site, and that I like you here.

I am quite capable of debate without grudges.

Post #81 and Post #104. And no, I'm not asking you to stop responding by any means -- knock yourself out. I was just simply asking to go back on topic with the mock draft thread, but whatever, by all means, proceed with what you wish.

brdempsey69
02-02-2011, 04:33 PM
^^Ok, my bad for not being more specific when I say "going back on topic". What players do you like and what position would you like to see the Chiefs draft in the 1st? Perhaps you already stated so & I missed it, but I'll ask, anyway.

pbatrucker
02-02-2011, 04:37 PM
Just saw were Barnes, OC, MO and Kirkpatrick, OC, TCU where not invited to the combine. Both are possible draft choices for the Chiefs. At least one of them should be available in the 3rd rd or later.

brdempsey69
02-02-2011, 04:41 PM
Just saw were Barnes, OC, MO and Kirkpatrick, OC, TCU where not invited to the combine. Both are possible draft choices for the Chiefs. At least one of them should be available in the 3rd rd or later.

Wow, what's up with that? I hope it's nothing injury related. Kirkpatrick, in particular looks like a good Center prospect.

pbatrucker
02-02-2011, 05:31 PM
Wow, what's up with that? I hope it's nothing injury related. Kirkpatrick, in particular looks like a good Center prospect.
Yes I was really surprised and IMO Kirkpatrick could be high on the Chiefs board.
You can find the list of invitees at cbssportsline.com

chief31
02-02-2011, 05:33 PM
^^Ok, my bad for not being more specific when I say "going back on topic". What players do you like and what position would you like to see the Chiefs draft in the 1st? Perhaps you already stated so & I missed it, but I'll ask, anyway.

About the same as you.

I have been begging for a LOT since the year Roaf retired. (Broke my heart that offseason.)

Beyond that I look at ROT and C as major needs.

WR is probably our weakest position, but I agree with most who suggest finding a solution to that through free agency.

Elsewhere, all positions seem to be in fair enough shape to where all that is needed is depth, or small upgrades.

Ron Edwards played well this season, but an upgrade could be had at NT.

At CB, Carr seems to be coming around. But I would be happy to see some competition come in and strengthen the position.

I like our DEs, and our LBs seem to have guys that look capable of filling those positions quite well.

Offensive line, as with each of the past four offseasons, is my main focus this year.

brdempsey69
02-02-2011, 07:30 PM
About the same as you.

I have been begging for a LOT since the year Roaf retired. (Broke my heart that offseason.)


Brother, you not alone there. I've been waiting for a bonafide replacement for Roaf since he retired -- and I still believe Russell Okung was that guy -- not anybody on the Chiefs roster currently.



Beyond that I look at ROT and C as major needs.


Yes, especially Center. The middle of the O-Line was getting demolished late in the season & it won't get any better until some bonafide talent is brought in via the draft or FA.



WR is probably our weakest position, but I agree with most who suggest finding a solution to that through free agency.


Same here. At WR there is no substitute for experience. And experienced WR's will almost always make a immediate impact as opposed to rookies that may take time to develop, although there are occasions where rookie WR's do make an instant splash.



Elsewhere, all positions seem to be in fair enough shape to where all that is needed is depth, or small upgrades.

Ron Edwards played well this season, but an upgrade could be had at NT.


At CB, Carr seems to be coming around. But I would be happy to see some competition come in and strengthen the position.


NT is a need area for sure, even with Shaun Smith being able to play there. Depth is pretty good elsewhere, except maybe Safety. Another good corner is always welcome.




I like our DEs, and our LBs seem to have guys that look capable of filling those positions quite well.


Agreed here, also. I understand Chiefs fans wanting a killer pass-rushing SOLB, but I don't want the Chiefs to spend the #21 overall pick on one without guys like Studebaker, Sheffield, and Cory Greenwood getting the chance to show what they can do with extensive playing time, at least for this year -- that's a mistake and add to the fact all have a years worth of experience under Crennel and that they are more ready to show what they can do more so than any rookie.



Offensive line, as with each of the past four offseasons, is my main focus this year.


I'm also hopeful, as well. I'll never understand why so many Chiefs fans want to continue pretending that it's not a need area that needs to addressed in the upper round of the draft & act like it's an abomination to draft a stud OT in the 1st round -- it's been proven over the last 20 years that the OT position has the lowest bust rate of all positions and when you get a good OT, it's so much easier to build the rest of your O-Line when the kingpin is in place. Of course, if Chiefs fans enjoy watching Cassel get battered into a zombie when they get into obvious passing situations, then they'll get their wish if the Chiefs brass continues to keep putting off this area of need.

Jrudi
02-03-2011, 06:45 PM
Agreed. As for man-to-man this is the area that I'd like to Berry improve as he's faster than Polumalu. I don't dispute that Polumalu makes the Steelers Defense better, but at the same time I can't ignore the fact that he's had the good fortune to have a talented front 7 to help him out, same as Ed Reed.

Anyway, Berry does have a lot of room for improvement to justify his draft status, and anyone who watched the Chiefs games this year ought to know that.



Well, as for Berry not missing any plays, the Chiefs in general have had good fortune to not get bit by the injury bug. It's not surprising that Berry didn't miss any plays, as he never did in college.


Just thought I look up what justifies a top 5 pick based on the performances of the top 5 picks in years 04-08 (excluded 09 and 10, to soon to determine)

I rated these based on how you seem to think a top 5 pick should produce. They are either "Elite" at their position, and if they aren't... they are considered a "Bust" because it seems to me that you feel, if a player in the top 5 is not Elite at his position he is a bust even if he is an average to above average player. So here it goes...


2008
Jake Long -Elite
Chris Long- Bust/Average
Matt Ryan - Elite
Darren McFadden- Bust/Average (Best year was this year)
Glenn Dorsey- Bust/Average (Best year was this year)

2007
JaMarcus Russell - Bust (Extreme)
Calvin Johnson - Elite
Joe Thomas - Elite
Gaines Adams - Bust
Levi Brown - Bust

2006
Mario Williams - Elite
Reggie Bush - Bust/Average
Vince Young - Bust/Average
D'Brickashaw Ferguson - Elite
A.J. Hawk - Bust/Average

2005
Alex D. Smith - Bust
Ronnie Brown - Bust/Average (Never looked at as an "Elite RB"
Braylon Edwards - Bust/Average
Cedric Benson- Bust/Average (Better with the Bengals, but not Elite)
Cadillac Williams- Bust

6 of 20 considered Elite or 30%
14 of 20 considered Bust (or Average) or 70%

So in reality a majority of the time the top 5 picks are all busts, so why does berry need to justify where he was picked when a majority of them are busts anyways.

The actually reality, is something I have said before... The draft is not a science, there will be all-pro's and busts in every single round at every position. These NFL players are "people" just like you and I, and there is a lot more that goes into success than what you have don in the past, more of an impact is how you will handle the future.

In my opinion, I am proud to have Eric Berry as a Chief, and I am glad we picked him up last year, no matter where we were picking. He is a high character guy that seems like he will strive to do better everyday. He has helped this Defense. You keep quoting the fact that he gave up some TD's, (I'm sure every DB in this league got burnt a couple times this season) But he did drastically help improve our Run-D (I don't think 92 tackles came from just playing in pass coverage). We were at the bottom of the league the last 3 years in Run-D, and beside the improved play of DJ, I don't see what else changed that could make that much of a difference besides the addition of him. (Belcher had a decent season, but don't think he was the reason for the improved run d, Shaun Smith played ok but didn't affect the run-d drastically, and Kendrick Lewis was a FS, not much run support from FS's).

He is a tough durable leader, who has and will continue to contribute to this team. I think he had an excellent season for a rookie, but to say he wasn't worth the pick this early in his playing career is just nonsense. I mean so far he looks like he could be part of the 30% of top 5's that aren't busts according to you.

Jrudi
02-03-2011, 06:51 PM
Sorry for getting off topic again...haha

I haven't been on here in a couple of days, and just wanted to post about that haha.

brdempsey69
02-03-2011, 08:36 PM
So in reality a majority of the time the top 5 picks are all busts, so why does berry need to justify where he was picked when a majority of them are busts anyways.
.... and other assorted BS.

BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE PICKED A BETTER PLAYER AT THAT SPOT...RUSSELL OKUNG...AT A MORE IMPORTANT POSITION AND GOTTEN BETTER VALUE WITH THAT PICK AS HE COULD HAVE TAKEN OVER THE LT SPOT AND ALBERT COULD HAVE BEEN MOVED TO ANOTHER SPOT AND THE O-LINE AND GOTTEN A 2-FOLD UPGRADE TO O-LINE WITH JUST ONE PICK --THAT'S WHY !!

This team has been in dire need of a bonafide replacement for Willie Roaf and Okung was definitely the guy. He already had a proven track record going against the nations best pass rushers and handling them -- one of them was Brian Orakpo in 2008, who made the Pro Bowl in his rookie season in 2009.

Plus, if Berry doesn't improve his pass coverage skills, then all they've done is spent the #5 overall pick on a Bernard Pollard clone and made that clone the highest paid Safety in NFL history. It's been proven that Safeties drafted in the top 10 is not a good investment as only the late Sean Taylor was the only one who lived up to his draft status of all the Safeties drafted in the top 10 in the last 25 years.

Tackles have the lowest bust rate of any position drafted in the top 15 in the last 18 years.

Add to that, Okung, in spite of playing hurt, played his position far better than Berry played his in 2010, even if that is apples to oranges.

And it isn't about Berry, it's about building your team from the front lines back and not the other way around.

slc chief
02-04-2011, 08:52 AM
BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE PICKED A BETTER PLAYER AT THAT SPOT...RUSSELL OKUNG...AT A MORE IMPORTANT POSITION AND GOTTEN BETTER VALUE WITH THAT PICK AS HE COULD HAVE TAKEN OVER THE LT SPOT AND ALBERT COULD HAVE BEEN MOVED TO ANOTHER SPOT AND THE O-LINE AND GOTTEN A 2-FOLD UPGRADE TO O-LINE WITH JUST ONE PICK --THAT'S WHY !!

This team has been in dire need of a bonafide replacement for Willie Roaf and Okung was definitely the guy. He already had a proven track record going against the nations best pass rushers and handling them -- one of them was Brian Orakpo in 2008, who made the Pro Bowl in his rookie season in 2009.

Plus, if Berry doesn't improve his pass coverage skills, then all they've done is spent the #5 overall pick on a Bernard Pollard clone and made that clone the highest paid Safety in NFL history. It's been proven that Safeties drafted in the top 10 is not a good investment as only the late Sean Taylor was the only one who lived up to his draft status of all the Safeties drafted in the top 10 in the last 25 years.

Tackles have the lowest bust rate of any position drafted in the top 15 in the last 18 years.

Add to that, Okung, in spite of playing hurt, played his position far better than Berry played his in 2010, even if that is apples to oranges.

And it isn't about Berry, it's about building your team from the front lines back and not the other way around.

i cant really remember any other safeties being drafted that high other than taylor.could be wrong though

Ryfo18
02-04-2011, 11:05 AM
i cant really remember any other safeties being drafted that high other than taylor.could be wrong though

Taylor is the only one since 1992.

Jrudi
02-04-2011, 01:01 PM
BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE PICKED A BETTER PLAYER AT THAT SPOT...RUSSELL OKUNG...AT A MORE IMPORTANT POSITION AND GOTTEN BETTER VALUE WITH THAT PICK AS HE COULD HAVE TAKEN OVER THE LT SPOT AND ALBERT COULD HAVE BEEN MOVED TO ANOTHER SPOT AND THE O-LINE AND GOTTEN A 2-FOLD UPGRADE TO O-LINE WITH JUST ONE PICK --THAT'S WHY !!

This team has been in dire need of a bonafide replacement for Willie Roaf and Okung was definitely the guy. He already had a proven track record going against the nations best pass rushers and handling them -- one of them was Brian Orakpo in 2008, who made the Pro Bowl in his rookie season in 2009.

Plus, if Berry doesn't improve his pass coverage skills, then all they've done is spent the #5 overall pick on a Bernard Pollard clone and made that clone the highest paid Safety in NFL history. It's been proven that Safeties drafted in the top 10 is not a good investment as only the late Sean Taylor was the only one who lived up to his draft status of all the Safeties drafted in the top 10 in the last 25 years.

Tackles have the lowest bust rate of any position drafted in the top 15 in the last 18 years.

Add to that, Okung, in spite of playing hurt, played his position far better than Berry played his in 2010, even if that is apples to oranges.

And it isn't about Berry, it's about building your team from the front lines back and not the other way around.


If Okung played his position so much better than why am I finding things like this all over the internet?

NFL Gridiron Gab.com (http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2010/11/10/mid-season-report-card-2010-seattle-seahawks-and-head-coach-pete-carroll/); Mid-season report card for the Seahawks and Pete Carroll:

"Sacks Allowed
2009: 41 (10th in NFL)
2010: 22 (7th in NFL)
Grade: C-
Rationale: On pace for essentially the same total as last year. That’s a double-edged sword, though. On one side, the damage isn’t on pace to get worse. The flipside? Being top-10 in sacks allowed, especially after spending the franchise’s first overall draft pick last April on an offensive lineman, is not what you’d expect."

Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/545228-rookie-report-cards-grades-for-every-2010-nfl-1st-round-pick#page/29) 1st round Rookie Grades:
Eric Berry-A
Okung- C

NFLSOUP.COM (http://nflsoup.com/?p=6417)- End of year Rookie Rankings
Berry listed as #9; Okung not even on the list. Another Sehawk was mentioned..Earl Thomas was on this lest, and that's funny he plays safety.

Sound's to me like Okung was the savior of the Seahawks line this year...And I believe that playing an entire season should factor into considering a season is successful. I mean I sure do want my 1st round pick to spend 7 games on the bench because he was hurt, sounds like a good deal for Okung, only play 10 regular season games and get paid like a 1st rounder for the whole season!

Look, I'm not saying Okung will not be a successful player in this league I'm sure he will. I am standing up for Berry, because he didn't have the horrible season you are portraying him to have.

The fact is, we have Berry on our team, we picked him and not Okung. He is helping this team, and because I am a fan I will support him as one of our player's and not dwell on the fact that we didn't take someone else. After 3 or 4 years I will then look to see if he was worth the pick, but even as a rookie he produced nicely. They are both top 10 picks and should help their teams, to say Berry hasn't impacted this team is just ludicrous.

Ryfo18
02-04-2011, 01:19 PM
It's also worth mentioning that maybe 3 of the 12 teams to make the playoffs this year have what you would call "solid" left tackles (Pats, Jets, Saints). Having a solid LT in no way translates to instant success on the field. See the Browns, Dolphins, Titans, Broncos, Panthers, Chargers, and so on.

Jrudi
02-04-2011, 01:40 PM
Another thing people keep bringing up is that certain positions are more solid as top 5 picks year in and year out.

If this is the case then why do teams insists on putting an emphasis on QB's in the top 5 each year. Success rates of top 5 QB's the last 10 years don't look too impressive:

Busts:Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young, Alex Smith, David Carr, Joey Harrington

Average: Eli Manning, Mark Sanchez, Sam Bradford (lots of upside)
Average to Below Average: Carson Palmer, Matt Stafford

Elite: Phillip Rivers, Mike Vick

So out of 12 QB's pick in the top 5 over the last 10 years only 2 have reached what you could call an "Elite" status.

So are QB's really that "solid" of a position to pick in the top 5 or is it just the trend? why can they be picked in the top 5 and continue to have busts, but other positions such as safeties should be picked later?

sounds to me like we should throw that junk out the window and pick the best available "players" regardless of position.

4everchiefsfan25
02-04-2011, 02:05 PM
If Okung played his position so much better than why am I finding things like this all over the internet?

NFL Gridiron Gab.com (http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2010/11/10/mid-season-report-card-2010-seattle-seahawks-and-head-coach-pete-carroll/); Mid-season report card for the Seahawks and Pete Carroll:

"Sacks Allowed
2009: 41 (10th in NFL)
2010: 22 (7th in NFL)
Grade: C-
Rationale: On pace for essentially the same total as last year. That’s a double-edged sword, though. On one side, the damage isn’t on pace to get worse. The flipside? Being top-10 in sacks allowed, especially after spending the franchise’s first overall draft pick last April on an offensive lineman, is not what you’d expect."

Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/545228-rookie-report-cards-grades-for-every-2010-nfl-1st-round-pick#page/29) 1st round Rookie Grades:
Eric Berry-A
Okung- C

NFLSOUP.COM (http://nflsoup.com/?p=6417)- End of year Rookie Rankings
Berry listed as #9; Okung not even on the list. Another Sehawk was mentioned..Earl Thomas was on this lest, and that's funny he plays safety.

Sound's to me like Okung was the savior of the Seahawks line this year...And I believe that playing an entire season should factor into considering a season is successful. I mean I sure do want my 1st round pick to spend 7 games on the bench because he was hurt, sounds like a good deal for Okung, only play 10 regular season games and get paid like a 1st rounder for the whole season!

Look, I'm not saying Okung will not be a successful player in this league I'm sure he will. I am standing up for Berry, because he didn't have the horrible season you are portraying him to have.

The fact is, we have Berry on our team, we picked him and not Okung. He is helping this team, and because I am a fan I will support him as one of our player's and not dwell on the fact that we didn't take someone else. After 3 or 4 years I will then look to see if he was worth the pick, but even as a rookie he produced nicely. They are both top 10 picks and should help their teams, to say Berry hasn't impacted this team is just ludicrous.

I know you guys are talking about Okung and Berry but NFLsoup.com has Earl Thomas ahead of Berry? I think Berry is better than Earl Thomas I dont see how they have him ahead of Berry.

4everchiefsfan25
02-04-2011, 02:14 PM
Another thing people keep bringing up is that certain positions are more solid as top 5 picks year in and year out.

If this is the case then why do teams insists on putting an emphasis on QB's in the top 5 each year. Success rates of top 5 QB's the last 10 years don't look too impressive:

Busts:Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young, Alex Smith, David Carr, Joey Harrington

Average: Eli Manning, Mark Sanchez, Sam Bradford (lots of upside)
Average to Below Average: Carson Palmer, Matt Stafford

Elite: Phillip Rivers, Mike Vick

So out of 12 QB's pick in the top 5 over the last 10 years only 2 have reached what you could call an "Elite" status.

So are QB's really that "solid" of a position to pick in the top 5 or is it just the trend? why can they be picked in the top 5 and continue to have busts, but other positions such as safeties should be picked later?

sounds to me like we should throw that junk out the window and pick the best available "players" regardless of position.
IMO I can't really call Matt Stafford a bust yet because the last 2 years he has gotten hurt and wasn't able to perform. Now if he gets hurt again next year then ya I will say he is a bust but right now I would like to see his skills without him getting hurt before I call him a bust. Carson Palmer IMO had a few good years when the Bengals wernt falling apart, but right now Palmer isnt playing well at all and I think thats more because the Bengals dont know their identity on offense.

Jrudi
02-04-2011, 02:15 PM
I know you guys are talking about Okung and Berry but NFLsoup.com has Earl Thomas ahead of Berry? I think Berry is better than Earl Thomas I dont see how they have him ahead of Berry.

I saw that too and didn't agree. Berry's stats were even better than Thomas's.

I just used the site as a resource for my argument...

4everchiefsfan25
02-04-2011, 02:17 PM
I saw that too and didn't agree. Berry's stats were even better than Thomas's.

I just used the site as a resource for my argument...
I know I was just getting off topic after I saw that :lol:

4everchiefsfan25
02-04-2011, 02:17 PM
Carson Palmer: Career Stats at NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/players/carsonpalmer/careerstats?id=PAL249055)

Jrudi
02-04-2011, 02:19 PM
IMO I can't really call Matt Stafford a bust yet because the last 2 years he has gotten hurt and wasn't able to perform. Now if he gets hurt again next year then ya I will say he is a bust but right now I would like to see his skills without him getting hurt before I call him a bust. Carson Palmer IMO had a few good years when the Bengals wernt falling apart, but right now Palmer isnt playing well at all and I think thats more because the Bengals dont know their identity on offense.

I see what you're saying, I was referring to brdemsy's thinking of that if you are not an Elite level talent and you were a top 5 pick, you're a bust.

with Stafford, Sanchez, and Bradford, I would say the verdict is still out until a couple years are down under their belts.

4everchiefsfan25
02-04-2011, 02:21 PM
I see what you're saying, I was referring to brdemsy's thinking of that if you are not an Elite level talent and you were a top 5 pick, you're a bust.

with Stafford, Sanchez, and Bradford, I would say the verdict is still out until a couple years are down under their belts.
agreed :bananen_smilies046:

brdempsey69
02-04-2011, 02:37 PM
If Okung played his position so much better than why am I finding things like this all over the internet?

NFL Gridiron Gab.com (http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2010/11/10/mid-season-report-card-2010-seattle-seahawks-and-head-coach-pete-carroll/); Mid-season report card for the Seahawks and Pete Carroll:

"Sacks Allowed
2009: 41 (10th in NFL)
2010: 22 (7th in NFL)
Grade: C-
Rationale: On pace for essentially the same total as last year. That’s a double-edged sword, though. On one side, the damage isn’t on pace to get worse. The flipside? Being top-10 in sacks allowed, especially after spending the franchise’s first overall draft pick last April on an offensive lineman, is not what you’d expect."

Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/545228-rookie-report-cards-grades-for-every-2010-nfl-1st-round-pick#page/29) 1st round Rookie Grades:
Eric Berry-A
Okung- C

NFLSOUP.COM (http://nflsoup.com/?p=6417)- End of year Rookie Rankings
Berry listed as #9; Okung not even on the list. Another Sehawk was mentioned..Earl Thomas was on this lest, and that's funny he plays safety.

Sound's to me like Okung was the savior of the Seahawks line this year...And I believe that playing an entire season should factor into considering a season is successful. I mean I sure do want my 1st round pick to spend 7 games on the bench because he was hurt, sounds like a good deal for Okung, only play 10 regular season games and get paid like a 1st rounder for the whole season!

Look, I'm not saying Okung will not be a successful player in this league I'm sure he will. I am standing up for Berry, because he didn't have the horrible season you are portraying him to have.

The fact is, we have Berry on our team, we picked him and not Okung. He is helping this team, and because I am a fan I will support him as one of our player's and not dwell on the fact that we didn't take someone else. After 3 or 4 years I will then look to see if he was worth the pick, but even as a rookie he produced nicely. They are both top 10 picks and should help their teams, to say Berry hasn't impacted this team is just ludicrous.


I don't care what those reports say. I watched the games. The overhead camera does not lie. The injuries that occurred to Okung were a result of his teammates needlessly roll-blocking into his ankles from his blind-side. I saw both of those incidents and a lesser man would have never made it back on the field.

Regarding Berry, I was hoping he would be much better in pass defense than he was, but too often he was a pigeon in that area, and opponents went after him with more than mild success. Lewis played better in that area than he did. Berry had some impact, but he was a disappointment in the area of pass defense & I've seen many Chiefs rookie DB's over the years do a whole lot better than he did.

Jrudi
02-04-2011, 03:47 PM
IMO I can't really call Matt Stafford a bust yet because the last 2 years he has gotten hurt and wasn't able to perform. Now if he gets hurt again next year then ya I will say he is a bust but right now I would like to see his skills without him getting hurt before I call him a bust. Carson Palmer IMO had a few good years when the Bengals wernt falling apart, but right now Palmer isnt playing well at all and I think thats more because the Bengals dont know their identity on offense.

I see what you're saying, I was referring to brdemsy's thinking of that if you are not an Elite level talent and you were a top 5 pick, you're a bust.

with Stafford, Sanchez, and Bradford, I would say the verdict is still out until a couple years are down under their belts.

Jrudi
02-04-2011, 03:56 PM
I don't care what those reports say. I watched the games. The overhead camera does not lie. The injuries that occurred to Okung were a result of his teammates needlessly roll-blocking into his ankles from his blind-side. I saw both of those incidents and a lesser man would have never made it back on the field.

Regarding Berry, I was hoping he would be much better in pass defense than he was, but too often he was a pigeon in that area, and opponents went after him with more than mild success. Lewis played better in that area than he did. Berry had some impact, but he was a disappointment in the area of pass defense & I've seen many Chiefs rookie DB's over the years do a whole lot better than he did.

you know what you're right...I don't see why I'm defending Berry when he had a horrible season and should be cut this off season.

I think that we should write a letter to Mr. Hunt suggesting that he can terminate Pioli for all of the stupid unsuccessful move's he has made thus far, they are all ridiculous and clearly have left us at the bottom of the league in all statistical categories and out of the playoffs in his 1st year. And in this letter I am going to refer brdempsy69 to replace him.

since we all have the vast knowledge of the league and a number of years under our belt managing a professional NFL Franchise, I think we should do just fine assembling a Super Bowl Contender within a year.

Super Bowl bound in 2011!! woohoo

4everchiefsfan25
02-04-2011, 04:29 PM
you know what you're right...I don't see why I'm defending Berry when he had a horrible season and should be cut this off season.

I think that we should write a letter to Mr. Hunt suggesting that he can terminate Pioli for all of the stupid unsuccessful move's he has made thus far, they are all ridiculous and clearly have left us at the bottom of the league in all statistical categories and out of the playoffs in his 1st year. And in this letter I am going to refer brdempsy69 to replace him.

since we all have the vast knowledge of the league and a number of years under our belt managing a professional NFL Franchise, I think we should do just fine assembling a Super Bowl Contender within a year.

Super Bowl bound in 2011!! woohoo:lol:

brdempsey69
02-04-2011, 04:32 PM
you know what you're right...I don't see why I'm defending Berry when he had a horrible season and should be cut this off season.

I think that we should write a letter to Mr. Hunt suggesting that he can terminate Pioli for all of the stupid unsuccessful move's he has made thus far, they are all ridiculous and clearly have left us at the bottom of the league in all statistical categories and out of the playoffs in his 1st year. And in this letter I am going to refer brdempsy69 to replace him.

since we all have the vast knowledge of the league and a number of years under our belt managing a professional NFL Franchise, I think we should do just fine assembling a Super Bowl Contender within a year.

Super Bowl bound in 2011!! woohoo

LOL !! You are being totally ridiculous to point where you are not only way off base, but you aren't even remotely in the ball park. Sounds like a sign of being totally puked out because someone else doesn't share the same perspective as you. I never said any of that about Berry being cut, or any of that other nonsense. Must be pretty desperate on your end to have to make things up that are non-existent & were never even implied in the 1st place.

You seem to have this misconception that Chiefs fans owe it the Chiefs brass to agree to every personell decision that they make & have no right to question it. WRONG!! A vast number of Chiefs fans going to question them & so are many others that aren't Chiefs fans. They are entitled to their perspective, whether you agree with it or not. If that bothers you, then that's a personal problem on your end & perhaps mommie will change your diaper for you, fetch your formula for you, and give you a Baby Pat-A-Burp doll to put on your shoulder so that you can cry on its shoulder.

Jrudi
02-04-2011, 04:48 PM
LOL !! You are being totally ridiculous to point where you are not only way off base, but you aren't even remotely in the ball park. Sounds like a sign of being totally puked out because someone else doesn't share the same perspective as you. I never said any of that about Berry being cut, or any of that other nonsense. Must be pretty desperate on your end to have to make things up that are non-existent & were never even implied in the 1st place.

You seem to have this misconception that Chiefs fans owe it the Chiefs brass to agree to every personell decision that they make & have no right to question it. WRONG!! A vast number of Chiefs fans going to question them & so are many others that aren't Chiefs fans. They are entitled to their perspective, whether you agree with it or not. If that bothers you, then that's a personal problem on your end & perhaps mommie will change your diaper for you, fetch your formula for you, and give you a Baby Pat-A-Burp doll to put on your shoulder so that you can cry on its shoulder.

Now that's just un-necessary haha.

I was simply re-iterating the idea that you think Berry was horrible this season. If he was really that bad, he should be cut or we should trade him.

I just figured that since it does seem like you contradict or disagree with almost every move the Chiefs do Mr. Hunt should consider you for GM.

all in all, this is the last thing I'll say about the topic, because of it is getting old talking about it. Berry was a rookie, and for being a rookie he had a decent season no matter where he was picked in the draft, he had an impact on the overall success of our defense (I don't see how anyone could argue that); As I always say when people complain about players: It could be worse and we could still have a SS like Mike Brown.

brdempsey69
02-04-2011, 05:32 PM
Now that's just un-necessary haha.

I was simply re-iterating the idea that you think Berry was horrible this season. If he was really that bad, he should be cut or we should trade him.

I just figured that since it does seem like you contradict or disagree with almost every move the Chiefs do Mr. Hunt should consider you for GM.

all in all, this is the last thing I'll say about the topic, because of it is getting old talking about it. Berry was a rookie, and for being a rookie he had a decent season no matter where he was picked in the draft, he had an impact on the overall success of our defense (I don't see how anyone could argue that); As I always say when people complain about players: It could be worse and we could still have a SS like Mike Brown.

When did I ever use the term "had a horrible season"? I never said that. I said he was disappointing in the area of pass defense. Go watch the Raiders 1st TD in the season final to get an example of what I'm talking about.

When did I say "I disagree with every move the Chiefs do"? I never even implied that. Think for a moment. Disagreeing with every move that the Chiefs brass made would include disagreeing with the 3rd round choices of Asamoah and Moeaki -- nothing could be further from the truth -- those were great value picks, and yes, I liked them better than the 1st three draft choices that the Chiefs made in the 2010 draft.

That's your problem, you are implying things that I never said. It's called ripping things out of context to try to support your arguement. Notice that we were talking about one specific draft choice & I do notice that you never asked what I thought of some of the others. And yet, you came up with this bit a sarcasm about Pioli being replaced by me as GM, almost like a subtle personal attack -- and for what?

My analysis, of Berry still stands, and that's he's got a lot of room for improvement in the area of pass defense. Hopefully, he'll make progress in that area, like Carr did in the 2nd half of the season. How many people were calling for Carr's head & wanting him to be replaced in the 1st half of the season ( this was posted on Chiefs.com repeatedly ) and guess what -- I was not one of them. Nor am I calling for Berry to be replaced -- I simply have stated that I preferred Okung as the Chiefs 1st pick in the 2010 draft and why.

You are incorrect when you imply that I think "Berry had a horrible season". That's not the same as stating as he needs to improve in the area of pass defense. Some have posted that he sucked in that area & although I wouldn't go that far, it does imply that he does need improvement in that area.

Jrudi
02-04-2011, 05:43 PM
When did I ever use the term "had a horrible season"? I never said that. I said he was disappointing in the area of pass defense. Go watch the Raiders 1st TD in the season final to get an example of what I'm talking about.

When did I say "I disagree with every move the Chiefs do"? I never even implied that. Think for a moment. Disagreeing with every move that the Chiefs brass made would include disagreeing with the 3rd round choices of Asamoah and Moeaki -- nothing could be further from the truth -- those were great value picks, and yes, I liked them better than the 1st three draft choices that the Chiefs made in the 2010 draft.

That's your problem, you are implying things that I never said. It's called ripping things out of context to try to support your arguement. Notice that we were talking about one specific draft choice & I do notice that you never asked what I thought of some of the others. And yet, you came up with this bit a sarcasm about Pioli being replaced by me as GM, almost like a subtle personal attack -- and for what?

My analysis, of Berry still stands, and that's he's got a lot of room for improvement in the area of pass defense. Hopefully, he'll make progress in that area, like Carr did in the 2nd half of the season. How many people were calling for Carr's head & wanting him to be replaced in the 1st half of the season ( this was posted on Chiefs.com repeatedly ) and guess what -- I was not one of them. Nor am I calling for Berry to be replaced -- I simply have stated that I preferred Okung as the Chiefs 1st pick in the 2010 draft and why.

You are incorrect when you imply that I think "Berry had a horrible season". That's not the same as stating as he needs to improve in the area of pass defense. Some have posted that he sucked in that area & although I wouldn't go that far, it does imply that he does need improvement in that area.


LOL !! You are being totally ridiculous to point where you are not only way off base, but you aren't even remotely in the ball park. Sounds like a sign of being totally puked out because someone else doesn't share the same perspective as you. I never said any of that about Berry being cut, or any of that other nonsense. Must be pretty desperate on your end to have to make things up that are non-existent & were never even implied in the 1st place.

You seem to have this misconception that Chiefs fans owe it the Chiefs brass to agree to every personell decision that they make & have no right to question it. WRONG!! A vast number of Chiefs fans going to question them & so are many others that aren't Chiefs fans. They are entitled to their perspective, whether you agree with it or not. If that bothers you, then that's a personal problem on your end & perhaps mommie will change your diaper for you, fetch your formula for you, and give you a Baby Pat-A-Burp doll to put on your shoulder so that you can cry on its shoulder.

Who's tossing out personal attacks?

Thanks for the fun, it's been a nice argument, but I'm done with it.

brdempsey69
02-04-2011, 05:51 PM
Who's tossing out personal attacks?

Thanks for the fun, it's been a nice argument, but I'm done with it.

And who made the unnecessary, sarcastic jab, first? Sorry, but surrender is not in my creed.

chief31
02-04-2011, 07:07 PM
If Okung played his position so much better than why am I finding things like this all over the internet?

NFL Gridiron Gab.com (http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2010/11/10/mid-season-report-card-2010-seattle-seahawks-and-head-coach-pete-carroll/); Mid-season report card for the Seahawks and Pete Carroll:

Sacks Allowed
2009: 41 (10th in NFL)
2010: 22 (7th in NFL)
Grade: C-
Rationale: On pace for essentially the same total as last year. That’s a double-edged sword, though. On one side, the damage isn’t on pace to get worse. The flipside? Being top-10 in sacks allowed, especially after spending the franchise’s first overall draft pick last April on an offensive lineman, is not what you’d expect."

Did they take into consideration that that first half of the season included only three games with Okung, and two were games he left with injury?

During the second half of the season, when Okung played 7 of 8 games, they allowed 13 sacks. Double that, to equal a full season, and that would have been good enough to ranked fourth best in The NFL, with 26 Sacks allowed.




Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/545228-rookie-report-cards-grades-for-every-2010-nfl-1st-round-pick#page/29) 1st round Rookie Grades:
Eric Berry-A
Okung- C

This evaluation was done when Okung had only seven starts, after week 14. Helping his team to the playoffs, as well as a playoff win against The Saints, may up their grade of Okung.




NFLSOUP.COM (http://nflsoup.com/?p=6417)- End of year Rookie Rankings
Berry listed as #9; Okung not even on the list. Another Sehawk was mentioned..Earl Thomas was on this lest, and that's funny he plays safety.

[/I]Sound's to me like Okung was the savior of the Seahawks line this year...And I believe that playing an entire season should factor into considering a season is successful. I mean I sure do want my 1st round pick to spend 7 games on the bench because he was hurt, sounds like a good deal for Okung, only play 10 regular season games and get paid like a 1st rounder for the whole season!

Look, I'm not saying Okung will not be a successful player in this league I'm sure he will. I am standing up for Berry, because he didn't have the horrible season you are portraying him to have.

The fact is, we have Berry on our team, we picked him and not Okung. He is helping this team, and because I am a fan I will support him as one of our player's and not dwell on the fact that we didn't take someone else. After 3 or 4 years I will then look to see if he was worth the pick, but even as a rookie he produced nicely. They are both top 10 picks and should help their teams, to say Berry hasn't impacted this team is just ludicrous.


When The Seahawks were playing without Okung, or playing with a recovering Okung, they were allowing sacks at a poor pace.

But, once he made it back to the lineup for good, the impact, as far as Sacks allowed, is pretty clear from the stats I separated above.

I agree that Berry had the better season. In part, because of the number of games played. But I think he had a very good season as well.

However, I would have chosen Okung when we drafted, and would still take Okung, if offered the option, based almost entirely on the positions that they play.

Having said that, I am a big Eric Berry fan, since he was drafted.

I think that he is a big part of why this team was so improved over the previous season.

Players that accumulate statistics are always viewed far more favorably by the mainstream, than players who's job don't include a lot of stats.

That would likely be why Okung, as well as Maurkice Pouncey, was left off that last list. They aren't even on the "honorable mention" list. No stats to report.

brdempsey69
02-04-2011, 07:37 PM
^^ Thank you chief31 for your bit of diplomacy. The fact is going into the draft in 2010, I liked Berry, but only to a point and not over Okung. I also pointed out an area that Berry -- pass defense -- needs major improvent in ( Okungs is run blocking ) that anyone who watched the Chiefs games can easily see. Jrudi and others got all defensive about out it, like they worship the guy, or something. I have a Berry jersey, BTW, but I'm not going to worship the guy. Good player, to a degree, yes. Better player than Okung and a better pick at #5 in 2010 draft? NO, sorry, I don't see it that way.

slc chief
02-04-2011, 07:58 PM
When did I ever use the term "had a horrible season"? I never said that. I said he was disappointing in the area of pass defense. Go watch the Raiders 1st TD in the season final to get an example of what I'm talking about.

When did I say "I disagree with every move the Chiefs do"? I never even implied that. Think for a moment. Disagreeing with every move that the Chiefs brass made would include disagreeing with the 3rd round choices of Asamoah and Moeaki -- nothing could be further from the truth -- those were great value picks, and yes, I liked them better than the 1st three draft choices that the Chiefs made in the 2010 draft.

That's your problem, you are implying things that I never said. It's called ripping things out of context to try to support your arguement. Notice that we were talking about one specific draft choice & I do notice that you never asked what I thought of some of the others. And yet, you came up with this bit a sarcasm about Pioli being replaced by me as GM, almost like a subtle personal attack -- and for what?

My analysis, of Berry still stands, and that's he's got a lot of room for improvement in the area of pass defense. Hopefully, he'll make progress in that area, like Carr did in the 2nd half of the season. How many people were calling for Carr's head & wanting him to be replaced in the 1st half of the season ( this was posted on Chiefs.com repeatedly ) and guess what -- I was not one of them. Nor am I calling for Berry to be replaced -- I simply have stated that I preferred Okung as the Chiefs 1st pick in the 2010 draft and why.

You are incorrect when you imply that I think "Berry had a horrible season". That's not the same as stating as he needs to improve in the area of pass defense. Some have posted that he sucked in that area & although I wouldn't go that far, it does imply that he does need improvement in that area.

what did you expect of berry in his rookie year.for him to be a shutdown cornerback playing safety.also i am still waiting on another example of a safety being drafted in the top 10.there are none so history only shows.by picking a safety in the top 10 rounds you get a pro bowl player(berry,taylor) mark my words the chiefs 2010 draft will go down as one of the better drafts in rescent history by any team.this will be determined by the professionals who are paid to do so.unfortunantly you are not one of them. you have some good points on other subjects but definantly not this one imo

brdempsey69
02-04-2011, 08:49 PM
what did you expect of berry in his rookie year.for him to be a shutdown cornerback playing safety.also i am still waiting on another example of a safety being drafted in the top 10.there are none so history only shows.by picking a safety in the top 10 rounds you get a pro bowl player(berry,taylor) mark my words the chiefs 2010 draft will go down as one of the better drafts in rescent history by any team.this will be determined by the professionals who are paid to do so.unfortunantly you are not one of them. you have some good points on other subjects but definantly not this one imo

I expected him not to stand flat-footed and let receivers run right by him, as I saw on occasion, more than once, I might add. He was drafted to be a pass defender, first and foremost & I've seen many rookie Safeties do a better job in that area than he did -- Lloyd Burruss was one of them. You are also incorrect about no other Safeties being drafted in the top 10, as well as getting a Pro Bowl player if you draft a Safety in the top 10.

WalterFootball.com: NFL Draft - Are Safeties Worth a Top Five NFL Draft Pick? (http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftsafeties.php)

The only other guy rated as a hit on that list was Eric Turner. He made the Pro Bowl twice & then the team that drafted him let him go after the 1996 season. Turner was drafted #2 overall, and not everyone regards him as a hit that played up to his draft status.

Who are these so-called "paid professionals" that you speak of? Mel Kiper? Todd McShay? Got news for you. Mike Mayock of NFL Network believes that Okung would have been the better pick than Berry. Pete Prisco of CBS sports also didn't give a very high grade to the selection of Berry and also didn't give a very high grade to the Chiefs 2010 draft.

2010 draft being one of the better drafts by anybody? I don't think so. I think it could have been better -- a lot better. I think that were other teams that did better, the Oakland Raiders, for one, unfortunately.

My points that I have made regarding this subject, may not be what you want to hear, but I stand by them, nonetheless. I'm not worried at all whether or not you or anybody else agrees with it.

slc chief
02-04-2011, 09:17 PM
I expected him not to stand flat-footed and let receivers run right by him, as I saw on occasion, more than once, I might add. He was drafted to be a pass defender, first and foremost & I've seen many rookie Safeties do a better job in that area than he did -- Lloyd Burruss was one of them. You are also incorrect about no other Safeties being drafted in the top 10, as well as getting a Pro Bowl player if you draft a Safety in the top 10.

WalterFootball.com: NFL Draft - Are Safeties Worth a Top Five NFL Draft Pick? (http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftsafeties.php)

The only other guy rated as a hit on that list was Eric Turner. He made the Pro Bowl twice & then the team that drafted him let him go after the 1996 season. Turner was drafted #2 overall, and not everyone regards him as a hit that played up to his draft status.

Who are these so-called "paid professionals" that you speak of? Mel Kiper? Todd McShay? Got news for you. Mike Mayock of NFL Network believes that Okung would have been the better pick than Berry. Pete Prisco of CBS sports also didn't give a very high grade to the selection of Berry and also didn't give a very high grade to the Chiefs 2010 draft.

2010 draft being one of the better drafts by anybody? I don't think so. I think it could have been better -- a lot better. I think that were other teams that did better, the Oakland Raiders, for one, unfortunately.

My points that I have made regarding this subject, may not be what you want to hear, but I stand by them, nonetheless. I'm not worried at all whether or not you or anybody else agrees with it.
none of the experts above.i am talking people who have actually played the position at a pro level.deon sanders,rod woodson,rodney harrison.so let me get this straight we need to address berrys safety position via free agency or the draft.because he got beat a couple times and misread some coverages as a rookie.(as according to your bernard pollard of the future post). nope bottom line we no longer need to fill that position because berry did his part as a rookie. and it is no longer a position of need in the upcoming draft. berry has a unbelievable work ethic and awesome knowledge of the game.can he improve yes will he yes.

tornadospotter
02-04-2011, 09:31 PM
Who's tossing out personal attacks?

Thanks for the fun, it's been a nice argument, but I'm done with it.


And who made the unnecessary, sarcastic jab, first? Sorry, but surrender is not in my creed.
Read Before Posting - Kansas City Chiefs Forums (http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/showthread.php?t=438)

Just a reminder about the rules.
:smile

brdempsey69
02-04-2011, 09:58 PM
none of the experts above.i am talking people who have actually played the position at a pro level.deon sanders,rod woodson,rodney harrison.

They were also DB's -- second nature. I heard Rod Woodson prop up Taylor Mays as well. We see the same thing every year at the draft from former players who say the same thing every year about draftees such as "He's going to be a Pro Bowler" or something along those lines & then the guy is a bust in 3 years & is out of the league and probably delivering pizza to someone's doorstep.



so let me get this straight we need to address berrys safety position via free agency or the draft.because he got beat a couple times and misread some coverages as a rookie.(as according to your bernard pollard of the future post).


No, you haven't got it straight at all. He was beat more than a couple of times. And not because he misread coverage either on many of those occasions. Never said anything about replacing him -- you made that up all on your own. I said that if he doesn't improve in the area of pass defense than he really is no more than a Bernard Pollard clone.



nope bottom line we no longer need to fill that position because berry did his part as a rookie.


In run support, yes (Pollard could have done that ,too ) in pass defense, no. Some said he sucked in that area & although, I wouldn't go as far to say that, he does have a lot of room for improvement.



and it is no longer a position of need in the upcoming draft.


Quite the contrary, the Chiefs do need to add another Safety, but for depth only. Maybe FA.



berry has a unbelievable work ethic and awesome knowledge of the game


Too bad it didn't always translate on the field when it came to pass defense. Often times, he looked bewildered going against receivers that were skilled route runners & some blew right by him like he was standing still. Maybe in the upcoming seasons that'll change. We'll have to wait and see.


can he improve yes will he yes.

You don't know that for certain. Nobody does. With the Chiefs having a tougher schedule in 2011, his 2nd season could wind up going the other way & being far worse than his 1st. Hopefully not, but we'll have to wait and see.

Ryfo18
02-04-2011, 10:10 PM
No, you haven't got it straight at all. He was beat more than a couple of times. And not because he misread coverage either on many of those occasions. Never said anything about replacing him -- you made that up all on your own. I said that if he doesn't improve in the area of pass defense than he really is no more than a Bernard Pollard clone.

In run support, yes (Pollard could have done that ,too ) in pass defense, no. Some said he sucked in that area & although, I wouldn't go as far to say that, he does have a lot of room for improvement.


Sure, he has room for improvement in pass defense. Every safety gets beat for TDs. You fail to point out though that Berry had the fourth most passes defensed out of all strong safeties in the league, behind only Quintin Mikell, Troy Polamalu, and Gerald Sensabaugh. And the Bernard Pollard comparison you made is absolutely ridiclous. Pollard had 5 defensed passes all season. Berry had 13.

NFL Stats: by Player Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=INTERCEPTIONS&d-447263-s=DEFENSIVE_PASSES_INT_DEFENSED&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2010&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1)

brdempsey69
02-04-2011, 10:27 PM
Sure, he has room for improvement in pass defense. Every safety gets beat for TDs. You fail to point out though that Berry had the fourth most passes defensed out of all strong safeties in the league, behind only Quintin Mikell, Troy Polamalu, and Gerald Sensabaugh. And the Bernard Pollard comparison you made is absolutely ridiclous. Pollard had 5 defensed passes all season. Berry had 13.

NFL Stats: by Player Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=INTERCEPTIONS&d-447263-s=DEFENSIVE_PASSES_INT_DEFENSED&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2010&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1)

Now you have to know that does not include the number of passes thrown in the said players direction, as well as passes caught by opposing receivers against said player -- especially ones that went for TD's. It also doesn't include the number of dodged bullets, where said player was soundly beaten by the opposing receiver, but the ball was either dropped, overthrown, etc..

Sorry, but I can't put any stock in those numbers & until I see differently in the upcoming seasons, Berry does look like a Pollard clone thus far. Hopefully that will change. We'll have to wait and see.

Ryfo18
02-04-2011, 10:28 PM
Now you have to know that does not include the number of passes thrown in the said players direction, as well as passes caught by opposing receivers against said player -- especially ones that went for TD's. It also doesn't include the number of dodged bullets, where said player was soundly beaten by the opposing receiver, but the ball was either dropped, overthrown, etc..

Sorry, but I can't put any stock in those numbers & until I see differently in the upcoming seasons, Berry does look like a Pollard clone thus far. Hopefully that will change. We'll have to wait and see.

Wrong again. Worth pointing out that between the 6 safeties listed on the Chiefs 2009 roster -- Mike Brown, Jon McGraw, DaJuan Morgan, Jarrad Page, Ricky Price, and Reshard Langford, they combined for 6 passes defensed and 4 INTs. Berry had 13 passes defensed and 4 INTs this year alone. To say that he hasn't done anything in the passing game is also foolish. Does he need to work on his man to man coverage? Sure. If he was shutdown, he'd be a cornerback though. So if Berry was thrown at twice as many times as all 6 of the listed safeties last year, then yeah, he didn't have a good year of pass coverage.

tornadospotter
02-04-2011, 11:00 PM
:sign0008::plus1:

brdempsey69
02-04-2011, 11:08 PM
Wrong again. Worth pointing out that between the 6 safeties listed on the Chiefs 2009 roster -- Mike Brown, Jon McGraw, DaJuan Morgan, Jarrad Page, Ricky Price, and Reshard Langford, they combined for 6 passes defensed and 4 INTs. Berry had 13 passes defensed and 4 INTs this year alone. To say that he hasn't done anything in the passing game is also foolish. Does he need to work on his man to man coverage? Sure. If he was shutdown he'd be a cornerback though.

No, I'm not wrong. You yourself pointed out that he was on the field for every defensive play. Were any on those guys that you listed on the field for every play on Defense in 2009? Did they have the benefit of the much improved Defensive front 7 play that we saw in 2010? Or the easier schedule?

Looking at Berry's 4 INT's. One was a nice pick on the sideline against SD. The other 3 were wounded ducks thrown right to him that your granny could have made.

Nobody said Berry "hadn't done anything in the passing game" -- you made that up. Too often, though, he was beaten way too easily by guys that he's supposed to be faster than. And you yourself said he wasn't a shutdown guy ( Berry himself had said before the draft that he was ). Which leads to the obvious question:

Why spend the number 5 overall pick on that type of player when that same type of player can be had in later rounds? Nate Allen, Morgan Burnett, Taylor Mays, T.J. Ward, Major Wright, Chad Jones.

There's no valid reason, really. Gospel truth whether anyone likes it or not.

Ryfo18
02-04-2011, 11:38 PM
No, I'm not wrong. You yourself pointed out that he was on the field for every defensive play. Were any on those guys that you listed on the field for every play on Defense in 2009? Did they have the benefit of the much improved Defensive front 7 play that we saw in 2010? Or the easier schedule?

Looking at Berry's 4 INT's. One was a nice pick on the sideline against SD. The other 3 were wounded ducks thrown right to him that your granny could have made.

Nobody said Berry "hadn't done anything in the passing game" -- you made that up. Too often, though, he was beaten way too easily by guys that he's supposed to be faster than. And you yourself said he wasn't a shutdown guy ( Berry himself had said before the draft that he was ). Which leads to the obvious question:

Why spend the number 5 overall pick on that type of player when that same type of player can be had in later rounds? Nate Allen, Morgan Burnett, Taylor Mays, T.J. Ward, Major Wright, Chad Jones.

There's no valid reason, really. Gospel truth whether anyone likes it or not.

Haha once again, if brdempsey doesn't agree with the stat, throw it out.

No, none of those guys were out on the field every play, but I just showed you that of all 6 of those players combined, he had twice as many passes defensed.

You're quick to point out how many TDs Berry gave up this year. Yes, we all wattched Chiefs games and saw this occur. Did you watch every other safety's play? Safeties giving up touchdowns is not a rare occurrence my friend. I saw Flowers give up a few touchdowns this year too, I guess he sucks now too eh?

As far as the INTs, the one on the sideline was a great catch. The others? Maybe reading the quarterbacks eyes in zone coverage and getting in the right position after the throw had something to do with it. But you're probably right, he was just getting gifts.

Three7s
02-05-2011, 12:17 AM
Haha once again, if brdempsey doesn't agree with the stat, throw it out.

No, none of those guys were out on the field every play, but I just showed you that of all 6 of those players combined, he had twice as many passes defensed.

You're quick to point out how many TDs Berry gave up this year. Yes, we all wattched Chiefs games and saw this occur. Did you watch every other safety's play? Safeties giving up touchdowns is not a rare occurrence my friend. I saw Flowers give up a few touchdowns this year too, I guess he sucks now too eh?

As far as the INTs, the one on the sideline was a great catch. The others? Maybe reading the quarterbacks eyes in zone coverage and getting in the right position after the throw had something to do with it. But you're probably right, he was just getting gifts.
Like I said before, it's pointless arguing with him because he's always right.

tornadospotter
02-05-2011, 12:59 AM
Nobody is right, in fact we will all be most likely wrong. Just argue until you meet a common agreement.

brdempsey69
02-05-2011, 01:06 AM
Haha once again, if brdempsey doesn't agree with the stat, throw it out.


Nothing was thrown out. I simply pointed out things that factored into those stats that I suspect that you may have to failed consider before posting about them.



No, none of those guys were out on the field every play, but I just showed you that of all 6 of those players combined, he had twice as many passes defensed.


So what? I can show stats that they had a better pass rush in 2010, were better against the run & total yards allowed overall. That improvement came from a revamped front 7. I can also show stats that the numbers regarding pass defense were very similar in 2010 to 2009. None of them justify taking a Safety with the #5 overall pick.



You're quick to point out how many TDs Berry gave up this year. Yes, we all watched Chiefs games and saw this occur. Did you watch every other safety's play? Safeties giving up touchdowns is not a rare occurrence my friend.


Which leads to the obvious question that still remains unanswered: Why take a Safety at #5 if he's a liability in pass coverage like all the others? Jerome Woods was drafted in the late 1st round & Reggie Tongue in the 2nd round in 1996. Both became starters in their 2nd seasons & had great seasons in 1997 as 1st year starters. Perhaps Berry will do the same in 2011. Greg Wesley was 3rd round pick in 2000 and was a starter right away and played just as well as Berry did in 2010. Point is none of those guys were hyped up the way Berry has been or over-drafted.



I saw Flowers give up a few touchdowns this year too, I guess he sucks now too eh?


Never said anything about Flowers being bad & he didn't give up anywhere near as many TD's as Berry did.



As far as the INTs, the one on the sideline was a great catch. The others? Maybe reading the quarterbacks eyes in zone coverage and getting in the right position after the throw had something to do with it. But you're probably right, he was just getting gifts.

No, it didn't have anything to do with reading the QB's eyes in zone coverage and getting in the right position. Kendrick Lewis did that against the Rams twice.
One was a ball that slipped badly out of the Bill's QB's hand and flew right to Berry. One was a wounded duck thrown by the Jags QB right straight to Berry ( a QB that had been pulled off the street just a few days before the game and put in the starting lineup ). One was a desperation wounded duck throw by the Titans QB that fell way short of its intended target and any DB would have picked that one off (nice run back for 6 by Berry after the INT -- I'll give him that ). Gifts? Yes, three of those 4 INT's indeed were.


Like I said before, it's pointless arguing with him because he's always right.

Why thank you. When you can substantially prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt ( which you've haven't as of yet succeeded to do ), I'll be the first to let you know.

Ryfo18
02-05-2011, 01:46 AM
Nothing was thrown out. I simply pointed out things that factored into those stats that I suspect that you may have to failed consider before posting about them.



So what? I can show stats that they had a better pass rush in 2010, were better against the run & total yards allowed overall. That improvement came from a revamped front 7. I can also show stats that the numbers regarding pass defense were very similar in 2010 to 2009. None of them justify taking a Safety with the #5 overall pick.

You can show them? Where are they?

Here they are:

2009: 302/509 CMP/ATT, 59.3%, 3707 yards, 7.6 ypa, 25 TDs, 15 INTs, QB Rating 87.1
2010: 319/581 CMP/ATT, 54.9%, 3519, 6.5 ypa, 23 TDs, 14 INTs, 78.1 QB Rating

So let's get this straight, on 72 more pass attempts this year, the Chiefs allowed fewer yards and TDs than last year? I'm not denying the front 7 played much better, but in your mind none of it could possibly be because of Berry simply because you did not want to take him at 5.




Which leads to the obvious question that still remains unanswered: Why take a Safety at #5 if he's a liability in pass coverage like all the others? Jerome Woods was drafted in the late 1st round & Reggie Tongue in the 2nd round in 1996. Both became starters in their 2nd seasons & had great seasons in 1997 as 1st year starters. Perhaps Berry will do the same in 2011. Greg Wesley was 3rd round pick in 2000 and was a starter right away and played just as well as Berry did in 2010. Point is none of those guys were hyped up the way Berry has been or over-drafted.

Why is he over-drafted? He's played at a high level in his rookie year, defensed twice as many passes as all the safeties on the Chiefs last year, and was 2nd on the team in tackles. So he gave up by my count 6 TDs, or roughly 1/4 of the Chiefs total pass TDs. Not bad for a guy that played every snap when you consider a base 3-4 with 4 defensive backs. And in his defense, at least 2 of those were due to the quarterback having all day to throw (Houston and Oakland).




No, it didn't have anything to do with reading the QB's eyes in zone coverage and getting in the right position. Kendrick Lewis did that against the Rams twice.
One was a ball that slipped badly out of the Bill's QB's hand and flew right to Berry. One was a wounded duck thrown by the Jags QB right straight to Berry ( a QB that had been pulled off the street just a few days before the game and put in the starting lineup ). One was a desperation wounded duck throw by the Titans QB that fell way short of its intended target and any DB would have picked that one off (nice run back for 6 by Berry after the INT -- I'll give him that ). Gifts? Yes, three of those 4 INT's indeed were.

Just a prime example of you not wanting to give Berry any credit. If he does anything good in the passing game it can't be because he did anything right. The Titans pick he made a nice play on the ball. Jacksonville was a gift, but was caused by great coverage all across the board. We get it, you'll never buy a Berry jersey because you did not want the Chiefs to draft him and in your eyes he'll never be good enough. He's about as far as you can get from a "top 5 bust" though.

slc chief
02-05-2011, 03:05 AM
[quote=brdempsey69;226651]They were also DB's -- second nature. I heard Rod Woodson prop up Taylor Mays as well. We see the same thing every year at the draft from former players who say the same thing every year about draftees such as "He's going to be a Pro Bowler" or something along those lines & then the guy is a bust in 3 years & is out of the league and probably delivering pizza to someone's doorstep.



No, you haven't got it straight at all. He was beat more than a couple of times. And not because he misread coverage either on many of those occasions. Never said anything about replacing him -- you made that up all on your own. I said that if he doesn't improve in the area of pass defense than he really is no more than a Bernard Pollard clone.



In run support, yes (Pollard could have done that ,too ) in pass defense, no. Some said he sucked in that area & although, I wouldn't go as far to say that, he does have a lot of room for improvement.



Quite the contrary, the Chiefs do need to add another Safety, but for depth only. Maybe FA.



Too bad it didn't always translate on the field when it came to pass defense. Often times, he looked bewildered going against receivers that were skilled route runners & some blew right by him like he was standing still. Maybe in the upcoming seasons that'll change. We'll have to wait and see.



You don't know that for certain. Nobody does. With the Chiefs having a tougher schedule in 2011, his 2nd season could wind up going the other way & being far worse than his 1st. Hopefully not, but we'll have to wait and see.[/

dont care about there tougher schedule your not qualified to call him out bottom line you are making a clown of yourself for doing so

brdempsey69
02-05-2011, 03:09 AM
You can show them? Where are they?

Here they are:

2009: 302/509 CMP/ATT, 59.3%, 3707 yards, 7.6 ypa, 25 TDs, 15 INTs, QB Rating 87.1
2010: 319/581 CMP/ATT, 54.9%, 3519, 6.5 ypa, 23 TDs, 14 INTs, 78.1 QB Rating

So let's get this straight, on 72 more pass attempts this year, the Chiefs allowed fewer yards and TDs than last year? I'm not denying the front 7 played much better, but in your mind none of it could possibly be because of Berry simply because you did not want to take him at 5.

Wow, what an astronomical difference in numbers. I am real overwhelmed by the huge impact Berry made regarding those numbers.

From an honest perspective, his impact was hardly anything to justify his draft status. No way. A Safety like Nate Allen or T.J. Ward drafted in the 2nd round could have made the same impact, maybe even more.



Why is he over-drafted? He's played at a high level in his rookie year, defensed twice as many passes as all the safeties on the Chiefs last year, and was 2nd on the team in tackles.


See above. What's next? A punter drafted in the top 5 as well. The point is that good Safeties can be had later on in the draft & it isn't necessary to spend the #5 overall pick on one. 2nd round pick T.J. Ward had more tackles for Cleveland than Berry so by your reasoning, Ward was the better value pick.



So he gave up by my count 6 TDs, or roughly 1/4 of the Chiefs total pass TDs. Not bad for a guy that played every snap when you consider a base 3-4 with 4 defensive backs.


They didn't run that alignment 100% of the time and you know that. And you better go back and recount. I know it was more than 6. I've counted at least 8.



And in his defense, at least 2 of those were due to the quarterback having all day to throw (Houston and Oakland).


Have to check that one against Houston. But, I know that's not the case against the Raiders. He simply did not stay with the receiver like he was supposed to. He had Chaz Shillens one on one & just stood there flat-footed and let Schillens come wide open almost 10 yards behind him. All the QB did was just move to his right a little bit & hadn't come close to getting out of the pocket.




Just a prime example of you not wanting to give Berry any credit. If he does anything good in the passing game it can't be because he did anything right.


He did something right. He held on to the ball and didn't drop it. Satisfied?



The Titans pick he made a nice play on the ball. Jacksonville was a gift, but was caused by great coverage all across the board.


No, that was caused by pressure on the QB that forced an errant throw. Go look at the play again. Without pressure on the QB, there's a good chance that ball isn't thrown in Berry's direction.



We get it, you'll never buy a Berry jersey because you did not want the Chiefs to draft him....


I have a Berry jersey. I wore it when I drove from Montana to the Chiefs game against SF in Sept. It's just that I'm not willing to stand in the Kool-Aid box where he's concerned or be a part of the "how dare you scrutinize our false god that we worship so reverently" crowd when someone does scrutinize him.



and in your eyes he'll never be good enough.


That remains unproven. As I said before, we'll have to wait and see. If he plays up to the level of past Chiefs Safeties like Johnny Robinson, Deron Cherry, Gary Barbaro, Lloyd Burruss, then I'll give him his due. But it's not etched in stone that he will just because he was drafted #5 overall.



He's about as far as you can get from a "top 5 bust" though.

Didn't say he was bust. That remains to be seen. Just said he was overdrafted and wasn't the best pick at #5. He's got potential, but as things stand right now, I couldn't rate him any better than a mid 2nd rounder and that's being generous.



dont care about there tougher schedule your not qualified to call him out bottom line you are making a clown of yourself for doing so

On the contrary I can & there are other Chiefs fans that have done it as well. It's called right to freedom of speech, in case you haven't heard of it. Sounds like your puked out because it's not what you want to hear. Simply don't read the thread, then.

slc chief
02-05-2011, 03:15 AM
dont come on here talking about how the raiders had a great draft. but did not make the playoffs. and the chiefs who won the division had a shi##y draft SCOREBOARD ON THOSE CLOWNS. A BIG REASON WHY WE MADE THE PLAYOFFS WAS BECAUSE OUR DRAFT PICKS(MOEAKI,BERRY,MCLUSTER,AREANAS. 2010 MOST IMPROVED TEAM GUESS WHAT IT WAS THE KC CHIEFS NOT THE GAYDERS OPEN YOUR EYES EXPERT

brdempsey69
02-05-2011, 03:42 AM
dont come on here talking about how the raiders had a great draft. but did not make the playoffs. and the chiefs who won the division had a shi##y draft SCOREBOARD ON THOSE CLOWNS. A BIG REASON WHY WE MADE THE PLAYOFFS WAS BECAUSE OUR DRAFT PICKS(MOEAKI,BERRY,MCLUSTER,AREANAS. 2010 MOST IMPROVED TEAM GUESS WHAT IT WAS THE KC CHIEFS NOT THE GAYDERS OPEN YOUR EYES EXPERT

Open your own eyes, you who cannot see outside the Kool-Aid box & look at anything objectively or with any sense of diplomacy. The Raiders did have a great draft & honestly it was better than the Chiefs draft. What rookie on either team had the biggest impact in the 2 games played between the 2 teams? It was the Raiders Jacoby Ford, by far and away. The Raiders got 3 starters from their top 3 picks. The Chiefs got 1 starter and 2 situational players from their top 3 picks. I can talk about the Raiders having a great draft if I wish, because it's the gospel truth, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Sure the Chiefs made the playoffs, but not because they drafted better than the Raiders. The Chiefs draft picks helped, but they a small part of it, not a big part of it. The big reason was the improved play of guys already on the team that stepped up -- that list goes on and on -- and the new coaches added to the staff. Especially Crennel and the defensive coaches.

Three7s
02-05-2011, 05:13 AM
Interceptions are almost never earned. 95% of them are because the QB made a bad throw or because of pressure.

You like ignoring the pass defense stat, but it is still a legit stat that Berry has helped with more than hurt. But he hasn't helped enough to warrant his draft placement? Ever think that a career doesn't equal one year? Nah, that doesn't matter, still not enough.

You wave the banner of Okung over Berry, but think about the Chiefs philosophies. We wanted to run a ball-attacking defense that swarms to the run and, while not making any outstanding plays, is able to do the job well enough defensively.

On offense, our style is running the ball. Okung's biggest weakness is the running game. Think that had something to do with the decision? Pioli and his staff aren't idiots and they knew they couldn't afford set backs. Yes, Okung WOULD have been a set back from their philosophies, despite great pass protection.

Would Okung have helped us out, absolutely. We would have had a lot more depth, though I'm not sure about the running game because Albert would have been moved to guard, and we have good guards already. Unless you mean center for Waters, but Wiegman wasn't bad either.

Either way, this is all a wash, I like Berry and I think he'll do a lot for the team in the future, and when he's knocking people off their legs and setting records for pick sixes, I'll remember this debate.

Ryfo18
02-05-2011, 05:20 AM
I can also show stats that the numbers regarding pass defense were very similar in 2010 to 2009.

I'm still waiting for these numbers.


Wow, what an astronomical difference in numbers. I am real overwhelmed by the huge impact Berry made regarding those numbers.

From an honest perspective, his impact was hardly anything to justify his draft status. No way. A Safety like Nate Allen or T.J. Ward drafted in the 2nd round could have made the same impact, maybe even more.

Extrapolate out the 2009 numbers to 581 attempts. You arrive at 4415 yards (which would be the worst passing yard mark in 2009 or 2010 for any defense) and 28 TDs given up (6th worst this year). Do you still not see any difference? Or are you blinded by your "we should not have taken Berry" logic? I'll bet on the latter.


See above. What's next? A punter drafted in the top 5 as well.

Now you're reaching.


The point is that good Safeties can be had later on in the draft & it isn't necessary to spend the #5 overall pick on one. 2nd round pick T.J. Ward had more tackles for Cleveland than Berry so by your reasoning, Ward was the better value pick.

Same goes for LT's. Marcus McNeill, Matt Light, Michael Roos, Roger Saffold (actually allowed less sacks than Okung and played 6 more games), and on and on...


I can also show stats that the numbers regarding pass defense were very similar in 2010 to 2009.

You sure about that?



They didn't run that alignment 100% of the time and you know that. And you better go back and recount. I know it was more than 6. I've counted at least 8.

Who knows what the number is, all we know is that Berry boasts the 4th most passes defensed out of all the strong safeties.


Have to check that one against Houston. But, I know that's not the case against the Raiders. He simply did not stay with the receiver like he was supposed to. He had Chaz Shillens one on one & just stood there flat-footed and let Schillens come wide open almost 10 yards behind him. All the QB did was just move to his right a little bit & hadn't come close to getting out of the pocket.

I'm confusing Oakland with another game...I can't remember at this point without digging deep.


He did something right. He held on to the ball and didn't drop it. Satisfied?

No, that was caused by pressure on the QB that forced an errant throw. Go look at the play again. Without pressure on the QB, there's a good chance that ball isn't thrown in Berry's direction.

Which is how most interceptions in the NFL occur. He still jumped the route to make a play on the ball.


I have a Berry jersey. I wore it when I drove from Montana to the Chiefs game against SF in Sept. It's just that I'm not willing to stand in the Kool-Aid box where he's concerned or be a part of the "how dare you scrutinize our false god that we worship so reverently" crowd when someone does scrutinize him.



That remains unproven. As I said before, we'll have to wait and see. If he plays up to the level of past Chiefs Safeties like Johnny Robinson, Deron Cherry, Gary Barbaro, Lloyd Burruss, then I'll give him his due. But it's not etched in stone that he will just because he was drafted #5 overall.

Of course not, but he had a solid season as a rookie safety. Hard to imagine what a little experience might do for him...




Didn't say he was bust. That remains to be seen. Just said he was overdrafted and wasn't the best pick at #5. He's got potential, but as things stand right now, I couldn't rate him any better than a mid 2nd rounder and that's being generous.

Fine...a minority opinion that the majority of analysts will disagree with you on.


I can also show stats that the numbers regarding pass defense were very similar in 2010 to 2009.

Can you show me where these are again?

Ryfo18
02-05-2011, 05:32 AM
You wave the banner of Okung over Berry, but think about the Chiefs philosophies. We wanted to run a ball-attacking defense that swarms to the run and, while not making any outstanding plays, is able to do the job well enough defensively.

On offense, our style is running the ball. Okung's biggest weakness is the running game. Think that had something to do with the decision? Pioli and his staff aren't idiots and they knew they couldn't afford set backs. Yes, Okung WOULD have been a set back from their philosophies, despite great pass protection.

It's also no secret that the Chiefs led the league in 10+ yd carries to the left side with 36 (2nd highest was 28). I get it, we had Jamaal Charles, but Albert's doing something right. Seattle finished stellar in that same category......4th worst...Also had 21 plays of "negative" gains to the left side. I'm sure those all occurred in the 6 games Okung missed though.


Would Okung have helped us out, absolutely. We would have had a lot more depth, though I'm not sure about the running game because Albert would have been moved to guard, and we have good guards already. Unless you mean center for Waters, but Wiegman wasn't bad either.

Dude, we would have won the Super Bowl if we had Okung. Everyone knows you can't win a Super Bowl if you don't have a stellar left tackle, unless you're the Saints, Steelers, Giants, Colts, Bucs, or 75% of the other teams that have won Super Bowls.

NWA Chief
02-05-2011, 04:09 PM
The point of the thread is mocking who we WILL get. We HAVE Eric Berry and it is what it is. I'm a huge fan of Berry and think he plays spectacular against the run and about as well as expected in pass defense as a rookie. Apparently everyone thought Berry should have made the defense #1 after a year. Every draft expert said our rookies last year would make big contributions as rookies. Imagine how much better they will be after a year in the system.

To make a relevant post to this thread, my mock would probably be at this moment:
1st Round- OLB Houston(Georgia)

It's so early taht I'll just add the players what I wouldn't mind being drafted.

WR: Austin Pettus, Vincent Brown, Greg Salas, Leonard Hankerson, Randall Cobb
DT: Phil Taylor, Simone Fua, Jerrel Powe, Drake Nevis
QB(the next backup) McElroy, Dalton or Colin Kaepernick
OLB: Acho
OL: I need to do more reserach as I don't see KC picking an OL early. I wouldn't mind to see the USC OT Tyron Smith.

Ryfo18
02-05-2011, 04:12 PM
The point of the thread is mocking who we WILL get. We HAVE Eric Berry and it is what it is. I'm a huge fan of Berry and think he plays spectacular against the run and about as well as expected in pass defense as a rookie. Apparently everyone thought Berry should have made the defense #1 after a year. Every draft expert said our rookies last year would make big contributions as rookies. Imagine how much better they will be after a year in the system.

To make a relevant post to this thread, my mock would probably be at this moment:
1st Round- OLB Houston(Georgia)

It's so early taht I'll just add the players what I wouldn't mind being drafted.

WR: Austin Pettus, Vincent Brown, Greg Salas, Leonard Hankerson, Randall Cobb
DT: Phil Taylor, Simone Fua, Jerrel Powe, Drake Nevis
QB(the next backup) McElroy, Dalton or Colin Kaepernick
OLB: Acho
OL: I need to do more reserach as I don't see KC picking an OL early. I wouldn't mind to see the USC OT Tyron Smith.

I like Houston, and Aldon Smith as well. There's some good videos out there of Smith making Nate Solder (one of the top OT prospects) look foolish. Same is true of Von Miller, but he's sounding like he'll go within the top 10, maybe to Arizona or Buffalo in the top 5.

brdempsey69
02-05-2011, 06:16 PM
You can show them? Where are they?

Here they are:

2009: 302/509 CMP/ATT, 59.3%, 3707 yards, 7.6 ypa, 25 TDs, 15 INTs, QB Rating 87.1
2010: 319/581 CMP/ATT, 54.9%, 3519, 6.5 ypa, 23 TDs, 14 INTs, 78.1 QB Rating


I'm still waiting for these numbers.

Extrapolate out the 2009 numbers to 581 attempts. You arrive at 4415 yards (which would be the worst passing yard mark in 2009 or 2010 for any defense) and 28 TDs given up (6th worst this year). Do you still not see any difference? Or are you blinded by your "we should not have taken Berry" logic? I'll bet on the latter.



What for are you asking for that which you have already posted? And why no mention of the number of sacks and pressures on the opposing QB's in 2010 versus 2009, that anyone who watched the games both seasons could easily see, which blows your so-called "extrapolation" all to hell? Who's being blinded here?

It's already been mentioned several times about the revamped Defensive front 7 & yet you keep insisting on refusing to give the credit to them for the improved pass defense numbers -- and for what? So we can glorify a guy that had very little to do with those improved numbers in the passing game. Nobody can dispute the fact that without the improved front 7, Berry and the rest of the secondary would have struggled & the numbers would have been the same as 2009 or maybe even worse -- and that with an easier schedule. And with that, I can see why some fans are wanting a pass-rusher drafted at #21 in 2011.



Same goes for LT's. Marcus McNeill, Matt Light, Michael Roos, Roger Saffold (actually allowed less sacks than Okung and played 6 more games), and on and on...



McNeill didn't play 6 more games than Okung. And the numbers as far as sacks isn't astronomical. And you forgot to mention that Okung didn't give up a sack in the post-season in 80+ pass attempts in the 2 post season games. Add to the fact that Okung missed a lot of the preseason & training camp & part of the regular season because of those freak injuries that happened -- along with the fact he played hurt -- Okung's overall performance in his 1st year in the NFL was far more impressive than Berry's.


It's also no secret that the Chiefs led the league in 10+ yd carries to the left side with 36 (2nd highest was 28). I get it, we had Jamaal Charles, but Albert's doing something right.


Apparently, you don't get it. You take Charles out of the lineup & that number of 10+ yard carries goes way down. It's already been mentioned before that Albert's run blocking is very good, but outside of Charles, none of the other backs averaged over 4 yards per carry.



Seattle finished stellar in that same category......4th worst...Also had 21 plays of "negative" gains to the left side. I'm sure those all occurred in the 6 games Okung missed though.


And who's doing the reaching, now? Do you really believe that those negative plays were because Okung can't run block? And just how explosive are Seattle's RB's compared to Charles? Got news for you, many of those negative plays were due to penetration allowed by Seattle's LG and C. I know, because I watched the games. I've also seen more than one post elsewhere from Seattle fans wanting both of those positions upgraded this off-season.



Dude, we would have won the Super Bowl if we had Okung. Everyone knows you can't win a Super Bowl if you don't have a stellar left tackle, unless you're the Saints, Steelers, Giants, Colts, Bucs, or 75% of the other teams that have won Super Bowls.

And how many teams that have drafted Safeties in the top 10 have won Super Bowls? Zero, just like this article points out.

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftsafeties.php

Not sure of the accuracy of those percentages regarding LT's and Super Bowl victories, but even if they are accurate, I'll still take 25% over 0% anytime.


Interceptions are almost never earned. 95% of them are because the QB made a bad throw or because of pressure.

You like ignoring the pass defense stat, ....


On the contrary, I haven't ignored the Defensive passing stats, I've simply given credit where credit was really due and that's to a revamped front 7 seven that did a much better job of rushing the passer & I've made mention of that repeatedly regarding the defensive passing stats. Therefore, how is it that you say that I've been ignoring the pass defense stats, when in fact, I haven't?




but it is still a legit stat that Berry has helped with more than hurt.


Disagree, I'd say it was about even. He gave up more TD's than any of the other DB's. He tackled well in the open field for the most part, which helped to some degree. And what stat? Other than maybe passes defended. Take away the improved pass rush and those number of passes defended probably becomes redundant.



But he hasn't helped enough to warrant his draft placement?


Honestly, no not as of yet. There's a chance he still can. Time will tell.



Ever think that a career doesn't equal one year? Nah, that doesn't matter, still not enough.



Captain Obvious strikes again. Everybody and their brother and sister is well aware that one year doesn't always equal an NFL career, barring major injuries -- see Sylvester Morris.



You wave the banner of Okung over Berry,....


So, is that any different from you waving your banner of Berry over Okung? And would you still be waving your Berry banner if the Chiefs had taken Okung? I highly doubt it.



....but think about the Chiefs philosophies. We wanted to run a ball-attacking defense that swarms to the run and, while not making any outstanding plays, is able to do the job well enough defensively.


So what's to say that a Safety drafted in the 2nd round like T.J. Ward or Nate Allen couldn't have helped in that area? Especially combined with an improved Defensive front 7.



On offense, our style is running the ball. Okung's biggest weakness is the running game. Think that had something to do with the decision? Pioli and his staff aren't idiots and they knew they couldn't afford set backs. Yes, Okung WOULD have been a set back from their philosophies, despite great pass protection.


LOL, what a crock of BS. Did you gut that info out of a Cracker Jack box or what? At Oklahoma State in his senior year Okung scored 133 knockdown blocks and during his tenure, OSU was the leading rushing team in their conference for 4 straight years -- and Okung had a lot to do with that. Run blocking is not a weakness of Okung -- when he locks on to defenders, the play is essentially over for them 99% of the time, and often times he decks them on their arse. I can't believe you or anyone would make the statement that Okung would set the Chiefs back in their running game. You have nothing whatsoever to substantiate that -- in fact, a fart from a beaver in a tree is more substantial than that ridiculous statement.

chief31
02-05-2011, 09:01 PM
none of the experts above.i am talking people who have actually played the position at a pro level.deon sanders,rod woodson,rodney harrison.

All of those guys are DBs. Of course they will think more highly of DBs than others.


so let me get this straight we need to address berrys safety position via free agency or the draft.because he got beat a couple times and misread some coverages as a rookie.(as according to your bernard pollard of the future post).

I didn't see this mentioned before now.


nope bottom line we no longer need to fill that position because berry did his part as a rookie. and it is no longer a position of need in the upcoming draft. berry has a unbelievable work ethic and awesome knowledge of the game.can he improve yes will he yes.

Will he? Probably.

I like Berry. I even think that Brdempsey is biased in his assessment of Berry's pass protection. Not much. But to a degree.

But, of course, there is no guarantee that he will improve.


They were also DB's -- second nature. I heard Rod Woodson prop up Taylor Mays as well. We see the same thing every year at the draft from former players who say the same thing every year about draftees such as "He's going to be a Pro Bowler" or something along those lines & then the guy is a bust in 3 years & is out of the league and probably delivering pizza to someone's doorstep.



No, you haven't got it straight at all. He was beat more than a couple of times. And not because he misread coverage either on many of those occasions. Never said anything about replacing him -- you made that up all on your own. I said that if he doesn't improve in the area of pass defense than he really is no more than a Bernard Pollard clone.

Certainly an exaggeration.

I think that cutting Pollard was a terrible idea. But his weakness against the pass was definitely more defined than Berry's.


In run support, yes (Pollard could have done that ,too ) in pass defense, no. Some said he sucked in that area & although, I wouldn't go as far to say that, he does have a lot of room for improvement.

I also think that Berry is better than Pollard in run defense. One could look into missed tackles for evidence.


Now you have to know that does not include the number of passes thrown in the said players direction, as well as passes caught by opposing receivers against said player -- especially ones that went for TD's. It also doesn't include the number of dodged bullets, where said player was soundly beaten by the opposing receiver, but the ball was either dropped, overthrown, etc..

Of course, that kind of breakdown could be made of any statistic.

Berry ranked 43rd in The NFL in PDef, and that includes all defensive positions.

Oddly enough, the second highest total in The NFL was our own Brandon Carr, with 26 (Tied).

Also, Flowers (14 ranking 22nd) and DJ (17 ranking 18th) ranked pretty high.

NFL Stats: by Player Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=INTERCEPTIONS&d-447263-s=DEFENSIVE_PASSES_INT_DEFENSED&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2010&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1)

I agree that it is not the most conclusive of stats. But you do have to do something to acquire them.


Sorry, but I can't put any stock in those numbers & until I see differently in the upcoming seasons, Berry does look like a Pollard clone thus far. Hopefully that will change. We'll have to wait and see.

Harsh words. And I like Pollard.

If the stats alone don't create separation between the two, wouldn't you want to look directly into the team's defensive performances?

Those, combined with with the individual stats, should get Berry ahead of Pollard.


Nothing was thrown out. I simply pointed out things that factored into those stats that I suspect that you may have to failed consider before posting about them.

Actually... you did sort of throw them out....


Sorry, but I can't put any stock in those numbers


So what? I can show stats that they had a better pass rush in 2010, (Due to better coverage?) were better against the run & total yards allowed overall. That improvement came from a revamped front 7. I can also show stats that the numbers regarding pass defense were very similar in 2010 to 2009. None of them justify taking a Safety with the #5 overall pick.

Of course, I agree.


Which leads to the obvious question that still remains unanswered: Why take a Safety at #5 if he's a liability in pass coverage like all the others? Jerome Woods was drafted in the late 1st round & Reggie Tongue in the 2nd round in 1996. Both became starters in their 2nd seasons & had great seasons in 1997 as 1st year starters. Perhaps Berry will do the same in 2011. Greg Wesley was 3rd round pick in 2000 and was a starter right away and played just as well as Berry did in 2010. Point is none of those guys were hyped up the way Berry has been or over-drafted.

Well... Not quite.

Greg Wesley Stats - Oakland Raiders - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=2216)

Eric Berry, SS for the Kansas City Chiefs at NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/players/ericberry/profile?id=BER517115)

Wesley - 84 Tackles, 7 PDs, 1 Sack, 2 INTs, 2 FFs.
Berry - 92 Tackles, 9 PDs (*), 2 Sacks, 4 INTs, 1 FFs.

(*) - Strange. But NFL.com has Berry raked with 13 PDs on the sortable stats rankings, but only 9 PDs on his individual player page.

Wesley did very well, statistically. B ut he fell short of Berry in all catergories. (Regarding INTs + FFs as Forced TOs.)



Why thank you. When you can substantially prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt ( which you've haven't as of yet succeeded to do ), I'll be the first to let you know.

Can I try?

The 2000 Ravens (I know. Just let me throw this one out there...) in their second playoff game, against The Titans, managed only 134 yards of offense, and posted ten points, not enough to win the game, as The Titans scored ten also.

But the Defense/Special Teams added two TDs (game-winner included), while holding their opponent to just ten points.

Is it safe to say that That team, if only for that playoff game, was unbalanced?:D

Basically, as the current topic is concerned, I think that Brdempsey is quick to discredit any positive about Berry, and just as quick to spotlight any negative, due to a bias, caused from his opinion that we drafted the wrong player in the '09 draft. An opinion that I share.

But one needn't try to knock the wrong player (Berry) in order to make the case for the right player (Okung).

The case is valid, even if one concedes that Berry is an excellent SS.

brdempsey69
02-05-2011, 09:33 PM
Can I try?

The 2000 Ravens (I know. Just let me throw this one out there...) in their second playoff game, against The Titans, managed only 134 yards of offense, and posted ten points, not enough to win the game, as The Titans scored ten also.

But the Defense/Special Teams added two TDs (game-winner included), while holding their opponent to just ten points.

Is it safe to say that That team, if only for that playoff game, was unbalanced?:D


For that game, yes. All throughout the postseason, no.



Basically, as the current topic is concerned, I think that Brdempsey is quick to discredit any positive about Berry, and just as quick to spotlight any negative, due to a bias, caused from his opinion that we drafted the wrong player in the '09 draft. An opinion that I share.

But one needn't try to knock the wrong player (Berry) in order to make the case for the right player (Okung).

The case is valid, even if one concedes that Berry is an excellent SS.

Not so much discredit what he did that was positive, but to point out that there are negatives that need to be corrected or else the results could be disaster -- the most recent one was in the Pro Bowl, when he foolishly tried to tackle Steven Jackson high around the shoulders after Jackson had broken through the line of scrimmage and built up a full head of steam. Jackson trampled Berry into the turf like Berry was a paper soldier and ran into the end zone. Berry was lucky he didn't get maimed on that play.

Hopefully, Berry learned his lesson and he would do well to watch films of Deron Cherry and the way that Cherry made several great one-on-one tackles on the Raiders Bo Jackson back in the day -- the trick was Cherry didn't try to tackle Jackson high.

I like Berry, but not to the point where I'm going to worship him like so many others do. To me, he's got a lot to prove to justify his draft status. Time will tell.

chief31
02-05-2011, 09:35 PM
Wesley - 84 Tackles, 7 PDs, 1 Sack, 2 INTs, 2 FFs.
Berry - 92 Tackles, 9 PDs (*), 2 Sacks, 4 INTs, 1 FFs.

(*) - Strange. But NFL.com has Berry raked with 13 PDs on the sortable stats rankings, but only 9 PDs on his individual player page.



I figured this out.

INTs are accumulated as PDef on the rankings, while they are kept separate on the individual player's page.

DUH!!! :lol:

slc chief
02-05-2011, 09:42 PM
For that game, yes. All throughout the postseason, no.



Not so much discredit what he did that was positive, but to point out that there are negatives that need to be corrected or else the results could be disaster -- the most recent one was in the Pro Bowl, when he foolishly tried to tackle Steven Jackson high around the shoulders after Jackson had broken through the line of scrimmage and built up a full head of steam. Jackson trampled Berry into the turf like Berry was a paper soldier and ran into the end zone. Berry was lucky he didn't get maimed on that play.

Hopefully, Berry learned his lesson and he would do well to watch films of Deron Cherry and the way that Cherry made several great one-on-one tackles on the Raiders Bo Jackson back in the day -- the trick was Cherry didn't try to tackle Jackson high.

I like Berry, but not to the point where I'm going to worship him like so many others do. To me, he's got a lot to prove to justify his draft status. Time will tell.

the defensive players are told not to hit hard or play at the high level they are used to in the pro bowl. due to injury concerns. duh he is not going to go for jackson's legs and establish a hit that he would have in the regular season.to call him out in a play during the pro bowl is stupid.why do you think there was 90+ points scored in that game.give me a break.i seen berry make a ton of open field tackles during the regular season.i can not wait untill you get proven wrong even more when you see how much more he develops in his 2nd year.

chief31
02-05-2011, 09:47 PM
For that game, yes. All throughout the postseason, no.

Then, if not for that imbalance, they don't play another game?:D

Would you have been able to muster an argument for their balance, had they lost that game?


Not so much discredit what he did that was positive, but to point out that there are negatives that need to be corrected or else the results could be disaster

I see that.

But do you see where you have discredited the PDef stat, and undermined the INTs, by pointing to luck?


-- the most recent one was in the Pro Bowl, when he foolishly tried to tackle Steven Jackson high around the shoulders after Jackson had broken through the line of scrimmage and built up a full head of steam. Jackson trampled Berry into the turf like Berry was a paper soldier and ran into the end zone. Berry was lucky he didn't get maimed on that play.

Pro Bowl... 'Nuff said. Surely you noticed that all defenders were taking it easy?


Hopefully, Berry learned his lesson and he would do well to watch films of Deron Cherry and the way that Cherry made several great one-on-one tackles on the Raiders Bo Jackson back in the day -- the trick was Cherry didn't try to tackle Jackson high.

I like Berry, but not to the point where I'm going to worship him like so many others do. To me, he's got a lot to prove to justify his draft status. Time will tell.

I agree that he has to be an absolute standout to warrant having taken him over Okung.

But I try to make sure to separate that judgement from my actual evaluation of him as a player. Because my evaluation of him against Okung is going to be different from an evaluation of him, disregarding his draft status.

slc chief
02-05-2011, 09:53 PM
On the contrary, the stupidity is all on your side -- you didn't even see the play, did you? What you're saying about basic form tackling not applying to the Pro Bowl is just utter nonsense. And do you really think that it's going to hurt my feelings if Berry does develop & blossom into the stud Safety that people are projecting him to be? Do you really believe that? If you do, then like I said, the stupidity is all your side.

YouTube - Eric Berry 2010 Chiefs Highlights

brdempsey69
02-05-2011, 09:55 PM
YouTube - Eric Berry 2010 Chiefs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y40MCxh2uLw)

So what? That has nothing to do with what happened in the Pro Bowl.

slc chief
02-05-2011, 10:06 PM
So what? That has nothing to do with what happened in the Pro Bowl.

forget the pro bowl you have been bashing him on his whole season

brdempsey69
02-05-2011, 10:11 PM
Then, if not for that imbalance, they don't play another game?:D

Would you have been able to muster an argument for their balance, had they lost that game?


You answered your own question there.



I see that.

But do you see where you have discredited the PDef stat, and undermined the INTs, by pointing to luck?


Didn't say it was luck. I said that anyone's granny could have made those INT's.




Pro Bowl... 'Nuff said. Surely you noticed that all defenders were taking it easy?


That play had nothing to do with anyone taking it easy. Steven Jackson certainly didn't take it easy on Berry, the way he trampled him into the turf. Berry tried to put a kill-shot on Jackson needlessly, when he could have easily made a clean tackle around Jackson's ankles and brought him down.




I agree that he has to be an absolute standout to warrant having taken him over Okung.


Actually, there's a better way. Draft some talented O-Lineman in the upcoming 2011 draft. In other words, get the missing pieces of the puzzle in 2011 that were not gotten in 2010.



But I try to make sure to separate that judgement from my actual evaluation of him as a player. Because my evaluation of him against Okung is going to be different from an evaluation of him, disregarding his draft status.

Even disregarding his draft status or evaluation against Okung, Berry is still not a finished product. He's got much room for improvement.

brdempsey69
02-05-2011, 10:21 PM
forget the pro bowl you have been bashing him on his whole season

And so what if your feelings are hurt about him being scrutinized. I call it like I see it. By contrast, people were pointing fingers at Brandon Carr during the 1st half of the season and wanting him replaced & yet these same people were so forgiving of Berry whenever he struggled in pass defense. No sense of diplomacy. Which player is getting paid more & forget about number of years in the league -- that's just a copout. Carr stepped up his game. Berry needs to do the same.

slc chief
02-05-2011, 11:06 PM
And so what if your feelings are hurt about him being scrutinized. I call it like I see it. By contrast, people were pointing fingers at Brandon Carr during the 1st half of the season and wanting him replaced & yet these same people were so forgiving of Berry whenever he struggled in pass defense. No sense of diplomacy. Which player is getting paid more & forget about number of years in the league -- that's just a copout. Carr stepped up his game. Berry needs to do the same.
done arguing with ya the video and the pro bowl selection says it all.your wrong on berry your still just butthurt because they didnt take okung get over it. they obviously were going for playmakers in the draft and that is what they got.it was a hell of a year from the rookie.but your to bias of the pick. bottom line he upgraded the chiefs at that position in a major way and he produced this year

Boxermm187
02-05-2011, 11:08 PM
Berry...... Pro Bowl!!!! come on

brdempsey69
02-06-2011, 12:08 AM
done arguing with ya the video and the pro bowl selection says it all.


Doesn't say squat. He didn't really earn the Pro Bowl spot. Palamalu, just happened to be playing in the Super Bowl. If the Pro Bowl followed the Super Bowl, Berry wouldn't be there. Hali didn't get voted on the first go-round & that should tell anybody all they need to know about the Pro Bowl voting.



your wrong on berry your still just butthurt because they didnt take okung get over it.


No, I'm not. he hasn't justified his draft status as of yet. The butthurt is all on your side because someone told it like it was regarding him. You get over it.



they obviously were going for playmakers in the draft and that is what they got.


Too often looked more like a play-giver than playmaker in pass defense.



it was a hell of a year from the rookie.


In a pigs eye. And from the eyes of those inside the Kool-Aid box.



but your to bias of the pick.


So are you, just on a different side -- the side that can't look at things objectively.



bottom line he upgraded the chiefs at that position in a major way and he produced this year

The selection of Nate Allen or T.J. Ward in the 2nd round would have done the same thing. As did the selection of Lewis in the 5th round. True that Lewis could polish up his tackling, but I like the way he can track the football when it's in the air.

Ryfo18
02-06-2011, 12:15 AM
What for are you asking for that which you have already posted? And why no mention of the number of sacks and pressures on the opposing QB's in 2010 versus 2009, that anyone who watched the games both seasons could easily see, which blows your so-called "extrapolation" all to hell? Who's being blinded here?

It's already been mentioned several times about the revamped Defensive front 7 & yet you keep insisting on refusing to give the credit to them for the improved pass defense numbers -- and for what? So we can glorify a guy that had very little to do with those improved numbers in the passing game. Nobody can dispute the fact that without the improved front 7, Berry and the rest of the secondary would have struggled & the numbers would have been the same as 2009 or maybe even worse -- and that with an easier schedule. And with that, I can see why some fans are wanting a pass-rusher drafted at #21 in 2011.

I'm not denying that the front 7 was much better, but you yourself said "wow what an astronomical difference." It is an astronomical difference and I've shown you that. I'm still waiting for you to show me the stats in the pass D that are similar to 2009 You said you could.

And yes, the secondary play this year was much better. Of course it's not just Berry. It was him, Lewis, Flowers, and Carr for the most part. But to say he had very little to do with it is inaccurate when he was on the field 100% of the plays this year.



McNeill didn't play 6 more games than Okung. And the numbers as far as sacks isn't astronomical. And you forgot to mention that Okung didn't give up a sack in the post-season in 80+ pass attempts in the 2 post season games. Add to the fact that Okung missed a lot of the preseason & training camp & part of the regular season because of those freak injuries that happened -- along with the fact he played hurt -- Okung's overall performance in his 1st year in the NFL was far more impressive than Berry's.

I was speaking of just Saffold, not McNeill.

ProFootballFocus grades every single play, of every single game for every single player. I asked some of the editors there what they thought of his first year and they said by default he was the best rookie LT, but he certainly didn't have a standout year. You call Berry not a finished product, by this Okung is not either.

And I don't know what basis you're using to compare performances between a safety and a left tackle, but to say a guy that missed 6 games had a better year than a guy who made the Pro Bowl, was 4th out of all strong safeties in the league in pass deflections, scored a defensive TD, had 4 INTs and was 2nd on his team in tackles is pretty laughable.



Apparently, you don't get it. You take Charles out of the lineup & that number of 10+ yard carries goes way down. It's already been mentioned before that Albert's run blocking is very good, but outside of Charles, none of the other backs averaged over 4 yards per carry.

No I get it. I acknowledged a lot of that has to do with Charles. Look at how many 10+ yard rushes to the right side of the Chiefs line though....19. Same running back, different side, almost half as many.


And who's doing the reaching, now? Do you really believe that those negative plays were because Okung can't run block? And just how explosive are Seattle's RB's compared to Charles? Got news for you, many of those negative plays were due to penetration allowed by Seattle's LG and C. I know, because I watched the games. I've also seen more than one post elsewhere from Seattle fans wanting both of those positions upgraded this off-season.

You can specifically see in games this year that Okung has "struggled in run blocking” here:

Re-Focused: Week 6, Seahawks at Bears | ProFootballFocus.com (http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2010/10/22/re-focused-week-6-seahawks-at-bears/)
Re-Focused: Week 4, Seahawks at Rams | ProFootballFocus.com (http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2010/10/04/re-focused-week-4-seahawks-at-rams/)


And how many teams that have drafted Safeties in the top 10 have won Super Bowls? Zero, just like this article points out.

WalterFootball.com: NFL Draft - Are Safeties Worth a Top Five NFL Draft Pick? (http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftsafeties.php)

Not sure of the accuracy of those percentages regarding LT's and Super Bowl victories, but even if they are accurate, I'll still take 25% over 0% anytime.

You misunderstood me. I said about 25% of teams that win Super Bowls have “elite” left tackles (not tackles taken in the top 15). It was an estimate. 0% of teams with “elite” safeties win Super Bowls is inaccurate. Polamalu, Ed Reed....

I read the article. Got me inspired to do my own research. That article tries to paint a bad light on safeties being taken early. Points out that the teams that spent top-15 picks on safeties were 242-284 (.460 winning percentage) with that safety on their roster. This data was taken back to 1991, so I had a look at tackles taken from 1991 and on.

What did I find? 1669-1973 record when these tackles played on the teams they were drafted by. That's a 0.458 win percentage. How many Super Bowls? There were 3 tackles taken in the top 15 that won Super Bowls with their teams: Jonathan Ogden, Orlando Pace, and Kenyatta Walker (I guess we can count him, even though he was drafted to play LT and got moved to RT the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl b/c he had a bad rookie year).

There were 42 total tackles taken in the top 15 since 1991. So exactly 1/14 (discount Walker and it's 1/21, but whatever) of these tackles have won a Super bowl on the team that drafted them. He cites that no safeties taken in the top 15 have won Super Bowls, but there have only been 10 since 1991. So what's better, 1/14 or 0/10? That's not a fair judgement. Basically, you can use the analysis from this article YOU provided for us to show why we shouldn't take a LT in the top 15.

Thus, I've just proven to you and everyone here why taking a safety in the top-15 is every bit as justified as as LT in the top-15.

I could also point out some of the safeties for Super Bowl winning teams in the last few years....Darren Sharper ('10), Troy Polamalu ('09), Bob Sanders ('07), Polamalu again ('06), Rodney Harrison ('05, '04), John Lynch ('03), Lawyer Milloy ('02), Rod Woodson ('01).

All of those names are great safeties, from each of the last 10 Super Bowls (exccept '08, the Giants didn't have what I'd call a “great” safety). How many of those teams had stellar left tackles? The Ravens with Jonathan Odgen and maybe the Pats with Matt Light? Wow, maybe a safety actually is more important than an elite LT. The Chiefs went after one of the best safety prospects in years, and he had a solid rookie year. Great things lie ahead.


Why thank you. When you can substantially prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt ( which you've haven't as of yet succeeded to do ), I'll be the first to let you know.

This just happened, and I'm sure everyone hear will agree with me based on this post. I'm done with this issue. Onto the draft talk.

Three7s
02-06-2011, 01:25 AM
Okay, now you're using the Pro Bowl as an excuse? People watch that joke of a game?

Here's a tip about the Pro Bowl. Defenses are scaled down to make the game more exciting. Offensive players always try harder than defensive players because there's nothing to lose.

Steven Jackson "tried harder" because he has nothing to lose. I don't blame Berry at all for not wanting to knock his legs from under him. Berry showed form tackling more than consistently enough during the regular season to support one screw up during the world's most unimportant game of all time

Ryfo18
02-06-2011, 01:38 AM
Okay, now you're using the Pro Bowl as an excuse? People watch that joke of a game?

Here's a tip about the Pro Bowl. Defenses are scaled down to make the game more exciting. Offensive players always try harder than defensive players because there's nothing to lose.

Steven Jackson "tried harder" because he has nothing to lose. I don't blame Berry at all for not wanting to knock his legs from under him. Berry showed form tackling more than consistently enough during the regular season to support one screw up during the world's most unimportant game of all time

Yeah, a game where the final score was 55-41 and where the DLine/Oline barely do anything is not a good place to make your assessments on any player. Nobody tackles hard. The last thing these guys want to do is injure someone in an exhibition game.

brdempsey69
02-06-2011, 04:27 AM
I'm not denying that the front 7 was much better, but you yourself said "wow what an astronomical difference." It is an astronomical difference and I've shown you that. I'm still waiting for you to show me the stats in the pass D that are similar to 2009 You said you could.


Take a look at the same numbers that you posted. You can't be serious in saying there is an astronomical difference. They're almost similar except for attempts, completion %, and yards per attempt. Sorry, but you haven't shown me anything.

Take a look at the rushing defense numbers from '09 and '10. 2504 yards given up in '09 versus 1764 in '10 -- attempts down from 531 in '09 to 408 in '10, yards per carry down from 4.7 to 4.3 in '10, TD's down from 18 in '09 to 11 in '10. Now THAT you could call astronomical. It's not even close when comparing it to the differences in the pass defense numbers



And yes, the secondary play this year was much better. Of course it's not just Berry. It was him, Lewis, Flowers, and Carr for the most part. But to say he had very little to do with it is inaccurate when he was on the field 100% of the plays this year.


He helped to a degree, but he didn't make a huge impact that many thought he would make. Go back to 1992 & look at the #20 overall pick made by the Chiefs -- Dale Carter. He exceeded expectations that were had for him and made a huge impact. Had the same type of Rookie mistakes that Berry had, but a lot less frequently and he made 7 INT's with 1 TD return and returned 2 punts for TD's and his tackling was superb. He didn't make the Pro Bowl in '92, but he deserved it more back then, than Berry did in '10. Carter was a far better value pick.




ProFootballFocus grades every single play, of every single game for every single player. I asked some of the editors there what they thought of his first year and they said by default he was the best rookie LT, but he certainly didn't have a standout year. You call Berry not a finished product, by this Okung is not either.


Okung didn't get to get to go through a full training camp, preseason, and full 1st half of the season, and yet when he did play, he turned in some stellar performances against some of the leagues best.



And I don't know what basis you're using to compare performances between a safety and a left tackle, but to say a guy that missed 6 games had a better year than a guy who made the Pro Bowl, was 4th out of all strong safeties in the league in pass deflections, scored a defensive TD, had 4 INTs and was 2nd on his team in tackles is pretty laughable.


Basis is on what the player was drafted to do. Which player had the bigger impact for his team in the post-season? It was Okung -- and it wasn't even remotely close. He was better player at his position than Berry was at his and the numbers you posted don't negate that in any way.

Berry being in the Pro Bowl don't mean squat. That is way overblown & that's really what's laughable. Hali wasn't elected on the first get-go and that should tell anyone all they need to know about the Pro Bowl voting.




No I get it. I acknowledged a lot of that has to do with Charles. Look at how many 10+ yard rushes to the right side of the Chiefs line though....19. Same running back, different side, almost half as many.


So what's your point? Either way, you take Charles out of the lineup, the numbers go down.



You can specifically see in games this year that Okung has "struggled in run blocking” here:

Re-Focused: Week 6, Seahawks at Bears | ProFootballFocus.com (http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2010/10/22/re-focused-week-6-seahawks-at-bears/)
Re-Focused: Week 4, Seahawks at Rams | ProFootballFocus.com (http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2010/10/04/re-focused-week-4-seahawks-at-rams/)


He didn't play the full game against Rams & I know the statement that he struggled against the Bears is absolute BS. I watched that game TWICE on GameRewind on NFL.com. At no time did I see him struggle in the running game. He pancaked Peppers on one play, in fact, allowing Lynch to score a TD & after the game Peppers shook Okungs hand and congratulated him on the great performance Okung had turned in. Peppers would probably tell you that Okung was the best 1st year OT he ever played against, or at least one of the best.



You misunderstood me. I said about 25% of teams that win Super Bowls have “elite” left tackles (not tackles taken in the top 15). It was an estimate. 0% of teams with “elite” safeties win Super Bowls is inaccurate. Polamalu, Ed Reed....


I didn't misunderstand anything & never said anything about Tackles taken in the top 15. I said Safeties drafted in the top 10 have never been on a Super Bowl team. Polamalu and Reed weren't even drafted in the top 15 and Ed Reed has never been to a Super Bowl. You haven't got your facts straight.



I read the article. Got me inspired to do my own research. That article tries to paint a bad light on safeties being taken early.

Rubbish. He backed up what he was saying. It just simply wasn't what you wanted to hear. "Can't shoot down the message, so let's shoot the messager" as the saying goes.



Points out that the teams that spent top-15 picks on safeties were 242-284 (.460 winning percentage) with that safety on their roster. This data was taken back to 1991, so I had a look at tackles taken from 1991 and on.

What did I find? 1669-1973 record when these tackles played on the teams they were drafted by. That's a 0.458 win percentage. How many Super Bowls? There were 3 tackles taken in the top 15 that won Super Bowls with their teams: Jonathan Ogden, Orlando Pace, and Kenyatta Walker (I guess we can count him, even though he was drafted to play LT and got moved to RT the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl b/c he had a bad rookie year).

There were 42 total tackles taken in the top 15 since 1991. So exactly 1/14 (discount Walker and it's 1/21, but whatever) of these tackles have won a Super bowl on the team that drafted them. He cites that no safeties taken in the top 15 have won Super Bowls, but there have only been 10 since 1991. So what's better, 1/14 or 0/10? That's not a fair judgement.


Judgment? Your aching Aunt Fannie! A blind man with a cane can see through the numbers fabrication there. And it's 38 OT's, not 42 ( Eugene Chung in '92 doesn't count, he was a Guard with the Pats, Lincoln Kennedy does count, he was an OT ) Let's go OT in the TOP 10 versus Safeties in that same top 10. There were 20 OT's with 2 of them being being on Super Bowl winners and a total of 4 being in the Super Bowl. No matter how you slice it, that's still better than the BIG ZERO regarding Safeties.

Also factor in that 20 OT's were taken versus 10 Safeties -- proving that OT has more positional value than Safety does. Otherwise, there'd be more Safeties drafted in the top 10 than OT's.



Basically, you can use the analysis from this article YOU provided for us to show why we shouldn't take a LT in the top 15.


No you can't. The real reason for taking a LT is to provide better pass-protection for your QB's blind-side & you can throw out all the numbers you want, but it doesn't negate that fact. If you can't protect your QB, your chances of winning are reduced A LOT. Especially if you have to come from behind & have to throw the ball and the other team knows it. Try telling everybody that there wasn't anyone listed in that top 15 that you wouldn't rather have protecting your QB, if those players were in their prime, as opposed to what the Chiefs have currently at OT. If there's even just one from that list -- and I can easily count at least more than 15 -- then your statement that I just quoted just got blown to hell.



Thus, I've just proven to you and everyone here why taking a safety in the top-15 is every bit as justified as as LT in the top-15.


No, you haven't proven anything. See above. Your so called "proof" got shot down in flames.



I could also point out some of the safeties for Super Bowl winning teams in the last few years....Darren Sharper ('10), Troy Polamalu ('09), Bob Sanders ('07), Polamalu again ('06), Rodney Harrison ('05, '04), John Lynch ('03), Lawyer Milloy ('02), Rod Woodson ('01). All of those names are great safeties, from each of the last 10 Super Bowls (exccept '08, the Giants didn't have what I'd call a “great” safety).


None of whom were drafted in the top 10, let alone the top 5, thereby proving it isn't necessary to spend a top 5 pick on a Safety, which is exactly what I've been telling you all along.



How many of those teams had stellar left tackles? The Ravens with Jonathan Odgen and maybe the Pats with Matt Light?


That doesn't mean squat. That doesn't mean that the LT's who played on the winning SB teams weren't important to their teams & didn't play up to Pro Bowl level when it counted. By elite you may mean elected Pro Bowler or top 15 pick. Whether they are considered elite or not, they have to get the job done when the money is on the line or their teams have to come from behind -- something the Chiefs are void of at present.



Wow, maybe a safety actually is more important than an elite LT.


Keep dreaming. Try telling that to QB's playing in the NFL. Or try telling that to Trent Green after Willie Roaf retired.



The Chiefs went after one of the best safety prospects in years, and he had a solid rookie year. Great things lie ahead.


Not if he doesn't improve over this past year. Also, see 1st round draftees Percy Snow in 1990 and Sylvester Morris in 2000 -- both injury casualties -- one season and done. Nothing is etched in stone and the future is always uncertain.




This just happened, and I'm sure everyone hear will agree with me based on this post. I'm done with this issue. Onto the draft talk.

No, you simply made an attempt and failed. And anyone reading my responses with any sense of diplomacy will have doubts regarding your so-called "proof". You didn't prove anything at all.


Okay, now you're using the Pro Bowl as an excuse? People watch that joke of a game?

Here's a tip about the Pro Bowl. Defenses are scaled down to make the game more exciting. Offensive players always try harder than defensive players because there's nothing to lose.

Steven Jackson "tried harder" because he has nothing to lose. I don't blame Berry at all for not wanting to knock his legs from under him. Berry showed form tackling more than consistently enough during the regular season to support one screw up during the world's most unimportant game of all time

Yeah, a game where the final score was 55-41 and where the DLine/Oline barely do anything is not a good place to make your assessments on any player. Nobody tackles hard. The last thing these guys want to do is injure someone in an exhibition game.

Let's see now. First your glorifying Berry for being in the Pro Bowl, and then turning around and saying the game is a joke. Somewhat of a contradiction here.

Got news for you. Both players were trying their hardest on that play. Neither of you watched the game obviously.

Ryfo18
02-06-2011, 09:36 AM
Take a look at the same numbers that you posted. You can't be serious in saying there is an astronomical difference. They're almost similar except for attempts, completion %, and yards per attempt. Sorry, but you haven't shown me anything.

I get a kick out of this.



Take a look at the rushing defense numbers from '09 and '10. 2504 yards given up in '09 versus 1764 in '10 -- attempts down from 531 in '09 to 408 in '10, yards per carry down from 4.7 to 4.3 in '10, TD's down from 18 in '09 to 11 in '10. Now THAT you could call astronomical. It's not even close when comparing it to the differences in the pass defense numbers

More props to the 2nd leading tackler on the team!


So what's your point? Either way, you take Charles out of the lineup, the numbers go down.

The point that you skimmed over was that there was almost TWO TIMES AS MANY 10+ yard rushes to the left side. Good job Branden and Brian.




He didn't play the full game against Rams & I know the statement that he struggled against the Bears is absolute BS. I watched that game TWICE on GameRewind on NFL.com. At no time did I see him struggle in the running game. He pancaked Peppers on one play, in fact, allowing Lynch to score a TD & after the game Peppers shook Okungs hand and congratulated him on the great performance Okung had turned in. Peppers would probably tell you that Okung was the best 1st year OT he ever played against, or at least one of the best.

I don't grade them, the guys at ProFootballFocus.com do. But hell, it'd be silly to introduce an unbiased opinion to this discussion.




I didn't misunderstand anything & never said anything about Tackles taken in the top 15. I said Safeties drafted in the top 10 have never been on a Super Bowl team. Polamalu and Reed weren't even drafted in the top 15 and Ed Reed has never been to a Super Bowl. You haven't got your facts straight.

100% FALSE. Rod Woodson, taken with the 10th pick in the 1987 played in 3 Super Bowls and won 1. But of course the aformentioned article would fail to point that out.


Rubbish. He backed up what he was saying. It just simply wasn't what you wanted to hear. "Can't shoot down the message, so let's shoot the messager" as the saying goes.

Judgment? Your aching Aunt Fannie! A blind man with a cane can see through the numbers fabrication there. And it's 38 OT's, not 42 ( Eugene Chung in '92 doesn't count, he was a Guard with the Pats, Lincoln Kennedy does count, he was an OT ) Let's go OT in the TOP 10 versus Safeties in that same top 10. There were 20 OT's with 2 of them being being on Super Bowl winners and a total of 4 being in the Super Bowl. No matter how you slice it, that's still better than the BIG ZERO regarding Safeties.

Also factor in that 20 OT's were taken versus 10 Safeties -- proving that OT has more positional value than Safety does. Otherwise, there'd be more Safeties drafted in the top 10 than OT's.

Does this constitute "backing up what he was saying"? You're defending an article now that even the original author wouldn't defend:

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2011/02/4.jpg

EDIT: In case you can't read this, it's from Walter Cherepinsky himself. It says:

"Ryan,

Thanks for the e-mail.

I wrote that a while ago, and I don't necessarily agree with it much right now. I'm all for taking the best player available as long as it fits some sort of need for a team. "

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y28/RyFo18/Screenshot.png


None of whom were drafted in the top 10, let alone the top 5, thereby proving it isn't necessary to spend a top 5 pick on a Safety, which is exactly what I've been telling you all along.

Wasn't Rod Woodson on that list I provided? Oh yeah, he was.

tornadospotter
02-06-2011, 11:09 AM
:sign0087::efpge:

chief31
02-06-2011, 12:28 PM
You answered your own question there.

Don't bother thanking me for showing you the light. :lol:


Didn't say it was luck. I said that anyone's granny could have made those INT's.

That play had nothing to do with anyone taking it easy. Steven Jackson certainly didn't take it easy on Berry, the way he trampled him into the turf. Berry tried to put a kill-shot on Jackson needlessly, when he could have easily made a clean tackle around Jackson's ankles and brought him down.

Yeah. You can keep the nonsense of arguing about a missed tackle in The Pro Bowl.

You are the only one worried about it.



Actually, there's a better way. Draft some talented O-Lineman in the upcoming 2011 draft. In other words, get the missing pieces of the puzzle in 2011 that were not gotten in 2010.

Even disregarding his draft status or evaluation against Okung, Berry is still not a finished product. He's got much room for improvement.

I suppose we agree there. But perhaps not so much on how much one would expect him to improve.


Doesn't say squat. He didn't really earn the Pro Bowl spot. Palamalu, just happened to be playing in the Super Bowl. If the Pro Bowl followed the Super Bowl, Berry wouldn't be there. Hali didn't get voted on the first go-round & that should tell anybody all they need to know about the Pro Bowl voting.

I believe that we all know that the fan voting plays a very big part in those initially selected to The Pro Bowl. And that the majority of fans are not terribly educated about all players.

I think that if all the league's coaches saw Berry in the same light that you do, then he wouldn't have been invited.

Surely you can give some respect to the AFC coaches and players, who get to see the actual gamefilm with DB play included, who found Berry to be worthy of a Pro Bowl spot?

Actually, regardless of draft position, what grade would we each give to Berry in his rookie season?

I would have to give him a B+.

Had I based it upon his draft status, I may drop to a C, or so. But, had be been a late-rounder, or an undrafted, I would have had him at an easy A.

But, as instrumental as he was in run defense, as well as pass defense, (Perhaps to a lesser degree) and having started all sixteen games, a B+ seems completely appropriate to me.

_____________________________________________

Bottom line?

Good debate.

Very little in the way of insulting each other. That's a very good thing. A couple of jabs here and there. But overall, very respectable debate.

I don't think that anyone's mind is going to change from it. But, by presenting an opposing case, I do believe that opposition has to soften some, underneath.

brdempsey69
02-06-2011, 02:08 PM
I get a kick out of this.



Get a kick out of what?



More props to the 2nd leading tackler on the team!


Pollard was the leading tackler on his team. So what? Not all of them were running plays in either case.




The point that you skimmed over was that there was almost TWO TIMES AS MANY 10+ yard rushes to the left side. Good job Branden and Brian.


I didn't skim over anything. What I said was "you take Charles out of the lineup & those numbers go down" Right or Left side doesn't matter. It just so happens that most of the sacks given up late in the season were from the left side.







100% FALSE. Rod Woodson, taken with the 10th pick in the 1987 played in 3 Super Bowls and won 1. But of course the aformentioned article would fail to point that out.


And of course you would fail to mention that Rod Woodson was a CB for over a decade & was drafted a CB and moved to Safety in the twilight of his career due to injuries that had reduced his speed. So your 100% WRONG. He doesn't count as a Safety drafted in the top 10. We're talking about guys that were Safeties in college and drafted to play Safety in the NFL. Woodson played for 17 seasons & while he was a good Safety when did move there -- his legacy was as a standout CB for at least the first decade Again, you have not got your facts straight.

Can Berry play corner in the NFL? You yourself said if he was a shutdown DB, then he would be playing CB.




Does this constitute "backing up what he was saying"? You're defending an article now that even the original author wouldn't defend:


EDIT: In case you can't read this, it's from Walter Cherepinsky himself. It says:

"Ryan,

Thanks for the e-mail.

I wrote that a while ago, and I don't necessarily agree with it much right now. I'm all for taking the best player available as long as it fits some sort of need for a team. "


All that is telling me is that he may have gotten tired of his e-mail inbox getting flooded by Eric Berry worshipers like yourself --and just subtly blew you off. I know he's been getting flamed and hate e-mails for that article ever since he published it. Like he said -- he wrote that some time ago, a year to be precise.

Regardless of his response, many of the things he pointed out in that article still hold true.

I'll give props to you for the research regarding the OT won-lost %, but it don't change the fact that the LT position is more critical than the Safety position if a team needs both.

One other thing regarding that article, that I did notice, and tried to avoid, but I'll bring it to light now. I hope it's coincidental & I hope it doesn't happen for a third time, because this would really suck. It mentioned a couple of Safeties taken in the top 5 -- Eric Turner in 1991 and Sean Taylor -- who both have one disturbing thing in common:

They are both DEAD !!

To the people that keep telling me that this or that player ( Berry, in this case) is "going to do this" or "they are going to be special" -- I will tell you once again -- nothing is etched in stone and the future is not certain. Don't be making individual predictions to me about this or that player. Discussing what players the Chiefs should add to their team with the hope of them coming in and helping out is another matter, altogether.

On a lesser scale, like the article says, any prospect can bust. Or get KO'd by a career ending injury.




Wasn't Rod Woodson on that list I provided? Oh yeah, he was.

And of course, you failed to mention that Woodson, although a good Safety when he did play at that position, was drafted as a CB and played there for 10 years and made his legacy there at CB -- we were talking about Safeties drafted in the top 10 that played Safety in college & were drafted to play Safety in the NFL. But, I suspect you knew that regarding Woodson, but blatantly omitted it just to make your case. As I said, you have proven nothing.

Ryfo18
02-06-2011, 03:08 PM
And of course you would fail to mention that Rod Woodson was a CB for over a decade & was drafted a CB and moved to Safety in the twilight of his career due to injuries that had reduced his speed. So your 100% WRONG. He doesn't count as a Safety drafted in the top 10. We're talking about guys that were Safeties in college and drafted to play Safety in the NFL. Woodson played for 17 seasons & while he was a good Safety when did move there -- his legacy was as a standout CB for at least the first decade Again, you have not got your facts straight.

Can Berry play corner in the NFL? You yourself said if he was a shutdown DB, then he would be playing CB.

He was a top 10 draft pick that won his Super Bowl and appeared in another as a safety. If you want to discount it b/c "he was drafted as a corner" because it doesn't help your case then fine.

It's too bad that Walter also chose "top-15". Troy Polamalu was the 16th pick, thus disqualifying him from this discussion.



All that is telling me is that he may have gotten tired of his e-mail inbox getting flooded by Eric Berry worshipers like yourself --and just subtly blew you off. I know he's been getting flamed and hate e-mails for that article ever since he published it. Like he said -- he wrote that some time ago, a year to be precise.

Regardless of his response, many of the things he pointed out in that article still hold true.

Again, for about the 5th time in this discussion try to pass something off that is clear as day. He said "I don't necessarily agree with that anymore."

If many things in the article hold true, then you either agree that.

1.) LT's should not be taken early
2.) Safeties should, thus justifying the Berry pick.

I clearly showed you the same points he tried to argue for safeties taken in the top-15 (win % and Super Bowls) hold true for offensive tackles. You attempt to narrow it down to top-10 picks to make it paint a prettier picture for LT's. 1/10 wins a super bowl in that case. 0/9 for safeties. Still not a fair comparison.


I'll give props to you for the research regarding the OT won-lost %, but it don't change the fact that the LT position is more critical than the Safety position if a team needs both.

And of course, you failed to mention that Woodson, although a good Safety when he did play at that position, was drafted as a CB and played there for 10 years and made his legacy there at CB -- we were talking about Safeties drafted in the top 10 that played Safety in college & were drafted to play Safety in the NFL. But, I suspect you knew that regarding Woodson, but blatantly omitted it just to make your case. As I said, you have proven nothing.

How is that so? I've clearly showed how 9 of the last 10 Super Bowl champions had great safeties, and less than half had great left tackles. Thus, if you have a chance to lock up one of the top safety prospects, it can pay tremendous dividends. You don't think other teams are kicking themselves for not taking Troy Polamalu earlier in the draft (Pittsburgh actually drafted him with Kansas City's 1st rounder. We traded down and took Larry Johnson). The blanket "safeties should not be drafted early" is absolutely bologna. That is all I'm trying to prove to you, and have provided endless amounts of evidence to support this. Your arguments back consist of "because I said so" logic.

chief31
02-06-2011, 07:04 PM
He was a top 10 draft pick that won his Super Bowl and appeared in another as a safety. If you want to discount it b/c "he was drafted as a corner" because it doesn't help your case then fine.

Well, since the discussion is about drafting a S high, then a CB, who later played at S, would not factor into it.


It's too bad that Walter also chose "top-15". Troy Polamalu was the 16th pick, thus disqualifying him from this discussion.



Again, for about the 5th time in this discussion try to pass something off that is clear as day. He said "I don't necessarily agree with that anymore."

If many things in the article hold true, then you either agree that.

1.) LT's should not be taken early
2.) Safeties should, thus justifying the Berry pick.

I clearly showed you the same points he tried to argue for safeties taken in the top-15 (win % and Super Bowls) hold true for offensive tackles. You attempt to narrow it down to top-10 picks to make it paint a prettier picture for LT's. 1/10 wins a super bowl in that case. 0/9 for safeties. Still not a fair comparison.


How is that so? I've clearly showed how 9 of the last 10 Super Bowl champions had great safeties, and less than half had great left tackles. Thus, if you have a chance to lock up one of the top safety prospects, it can pay tremendous dividends. You don't think other teams are kicking themselves for not taking Troy Polamalu earlier in the draft (Pittsburgh actually drafted him with Kansas City's 1st rounder. We traded down and took Larry Johnson). The blanket "safeties should not be drafted early" is absolutely bologna. That is all I'm trying to prove to you, and have provided endless amounts of evidence to support this. Your arguments back consist of "because I said so" logic.

Safety is a position that often consists of guys who are unable to play CB, while CB is a position that is usually filled with players that would play Safety, if they couldn't play CB.

And OT and OG work much the same way. Many who can't cut it as a LOT can play at a very high level at other positions on the o-line, while it is an anomaly for an OG to excel at LOT.

Albeit, not every CB can play Safety well, nor an OT playing OG. But Safety is still a much easier position to fill than some, because of the lesser physical requirements, same with OG.

brdempsey69
02-06-2011, 08:51 PM
He was a top 10 draft pick that won his Super Bowl and appeared in another as a safety. If you want to discount it b/c "he was drafted as a corner" because it doesn't help your case then fine.


Irrelevant. We're still talking about Safeties drafted in the top 10 -- not CB's -- and Woodson didn't play Safety in the Super Bowl for the team that drafted him, now did he? That means that Walt's point about no team winning the SB that drafted a Safety in the top 15 with that player on it's roster, still stands. You were omitting that Woodson was a CB when drafted & did not play Safety for the team that drafted him to try to validate your arguement. That's where you fail.




It's too bad that Walter also chose "top-15". Troy Polamalu was the 16th pick, thus disqualifying him from this discussion.


Polamalu has nothing to do with drafting a Safety in the top 5 when you have just as big a need for a pass-blocking LT, if not bigger. We've seen repeatedly the last 2 seasons if the Chiefs can't protect Cassel when they are behind and have to throw the ball, it has spelled nothing but trouble. I have yet to see the Chiefs protect him well enough to bring them back from behind when they are down by 10 points or more. He has gotten the living hell beaten out of him nearly every single time & under those circumstances, it don't matter who's playing Safety.




Again, for about the 5th time in this discussion try to pass something off that is clear as day. He said "I don't necessarily agree with that anymore."


There is nothing clear here -- as he never said "I was wrong about that" or "I disagree with that TOTALLY, now". Note the words "don't necessarily agree" -- that means that he doesn't necessarily disagree, either. Anyone can see the uncertainty in his statement, therefore, nothing is clear.

Also, add to the fact, you weren't specific about the Chiefs selection regarding Berry in the top 5 in that e-mail that you sent him. If you had been, he would have more than likely given you a completely different answer. All you did was throw at him was a bunch of numbers & tell him to rethink is article. Did you really expect him to be a mind reader & know that you had in mind the Chiefs selection of Berry at #5 without you saying so? Like I said, nothing is clear here. Try asking him what player would have been the best pick for Chiefs at #5 in 2010. He's already told me, Russell Okung.



If many things in the article hold true, then you either agree that.

1.) LT's should not be taken early
2.) Safeties should, thus justifying the Berry pick.


WRONG!! I do not agree with any of that. I've used the article to point out some historical facts regarding taking Safeties early in the draft doesn't pay much dividend. I've said all along that I preferred the LT's and there's been nothing in any of my posts to suggest otherwise. You make it sound like it's some obligation for people to agree with that.




I clearly showed you the same points he tried to argue for safeties taken in the top-15 (win % and Super Bowls) hold true for offensive tackles.


So what? OT's 2 SB wins and Safeties ZERO. Still would have preferred to have had Russel Okung drafted, regardless.




You attempt to narrow it down to top-10 picks to make it paint a prettier picture for LT's. 1/10 wins a super bowl in that case. 0/9 for safeties. Still not a fair comparison.


Is that right? Let's say for the moment I went with top 20 OT's versus top 10 Safeties in the last 20 years or whatever, like you are suggesting, and we went with playoff appearences instead of SB wins. Then what? Well, of course, you'd still be saying the comparison wasn't fair. The numbers would, of course, be way in favor of the OT's. Your percentages don't mean squat either way. It'd still in favor of the OT's no matter how you slice it.



How is that so? I've clearly showed how 9 of the last 10 Super Bowl champions had great safeties, and less than half had great left tackles. Thus, if you have a chance to lock up one of the top safety prospects, it can pay tremendous dividends.


And, as was already pointed out, none of them were drafted in the 10 & doesn't mean that you have to spend a #5 overall pick to get a good Safety. And doesn't mean that you are going to have Super Bowl if you do draft a Safety in the top 5 ( of course, that's true with any player ).




You don't think other teams are kicking themselves for not taking Troy Polamalu earlier in the draft (Pittsburgh actually drafted him with Kansas City's 1st rounder. We traded down and took Larry Johnson).


Your aunt would be your uncle if she had testicles, too.

That's pure hindsight. And how many teams do you know of that offered a top 10 draft pick in exchange to the Steelers for Polamalu? I've never heard of it. Not that the Steelers would be willing to give him up, but teams drafting in the top 10 generally have a lot of needs & Safeties do not generally come to the top of their list. The ones picked in the top 10 are the exception, not the rule.



The blanket "safeties should not be drafted early" is absolutely bologna.


Not if you have a lot of other holes to fill on your team, it isn't. Especially if you need a QB, LT, or D-Line. Chiefs have needed a LT since Willie Roaf retired & throwing away an opportunity to get the best LT prospect that they've had the chance to acquire via the draft or FA since Roaf retired -- just to draft a Safety that too many Chiefs fans were humping their neighbors dog over -- is flat out retarded. If Okung is off the board or they trade back a couple of slots, then it makes more sense to take Berry. Also, one has to consider why the 4 teams picking before the Chiefs didn't take Berry.



That is all I'm trying to prove to you, and have provided endless amounts of evidence to support this.


No, you've stated things that from YOUR perspective is evidence on the matter. You've proven nothing to me. To me it's just a basis for your perspective. See above. I've provided valid counter-points against your so-called "evidence".



Your arguments back consist of "because I said so" logic.

Incorrect. And we both know that.

Ryfo18
02-07-2011, 02:10 AM
Is that right? Let's say for the moment I went with top 20 OT's versus top 10 Safeties in the last 20 years or whatever, like you are suggesting, and we went with playoff appearences instead of SB wins. Then what? Well, of course, you'd still be saying the comparison wasn't fair. The numbers would, of course, be way in favor of the OT's. Your percentages don't mean squat either way. It'd still in favor of the OT's no matter how you slice it.

Let's look at safeties drafted in the top 20 versus OT's drafted in the top 20, in the last 20 years. And let's look at playoff appearances.

OT's: 302 seasons with the team that drafted them, 95 playoff appearances. 31.5%.
Super Bowls: 5/302 = 1.7%
Super Bowl Appearances:13/302 = 4.3%

Safeties: 60 seasons with the team that drafted them, 23 playoff appearances. 38.3%
Super Bowls: 3/60 = 5%
Super Bowl Appearances: 5/60 = 8.3%

I'm done....:chiefs:

Ryfo18
02-07-2011, 02:27 AM
Let's look at safeties drafted in the top 20 versus OT's drafted in the top 20, in the last 20 years. And let's look at playoff appearances.

OT's: 302 seasons with the team that drafted them, 95 playoff appearances. 31.5%.
Super Bowls: 5/302 = 1.7%
Super Bowl Appearances:13/302 = 4.3%

Safeties: 60 seasons with the team that drafted them, 23 playoff appearances. 38.3%
Super Bowls: 3/60 = 5%
Super Bowl Appearances: 5/60 = 8.3%

I'm done....:chiefs:

And I left Earl Thomas and Eric Berry off this list, another 2 seasons and another 2 playoff appearances. 40.3% playoff appearances, 4.8% Super Bowl Champs, and 8.1% Super Bowl appearanaces.



So what? OT's 2 SB wins and Safeties ZERO. Still would have preferred to have had Russel Okung drafted, regardless.

And it wasn't until the 14th OT was drafted since 1991, Jonathan Ogden, that a Super Bowl was won. Like we said, 10 Safeties taken...Not a fair comparison.

I'm done with this issue. We'll revisit after Berry's career is over.

Ryfo18
02-07-2011, 02:41 AM
And just to sum up, we've learned:

1.) Safeties taken in the top 15 have given their teams a slightly better win % compared to offensive tackles take in the top 15..
2.) Offensive tackles taken in the top 15 have won 2 more Super Bowls than safeties taken in the top 15, but there have been 38 (by your count) OT's drafted and only 10 safeties.
3.) Go to the top 20 safeties/OT's and safeties have provided their teams w/ a better percentage of playoff appearances and super bowl championships/appearances.
4.) Safety is a very relevant and important position, thus taking one early in the draft is justified.

brdempsey69
02-07-2011, 04:59 AM
And just to sum up, we've learned:

1.) Safeties taken in the top 15 have given their teams a slightly better win % compared to offensive tackles take in the top 15..


Well no joke. Look down at #2.



2.) Offensive tackles taken in the top 15 have won 2 more Super Bowls than safeties taken in the top 15, but there have been 38 (by your count) OT's drafted and only 10 safeties.


Quite naturally, teams drafting in the top 15 have more important holes to fill on their roster than Safety with OT often being one of them & they know they can get good Safeties in later rounds. Simple common sense and logic. So what's your point there?



3.) Go to the top 20 safeties/OT's and safeties have provided their teams w/ a better percentage of playoff appearances and super bowl championships/appearances.


Top 20? Why the top 20? Just so Polamalu can be included to tip the scales in favor of Safeties? And considering the Steelers traded up from 27 to 16 to take him, as well as the fact that teams picking in the range of 16-20 generally don't have as many holes to fill on their roster as teams in the top 5 or even top 10 for that matter.

Why not the top 10 where you have 21 OT's and 7 Safeties -- a ratio of 3 to 1. Quite naturally the scales might tip in the favor of Safeties versus OT's regarding W/L % because the OT's have played more games and there's more of them & considering the # of teams that were picking there in the top 10 to begin with that took OT's. Quite naturally, the odds are increased that there's going to more losses for the teams that took OT's than took Safeties.

But let's say those top 10 numbers are reversed and 21 Safeties were taken as opposed to 7 OT's -- are the percentages of wins going to go up according to your logic? FAT CHANCE !! No doubt in my mind exists that it would go down.




4.) Safety is a very relevant and important position, thus taking one early in the draft is justified.


According to whom? You? I haven't seen it justified yet as far as any taken in the top 10 in the last decade, except for Sean Taylor & there were 6 of them, including Berry. Taylor is the only one claiming a playoff victory against a TB team QB'd by Chris Simms -- big deal. For the others, it's 4 playoff appearances and not one single victory. That totals a percentage of a blazing .167 post season success in percentage with the number of Safeties taken in the top 10 over that time span (1 playoff victory for the 6 Safeties ). I am real over-f#$%ing-whelmed at this justification.

As for OT's over that same last decade taken in the top 10, D'Brickashaw Ferguson has 4 playoff victories by himself & there were 14 OT's, including Russell Okung, and 11 playoff victories amongst them -- .786 . Take away Ferguson and it's 13 OT's and 7 playoff victories -- .586

Which category would Chiefs fans prefer to have their team in as far as those post-season percentages go?




Yeah. You can keep the nonsense of arguing about a missed tackle in The Pro Bowl.

You are the only one worried about it.


This is something he was scrutinized for by Mike Mayock on draft day -- going for the kill shot and coming away with the big whiff. There was no good reason for it & it's not something that you want to see in a meaningful Chiefs game in the coming years.




I suppose we agree there. But perhaps not so much on how much one would expect him to improve.


One has to think what you might have if Berry stepped it up in the area of pass defense. He's faster than Polamalu ( who incidentally got beaten for a pair of TD's in today's SB ) & would leave Troy in the dust, if he could become a standout pass defender



I believe that we all know that the fan voting plays a very big part in those initially selected to The Pro Bowl. And that the majority of fans are not terribly educated about all players.

I think that if all the league's coaches saw Berry in the same light that you do, then he wouldn't have been invited.

Surely you can give some respect to the AFC coaches and players, who get to see the actual gamefilm with DB play included, who found Berry to be worthy of a Pro Bowl spot?


That's the question. Was he invited by the coaches or was it because of a number of fan votes? If it was the coaches, then just how hard they looked at the film comes into question.




Actually, regardless of draft position, what grade would we each give to Berry in his rookie season?

I would have to give him a B+.

Had I based it upon his draft status, I may drop to a C, or so. But, had be been a late-rounder, or an undrafted, I would have had him at an easy A.

But, as instrumental as he was in run defense, as well as pass defense, (Perhaps to a lesser degree) and having started all sixteen games, a B+ seems completely appropriate to me.


In run support A , but in pass defense I would have to flunk him. Too many TD passes given up & it was too easy for opponents to suck him out of position where he couldn't make a play on the ball. Plus, he was not a very good blitzer -- too many times he tipped his hand to the opponents that he was coming & they were able to pick him up & he needs to be more subtle about so he can get a free run at the QB.

One thing I noticed is that so many folks were so busy glorifying Berry, that nobody ever took notice of the rock-solid job turned in by Javier Arenas in pass defense & he was out on the field quite a bit. I can't ever recall him being a liability in the area of pass defense or getting torched repeatedly in a game or having so much as one TD pass thrown against him. He did his job so well, that nobody noticed -- you saw it first right here as far as mention being made of that.

brdempsey69
02-07-2011, 06:21 AM
4.) Safety is a very relevant and important position, thus taking one early in the draft is justified.




According to whom? You? I haven't seen it justified yet as far as any taken in the top 10 in the last decade, except for Sean Taylor & there were 6 of them, including Berry. Taylor is the only one claiming a playoff victory against a TB team QB'd by Chris Simms -- big deal. For the others, it's 4 playoff appearances and not one single victory. That totals a percentage of a blazing .167 post season success in percentage with the number of Safeties taken in the top 10 over that time span (1 playoff victory for the 6 Safeties ). I am real over-f#$%ing-whelmed at this justification.

As for OT's over that same last decade taken in the top 10, D'Brickashaw Ferguson has 4 playoff victories by himself & there were 14 OT's, including Russell Okung, and 11 playoff victories amongst them -- .786 . Take away Ferguson and it's 13 OT's and 7 playoff victories -- .586

Which category would Chiefs fans prefer to have their team in as far as those post-season percentages go?



I stand corrected. I found 3 more playoff victories for OT Jordan Gross ( #8 pick in 2003 ), giving him a total of 5.

That means 14 playoff wins for the 14 OT's taken in the top 10 over the last decade. An average of 1 playoff win for each of the OT's -- 1.000




I'm done with this issue. We'll revisit after Berry's career is over.

I don't blame you seeing how the percentages you've been posting just got blown all to hell by the ones I just posted regarding playoff victories for the players, both the OT's and Safeties taken in the top 10 in the last decade ( and these were victories with the teams that drafted them, BTW ).

If those percentages hold up, and more than likely they will, then as far as any visitations go after Berry's career is over -- I WISH YOU LUCK.

Ryfo18
02-07-2011, 03:56 PM
One thing I noticed is that so many folks were so busy glorifying Berry, that nobody ever took notice of the rock-solid job turned in by Javier Arenas in pass defense & he was out on the field quite a bit. I can't ever recall him being a liability in the area of pass defense or getting torched repeatedly in a game or having so much as one TD pass thrown against him. He did his job so well, that nobody noticed -- you saw it first right here as far as mention being made of that.

Now this I can get on board with. I was very impressed with Arenas in his first year, both as a nickelback corner and a punt returner.

brdempsey69
02-07-2011, 05:23 PM
Now this I can get on board with. I was very impressed with Arenas in his first year, both as a nickelback corner and a punt returner.

Now, what's needed -- as I've been trying to tell everyone -- is for Berry to step his game up in pass defense, especially with the schedule that they have ahead of them in 2011. If he does, you will more than likely see more game-changing plays made by Berry & that's what was missing from him 2010.

chief31
02-07-2011, 06:34 PM
Let's look at safeties drafted in the top 20 versus OT's drafted in the top 20, in the last 20 years. And let's look at playoff appearances.

OT's: 302 seasons with the team that drafted them, 95 playoff appearances. 31.5%.
Super Bowls: 5/302 = 1.7%
Super Bowl Appearances:13/302 = 4.3%

Safeties: 60 seasons with the team that drafted them, 23 playoff appearances. 38.3%
Super Bowls: 3/60 = 5%
Super Bowl Appearances: 5/60 = 8.3%

I'm done....:chiefs:

Strong point for taking a Safety after the top fifteen picks.




That's the question. Was he invited by the coaches or was it because of a number of fan votes? If it was the coaches, then just how hard they looked at the film comes into question.
No. It doesn't.




In run support A , but in pass defense I would have to flunk him. Too many TD passes given up & it was too easy for opponents to suck him out of position where he couldn't make a play on the ball. Plus, he was not a very good blitzer -- too many times he tipped his hand to the opponents that he was coming & they were able to pick him up & he needs to be more subtle about so he can get a free run at the QB.

One thing I noticed is that so many folks were so busy glorifying Berry, that nobody ever took notice of the rock-solid job turned in by Javier Arenas in pass defense & he was out on the field quite a bit. I can't ever recall him being a liability in the area of pass defense or getting torched repeatedly in a game or having so much as one TD pass thrown against him. He did his job so well, that nobody noticed -- you saw it first right here as far as mention being made of that.

Actually....



For the rookie, it is so close I almost have to flip a coin. But, in the end, I go with Javier Arenas.

You don't hear his name called alot during games. But he is doing a very good job on defense, as well as being a very big threat in the return game.

Both Berry, and Moeaki are right there with him.

...I'm not that guy.

But I am also not the guy exaggerating Berry's short-comings as a pass defender in 2010.

Fail? The pass defense was improved from the year before, and the team's record was more than twice as good as the previous year. And yet the rest of the defense, which was poor in pass defense a year prior, was so amazing in pass defense as to have made up for a failure at SS?

I mean he only had the fourth highest total of PDef among NFL SSs. NFL Stats: by Player Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=INTERCEPTIONS&d-447263-s=DEFENSIVE_PASSES_INT_DEFENSED&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2010&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1) 9th in Tackles, NFL Stats: by Player Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=INTERCEPTIONS&d-447263-s=DEFENSIVE_COMBINE_TACKLES&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2010&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1) and 5th in INTs.NFL Stats: by Player Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=INTERCEPTIONS&d-447263-s=DEFENSIVE_INTERCEPTIONS&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2010&Submit=Go&qualified=true&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1)


With a line like that, he has to have been the worst player ever, outside of those stats, to earn a failing grade, for a rookie?

He covered TEs a lot, didn't he? Were the Chiefs the team that allowed the fourth fewest TE receiving yards too?Tight End Stats By Team: 2010 FF Points Allowed, Regular Season - FF Today (http://www.fftoday.com/stats/fantasystats.php?Season=2010&GameWeek=Season&PosID=40&Side=Allowed&LeagueID=1&order_by=ReYd&sort_order=ASC)

He must have specifically blew it, only on the plays where he wasn't being a league leader in the major statistics, and not covering TEs.

Oh, I know!!!! He didn't lay it all on the line in The Pro Bowl!!!!

brdempsey69
02-08-2011, 12:43 AM
Strong point for taking a Safety after the top fifteen picks.


Precisely what I've been saying all along. It's not needed to spend a top 5 pick on a Safety.



No. It doesn't.


For you it doesn't. For me it does.





Actually....



...I'm not that guy.


Ok, I missed that post, so indeed you were the first to make mention about Arenas. That makes two of us that took notice of Arenas.



But I am also not the guy exaggerating Berry's short-comings as a pass defender in 2010.


Not an exaggeration at all. He had his moments. But he needs to improve in that area to justify his draft status.




Fail? The pass defense was improved from the year before, and the team's record was more than twice as good as the previous year. And yet the rest of the defense, which was poor in pass defense a year prior, was so amazing in pass defense as to have made up for a failure at SS?


The pass defense improvement came from a better pass rush. The numbers were slightly better overall. The finished 17th overall in pass defense as opposed to 22nd in 2009. The run defense improvement was much more significantly improved. They went from 31st in 2009 to 14th in 2010.

So was the numbers on Offense, much improves as well, especially Cassel's and his are the ones that really count the most.




I mean he only had the fourth highest total of PDef among NFL SSs. NFL Stats: by Player Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=INTERCEPTIONS&d-447263-s=DEFENSIVE_PASSES_INT_DEFENSED&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2010&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1) 9th in Tackles, NFL Stats: by Player Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=INTERCEPTIONS&d-447263-s=DEFENSIVE_COMBINE_TACKLES&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2010&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1) and 5th in INTs.NFL Stats: by Player Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&statisticCategory=INTERCEPTIONS&d-447263-s=DEFENSIVE_INTERCEPTIONS&experience=null&d-447263-n=1&season=2010&Submit=Go&qualified=true&tabSeq=0&d-447263-p=1)

With a line like that, he has to have been the worst player ever, outside of those stats, to earn a failing grade, for a rookie?


A player can be 1st in those categories, but if they are near the bottom in TD passes given up, then it tells you they've got a lot of room for improvement overall.



He covered TEs a lot, didn't he? Were the Chiefs the team that allowed the fourth fewest TE receiving yards too?Tight End Stats By Team: 2010 FF Points Allowed, Regular Season - FF Today (http://www.fftoday.com/stats/fantasystats.php?Season=2010&GameWeek=Season&PosID=40&Side=Allowed&LeagueID=1&order_by=ReYd&sort_order=ASC)

He must have specifically blew it, only on the plays where he wasn't being a league leader in the major statistics, and not covering TEs.


He also didn't have to face Antonio Gates or Zach Miller twice as both of those guys were on the sidelines when the Chiefs played at Oakland and SD. He wasn't always on TE's, either. When he went up against WR's, he often struggled to stay with them.



Oh, I know!!!! He didn't lay it all on the line in The Pro Bowl!!!!

What was that you were saying about exaggerating?

Three7s
02-08-2011, 02:17 AM
So you're failing Berry in pass defense, solely for giving up some TDs? Okay....

I can understand not giving Berry a high grade, but failing is a little drastic. I'd give Berry a C- in pass defense. Don't forget, I remember a few nice plays he made in the endzone to break up a couple of TDs It goes both ways.

brdempsey69
02-08-2011, 03:27 AM
So you're failing Berry in pass defense, solely for giving up some TDs? Okay....

I can understand not giving Berry a high grade, but failing is a little drastic. I'd give Berry a C- in pass defense. Don't forget, I remember a few nice plays he made in the endzone to break up a couple of TDs It goes both ways.

He was near the bottom in the league in that category of TD's given up at his position. You don't draft a DB at #5 for that -- you draft him to stop those type of plays. There was still 23 TD passes give up in 2010 as opposed to 25 in 2009. People were going around saying before the 2010 season that Berry was going to make such a huge impact in that area -- but he didn't. That's why I fail him in that area.

It didn't go totally both ways. He made one or two nice pass breakups in the end zone in the playoff game, but Heap still caught a few passes on him as well. I also watched the Cardinals Steve Breaston blow right by Berry like he was standing still and a better thrown pass would have resulted in a TD.

He's got a lot of room for improvement in the area of pass defense & anyone who thinks otherwise is only kidding themselves. I'd love to see him become the standout pass defender that Deron Cherry was. Being that Berry was drafted at #5, anything less than that, to me, is unsatisfactory.

4everchiefsfan25
02-08-2011, 12:16 PM
It just sounds to me that you hated that the Chiefs picked him up at the number 5 spot in the draft and you will always hate Berry for that. It sounds like you dont even want Berry to succeed just to prove your point. You want to talk about failing him in the Pass defense but what was the Chiefs run defense last year without Berry compared to this year with Berry? You have to give Berry more than a year before you want to start dogging him. He is a great leader on that defense and he is part of that core in the defense and I think thats saying a lot for a rookie to come up from college and become a leader on the field his first year.

Three7s
02-08-2011, 12:23 PM
It just sounds to me that you hated that the Chiefs picked him up at the number 5 spot in the draft and you will always hate Berry for that. It sounds like you dont even want Berry to succeed just to prove your point. You want to talk about failing him in the Pass defense but what was the Chiefs run defense last year without Berry compared to this year with Berry? You have to give Berry more than a year before you want to start dogging him. He is a great leader on that defense and he is part of that core in the defense and I think thats saying a lot for a rookie to come up from college and become a leader on the field his first year.
Didn't you know that the reason for the improved run defense was the revamped front 7? Berry had nothing to do with it!

4everchiefsfan25
02-08-2011, 01:52 PM
Didn't you know that the reason for the improved run defense was the revamped front 7? Berry had nothing to do with it!
He didn't? he was second in tackles only behind Derrick Johnson.

4everchiefsfan25
02-08-2011, 01:52 PM
Kansas City Chiefs 2010 Statistics - Team and Player Stats - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/stats/_/name/kc/kansas-city-chiefs)

brdempsey69
02-08-2011, 02:35 PM
It just sounds to me that you hated that the Chiefs picked him up at the number 5 spot in the draft and you will always hate Berry for that. It sounds like you dont even want Berry to succeed just to prove your point. You want to talk about failing him in the Pass defense but what was the Chiefs run defense last year without Berry compared to this year with Berry? You have to give Berry more than a year before you want to start dogging him. He is a great leader on that defense and he is part of that core in the defense and I think thats saying a lot for a rookie to come up from college and become a leader on the field his first year.

Did I not say that I hoped that he would improve his pass defense & that if he did he would leave Polamalu in the dust? I want him to do better that what he did in 2010. If he doesn't, then I honestly do not think he was worth the #5 pick. True, I would've preferred the O-Lineman with that pick, but they can get them in this years draft as I mentioned to chief31, earlier.


Didn't you know that the reason for the improved run defense was the revamped front 7? Berry had nothing to do with it!

So now we have to make things up, huh? I said he helped to a degree, but the Defensive improvement overall came from a revamped front 7.

Let's flip that coin over. What about when the Raiders Michael Bush ran for 137 yard against them in the season final? Or when Moreno ran for over 100 yards in the 1st Denver game? Are you going to try and tell me that Berry was to blame for that & it had nothing to do with the Front 7? No, Berry was not responsible in either of those cases. It was because the front 7 was getting handled in both cases.

He helped to a degree in run support, but many Safeties do that on other teams as well. The improved run defense was indeed due to a revamped front 7. Just look at DJ's numbers as well as Glenn Dorsey's numbers & you will see that they both had their best seasons ever.

Quit worshiping the guy, FFS.

Three7s
02-08-2011, 03:10 PM
He didn't? he was second in tackles only behind Derrick Johnson.
Where is the sarcasm tag?

Chiefster
02-08-2011, 03:21 PM
Where is the sarcasm tag?

Ya gotta click on the doo-hicky tab on the thingy-ma-bob.

Three7s
02-08-2011, 03:57 PM
Ya gotta click on the doo-hicky tab on the thingy-ma-bob.
Ah, of course, I was looking next to the thingy-ma-jig. This site is too complicated for old farts like me!

Chiefster
02-08-2011, 04:39 PM
Ah, of course, I was looking next to the thingy-ma-jig. This site is too complicated for old farts like me!

I know what you mean man; this interweb thingy needs to be simplicated. :lol:

OPLookn
02-08-2011, 05:17 PM
I thought we were here to talk about mock drafts...my bad.

:sign0101:

Chiefster
02-08-2011, 05:23 PM
I thought we were here to talk about mock drafts...my bad.

:sign0101:

Hey, feel free. I'm sure that 22 pages into the thread you can find a post or two discussing the thread topic.

By all means lets get back on topic. Geeesh!

chief31
02-08-2011, 05:39 PM
For you it doesn't. For me it does.

Because the AFC coaches, who have access to actual gamefilm, would be suspect to you, who does not have access to gamefilm that features DB play.

Pretty bold. But feel free to stick with that.


Not an exaggeration at all. He had his moments. But he needs to improve in that area to justify his draft status.

But you failed him, regardless of draft status.


The pass defense improvement came from a better pass rush.

But the improved pass-rush numbers were caused by better coverage. :smile


The numbers were slightly better overall. The finished 17th overall in pass defense as opposed to 22nd in 2009. The run defense improvement was much more significantly improved. They went from 31st in 2009 to 14th in 2010.

So was the numbers on Offense, much improves as well, especially Cassel's and his are the ones that really count the most.

A player can be 1st in those categories, but if they are near the bottom in TD passes given up, then it tells you they've got a lot of room for improvement overall.

Link?


He also didn't have to face Antonio Gates or Zach Miller twice as both of those guys were on the sidelines when the Chiefs played at Oakland and SD. He wasn't always on TE's, either. When he went up against WR's, he often struggled to stay with them.

What was that you were saying about exaggerating?

You do know the difference between exaggeration and sarcasm, right?

But that line was just thrown out there for fun anyway. :lol:


I thought we were here to talk about mock drafts...my bad.

:sign0101:

Go ahead.

We are.

Debate over what positions are/were needed is directly related to mocking drafts.

brdempsey69
02-08-2011, 05:40 PM
Hey, feel free. I'm sure that 22 pages into the thread you can find a post or two discussing the thread topic.

By all means lets get back on topic. Geeesh!

I have tried to do that twice in posts #81 and #104, but certain individuals keep coming back for more and won't let it go, as though it's some sort of sacrilege that somebody scrutinized their false god that they worship so reverently.

chief31
02-08-2011, 05:42 PM
I have tried to do that twice in posts #81 and #104, but certain individuals keep coming back for more and won't let it go, as though it's some sort of sacrilege that somebody scrutinized their false god that they worship so reverently.

"Certain individuals" includes you, right?

But again, I find everything being discussed here as relevant to the thread starter.

chief31
02-08-2011, 05:51 PM
Those responses, which were directed at you, were in direct response to your comments back to them (us).

What you did was make your counter remarks, then add a post to "try and get back on topic" as if to just take the last word in the "off-topic" discussion.

At no point did you neglect to respond to the "off-topic" remarks.

That would have been a legitimate attempt to change topic.

But the conversation about "getting back on topic" are definitely off-topic. :lol:

Chiefster
02-08-2011, 05:53 PM
I love this thread! :lol:

brdempsey69 you're a good guy, but I know this is not the only mock draft thread.

brdempsey69
02-08-2011, 06:14 PM
But you failed him, regardless of draft status.


Regardless of draft status, the need for improvement is still there. Because of the draft status, I had hoped for a better showing, and still do.



But the improved pass-rush numbers were caused by better coverage. :smile


Oh really? Like in the game at Denver? No pass rush, no sacks & 5 TD passes given up. To say that the pass rush was improved by better pass coverage is only true to a very small extent. In the 2nd Denver game they sacked Orton 4 times & put much more pressure on him & no TD's given up. Granted Moreno ran for 161 yards, but you can't pin that on the DB's or give them too much credit when they held Jerome Harrison ( that's the guy that torched them for 285 yards in 2009 ) to 33 yards in the Cleveland game -- that's the job of front 7.




Link?


Here it is:

NFL Stats: by Team Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASSING&season=2010&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go)


"Certain individuals" includes you, right?


The difference is that I tried to get back on topic, twice and let go the discussion about Berry.


Those responses, which were directed at you, were in direct response to your comments back to them (us).

What you did was make your counter remarks, then add a post to "try and get back on topic" as if to just take the last word in the "off-topic" discussion.

At no point did you neglect to respond to the "off-topic" remarks.

That would have been a legitimate attempt to change topic.



At no time did I try to take the last word. I never told anyone not to respond to me. They did so out of their own choosing.

brdempsey69
02-08-2011, 06:23 PM
I love this thread! :lol:

brdempsey69 you're a good guy, but I know this is not the only mock draft thread.

Quite correct. I started my own.

My Mock Draft - Kansas City Chiefs Forums (http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16711)

Ryfo18
02-08-2011, 07:01 PM
Eric Berry was thrown at 50 times this year, 2nd most among all safeties. He allowed 58% of those passes to be completed, which ranked 28th out of 86 safeties (so just into the top 1/3rd).

This was better than:

Michael Griffin - 60.3%
O.J. Atogwe - 60.5%
Earl Thomas - 60.9%
Eric Weddle - 61.3%
Troy Polamalu - 62.5%
T.J. Ward - 62.5%
Laron Landry - 62.8%
Bernard Pollard - 63.2%
Jim Leonhard - 67.9%
Nate Allen - 69%
Patrick Chung - 70.8%
Donte Whitner - 71.8%
Antrel Rolle - 77.8%
Taylor Mays - 81.3%

Berry's downfall was giving up touchdowns, which is no secret. His 7 was the most out of all safeties in the league (2 others also had 7, but keep in mind he was also thrown at the 2nd most (Michael Griffin was thrown at 58 times to Berry's 50). So his biggest need is to tighten up in the redzone. Some other stats from safeties:

Pollard 6 TDs on 34 throws
Nate Allen 6 TDs on 29 throws
Ed Reed 4 TDs on 28 throws
Patrick Chung 4 TDs on 48 throws

So yes, we can hold the TD numbers over his head, but overall his coverage skills are solid for a rookie safety. He's certainly didn't flunk though.

If anyone was curious, Flowers allowed 1 TD on 102 throws and Carr was 5 TDs on 48 throws. I'd provide a link, but it's a subscription service I pay for.

Jrudi
02-08-2011, 07:22 PM
Holy cow! I just stopped reading all of the nonsense like 3 pages from the end of this thread haha.

I stopped arguing with brdempsey like last week on this same topic and didn't know this was still going on haha.

Just for the record I don't think anyone will be able to impact his opinion on Berry so it's better off not to waste your time. I do give you props brdempsey on standing your ground on what you believe in, crazy you're still arguing the topic.

I like Berry and hope he continues to develop into a contributor for years to come.

Ryfo18
02-08-2011, 07:28 PM
Also worth noting that 6 of his 7 TDs allowed were in the first 7 weeks of the season.

brdempsey69
02-08-2011, 08:03 PM
Also worth noting that 6 of his 7 TDs allowed were in the first 7 weeks of the season.

This is incorrect. There were 3 after the first 7 games. There was one against the Denver (the 40-yard post pattern to Gaffney who was clearly Berry's man on that play), one against the Titans and one against the Raiders. That would raise the total to 9.

One could also question the quality of the opponents passing games collectively after those first 7 games.




Berry's downfall was giving up touchdowns, which is no secret. His 7 was the most out of all safeties in the league (2 others also had 7, but keep in mind he was also thrown at the 2nd most (Michael Griffin was thrown at 58 times to Berry's 50). So his biggest need is to tighten up in the redzone.
So yes, we can hold the TD numbers over his head, but overall his coverage skills are solid for a rookie safety. He's certainly didn't flunk though.



That's where it really counts the most -- points on the scoreboard. Add to that, no INT's in the red zone, as well. That's why I fail him.

If want to give him a passing grade, then you or anyone can do that if they wish. To me, he still fails.

Three7s
02-08-2011, 08:13 PM
This is incorrect. There were 3 after the first 7 games. There was one against the Denver (the 40-yard post pattern to Gaffney who was clearly Berry's man on that play), one against the Titans and one against the Raiders. That would raise the total to 9.

One could also question the quality of the opponents passing games collectively after those first 7 games.



That's where it really counts the most -- points on the scoreboard. Add to that, no INT's in the red zone, as well. That's why I fail him.

If want to give him a passing grade, then you or anyone can do that if they wish. To me, he still fails.
I know you'll write this off as a bad throw, but the pick on Buffalo, gift or not, saved that game. That's as good as any red zone pick you can ask for.

brdempsey69
02-08-2011, 08:24 PM
I know you'll write this off as a bad throw, but the pick on Buffalo, gift or not, saved that game. That's as good as any red zone pick you can ask for.

How can you not write it off as bad throw when the ball inexplicably slipped out of the QB's hand as he was throwing it & sailed right straight to Berry. It was a gift and a damn lucky one at that. Not because of a great play by Berry. Great that Berry did hang on to it, though.

And it's not as good as any red zone pick that could be asked for -- if I recall correctly, the Bills were not in FG range yet. A good red zone pick is generally one where the defender jumps in front of the receiver on a well thrown ball -- in the red zone.

Ryfo18
02-08-2011, 08:33 PM
This is incorrect. There were 3 after the first 7 games. There was one against the Denver (the 40-yard post pattern to Gaffney who was clearly Berry's man on that play), one against the Titans and one against the Raiders. That would raise the total to 9.

One could also question the quality of the opponents passing games collectively after those first 7 games.

Ok, you're smoking something here. I just watched the highlights. The Denver one, where Gaffney was "clearly Berry's man on the play", you couldn't be more wrong. Berry is on the other side of the field when the ball is thrown and he runs over after the throw. Ricky Price and Derrick Johnson both got beat on that play. Makes sense that Ricky Price would cover a slot guy right? Is it Okung's fault when the LG gives up a sack too?

The Titans one on the Jared Cook touchdown was into a soft spot in the Chiefs zone where Flowers, Lewis, and Berry were all standing. So sure if you want to be really critical put that one all on him.

So 2* touchdowns in the last 9 games. I realize the guy had a rough first half of the season getting his feet wet in the NFL, but talk about a drastic improvement over the last half of the season.




That's where it really counts the most -- points on the scoreboard. Add to that, no INT's in the red zone, as well. That's why I fail him.

If want to give him a passing grade, then you or anyone can do that if they wish. To me, he still fails.

That's fine, your grades mean absolutely nothing, other than to show the rest of us you are going to be overly critical of Berry no matter what. By your "points on the scoreboard" criteria, Ed Reed fails this season too.

matthewschiefs
02-08-2011, 08:50 PM
Ok, you're smoking something here. I just watched the highlights. The Denver one, where Gaffney was "clearly Berry's man on the play", you couldn't be more wrong. Berry is on the other side of the field when the ball is thrown and he runs over after the throw. Ricky Price and Derrick Johnson both got beat on that play. Makes sense that Ricky Price would cover a slot guy right? Is it Okung's fault when the LG gives up a sack too?



I think that most us fans put the blame on the guy in the picture when the guy makes the catch. That is not always the best thing to do. The best example I can give goes back to the MNF game against the Chargers. One of the tds in that game that many put on Barry happend on a play when the chargers WR blew by Carr like he was standing still. Berry happend to be the closest to him when he caught the ball many put the blame on Berry.

Football is a TEAM game. I don't think that it's fair to put a TD on a single player. I have never been one to put blame on Barry.The whole pass or fail for me depends on how he ended the season. A rookie is going to make mistakes in the NFL happens to every rookie to play the game. Berry got better and better as the season went along. To me for a rookie that will get a passing grade everytime. Lets just hope that he keeps getting better and better the more he plays.


I no brdempsey does not like the pick. But I think and hope that if Berry does keep getting better he will be willing to admit that he is wrong on this one. I don't mind that he wants to see it happen on the field first.

brdempsey69
02-08-2011, 09:12 PM
Ok, you're smoking something here. I just watched the highlights. The Denver one, where Gaffney was "clearly Berry's man on the play", you couldn't be more wrong. Berry is on the other side of the field when the ball is thrown and he runs over after the throw. Ricky Price and Derrick Johnson both got beat on that play. Makes sense that Ricky Price would cover a slot guy right? Is it Okung's fault when the LG gives up a sack too?


What pair of rose-colored glasses are you looking through when you watch those plays? Because that's a bunch of baloney. Berry was lined up against Gaffney on that play & allowed him a free run on a post pattern without so much as an attempt to jam him in the 5-yard zone. Because of that, Gaffney beat Berry by over 5 yards on a post pattern. Price was late getting there, granted, but he was lined up on the other side of the field on the play. DJ just happened to be in the area and to say he & Price were beaten on the play is just a copout.



The Titans one on the Jared Cook touchdown was into a soft spot in the Chiefs zone where Flowers, Lewis, and Berry were all standing. So sure if you want to be really critical put that one all on him.


It clearly looks to me like he was supposed to provide man-to-man coverage on the TE on that play & just simply got beaten.



So 2* touchdowns in the last 9 games. I realize the guy had a rough first half of the season getting his feet wet in the NFL, but talk about a drastic improvement over the last half of the season.


Still was 3, and as I said before, one could also question the quality of the opponents passing games collectively after those first 7 games.




That's fine, your grades mean absolutely nothing, other than to show the rest of us you are going to be overly critical of Berry no matter what. By your "points on the scoreboard" criteria, Ed Reed fails this season too.

Your grades don't mean anything to me, either. And all you shown me is that you're going to over-glorify him, even to the extent of posting falsely fabricated numbers.

And Ed Reed made 7 INT's and played against much better passing teams collectively. He doesn't fail, he passes.




I know brdempsey does not like the pick. But I think and hope that if Berry does keep getting better he will be willing to admit that he is wrong on this one. I don't mind that he wants to see it happen on the field first.

Yes, I'll like it much better when I see it on the field. No, as of right now I don't like the pick, but that could all change with what they do in this upcoming draft, if they fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle that were not gotten in 2010.

Three7s
02-08-2011, 10:13 PM
How can you not write it off as bad throw when the ball inexplicably slipped out of the QB's hand as he was throwing it & sailed right straight to Berry. It was a gift and a damn lucky one at that. Not because of a great play by Berry. Great that Berry did hang on to it, though.

And it's not as good as any red zone pick that could be asked for -- if I recall correctly, the Bills were not in FG range yet. A good red zone pick is generally one where the defender jumps in front of the receiver on a well thrown ball -- in the red zone.
You really think that the Bills weren't going to get 10 more yards with the momentum they had? There was no doubt in my mind that if Berry hadn't made the pick, they win in regulation.

slc chief
02-08-2011, 10:18 PM
YouTube - Eric Berry 2010 Chiefs Highlights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y40MCxh2uLw)

solid player wait till next year he is gonna be a beast.the upside to his nfl career is huge.he has a chance to be a real special player

YouTube - Eric Berry 2010 Chiefs Highlights

Ryfo18
02-08-2011, 10:46 PM
What pair of rose-colored glasses are you looking through when you watch those plays? Because that's a bunch of baloney. Berry was lined up against Gaffney on that play & allowed him a free run on a post pattern without so much as an attempt to jam him in the 5-yard zone. Because of that, Gaffney beat Berry by over 5 yards on a post pattern. Price was late getting there, granted, but he was lined up on the other side of the field on the play. DJ just happened to be in the area and to say he & Price were beaten on the play is just a copout.

I am really not looking at it through rosey colored glasses. Here is the play.

NFL Game Center: Kansas City Chiefs at Denver Broncos - 2010 Week 10 (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010111407/2010/REG10/chiefs@broncos/watch) (click on the 7th video there "Gaffney Diving TD Catch".

If this play were in fact "man to man coverage" then you would be correct. It's a cover 3 zone. Break down the coverage. (When i say left/right, it's from the defenses perspective).

Why it's not man to man

1.) Formation is twin WR's. Typically you put your better cover guys (AKA Flowers/Carr) on the receivers in man coverage, but Flowers is lined up on the left side of the defense. Berry is 10 yards (I'm not sure how you want him to bump him in the 5 yards zone) off of Gaffney and Hali is over Gaffney on the ball.
2.) Berry's first steps on the snap of the ball are backwards. You're telling me that if Gaffney runs a 5-yard crossing route he's supposed to cover him?
3.) Down/distance/field position. 2nd and 7 from the 40 yard line is not typically a recipe for going man-to-man.

Why it is a cover 3

1.) This is a 3-deep coverage, Berry has the right 1/3rd, Derrick Johnson the Middle 1/3rd, and Ricky Price the left 1/3rd. Once the defense recognizes pass, Johnson sprints straight backwards in the middle of the field.

Flowers is off in the left flat, Carr has the right flat, and Hali and Belcher are the middle of the field.

2.) Pause the video at 14 seconds, this is where you get the best glimpse of the cover 3. Price is in his 1/3rd, Johnson is in his 1/3rd, and Eric Berry (off the screen) is in his 1/3rd.

If you want to pin a TD on berry for not breaking up the play that wasn't in his zone, you're free to do that, but I guarantee you he's not the one that got yelled at in the film room.


Your grades don't mean anything to me, either. And all you shown me is that you're going to over-glorify him, even to the extent of posting falsely fabricated numbers.

And Ed Reed made 7 INT's and played against much better passing teams collectively. He doesn't fail, he passes.

You're going to accuse me of fabricating numbers? Sorry my friend, I get my statistics from ProFootballFocus.com. Their philosophy is to "grade every player, from every player, of every game." It's a completely unbiased source of information, and they specifically have Berry down for 7TDs against, 6 of them being in the first 7 games.

slc chief
02-08-2011, 10:52 PM
I am really not looking at it through rosey colored glasses. Here is the play.

NFL Game Center: Kansas City Chiefs at Denver Broncos - 2010 Week 10 (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010111407/2010/REG10/chiefs@broncos/watch) (click on the 7th video there "Gaffney Diving TD Catch".

If this play were in fact "man to man coverage" then you would be correct. It's a cover 3 zone. Break down the coverage. (When i say left/right, it's from the defenses perspective).

Why it's not man to man

1.) Formation is twin WR's. Typically you put your better cover guys (AKA Flowers/Carr) on the receivers in man coverage, but Flowers is lined up on the left side of the defense. Berry is 10 yards (I'm not sure how you want him to bump him in the 5 yards zone) off of Gaffney and Hali is over Gaffney on the ball.
2.) Berry's first steps on the snap of the ball are backwards. You're telling me that if Gaffney runs a 5-yard crossing route he's supposed to cover him?
3.) Down/distance/field position. 2nd and 7 from the 40 yard line is not typically a recipe for going man-to-man.

Why it is a cover 3

1.) This is a 3-deep coverage, Berry has the right 1/3rd, Derrick Johnson the Middle 1/3rd, and Ricky Price the left 1/3rd. Once the defense recognizes pass, Johnson sprints straight backwards in the middle of the field.

Flowers is off in the left flat, Carr has the right flat, and Hali and Belcher are the middle of the field.

2.) Pause the video at 14 seconds, this is where you get the best glimpse of the cover 3. Price is in his 1/3rd, Johnson is in his 1/3rd, and Eric Berry (off the screen) is in his 1/3rd.

If you want to pin a TD on berry for not breaking up the play that wasn't in his zone, you're free to do that, but I guarantee you he's not the one that got yelled at in the film room.



You're going to accuse me of fabricating numbers? Sorry my friend, I get my statistics from ProFootballFocus.com. There philosophy is to "grade every player, from every player, of every game." It's a completely unbiased source of information, and they specifically have Berry down for 7TDs against, 6 of them being in the first 7 games.

well put

Ryfo18
02-08-2011, 11:23 PM
Actually Berry gave up 6 TDs in the first 6 weeks (forgot about the BYE week)

Here's the splits on Berry in pass coverage for the year:

1st 8 weeks: 14/21 (66.7%), 278 yards, 13.2y/a, 6 TDs, 109.72 QB Rating (ick)
Last 8 weeks: 15/29 (51.7%), 140 yards, 4.8y/a, 1TD, 48.06 QB Rating

His worst 3 games of the season were the very first 2 (SD and CLE QBs had a perfect passer rating throwing at him of 158.3) and the Houston game it was 152.1.

Overall though a drastic improvement over the second half of the season after he got comfortable in the defense.

70 chiefsfan70
02-08-2011, 11:36 PM
What pair of rose-colored glasses are you looking through when you watch those plays? Because that's a bunch of baloney. Berry was lined up against Gaffney on that play & allowed him a free run on a post pattern without so much as an attempt to jam him in the 5-yard zone. Because of that, Gaffney beat Berry by over 5 yards on a post pattern. Price was late getting there, granted, but he was lined up on the other side of the field on the play. DJ just happened to be in the area and to say he & Price were beaten on the play is just a copout.



It clearly looks to me like he was supposed to provide man-to-man coverage on the TE on that play & just simply got beaten.



Still was 3, and as I said before, one could also question the quality of the opponents passing games collectively after those first 7 games.




Your grades don't mean anything to me, either. And all you shown me is that you're going to over-glorify him, even to the extent of posting falsely fabricated numbers.

And Ed Reed made 7 INT's and played against much better passing teams collectively. He doesn't fail, he passes.



Yes, I'll like it much better when I see it on the field. No, as of right now I don't like the pick, but that could all change with what they do in this upcoming draft, if they fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle that were not gotten in 2010.

Clearly the Chiefs could not possibly fill all our needs with the 2010 draft, we just had too many needs. I do however commend the management to have filled as many as they have, and don't see how any one can complain about the draft, and how it has improved the team.

Berry has had a tougher role to play than most safties, because of our weakness in the LBer position, many times he was forced to watch for the run, knowing other then DJ there was not anyone else that was a sure tackler, hence often leaving Berry a step or two behind the WR. I think that Berry tackle numbers back that theory up.

Also as the season progressed Berry seemed to not bite on the play action pass like he did in the beginning.

A pass rusher opposite of Hali, would be a huge plus to Berry's success as well.

I do agree its time to (upgrade) the OL.

brdempsey69
02-08-2011, 11:36 PM
I am really not looking at it through rosey colored glasses. Here is the play.

NFL Game Center: Kansas City Chiefs at Denver Broncos - 2010 Week 10 (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010111407/2010/REG10/chiefs@broncos/watch) (click on the 7th video there "Gaffney Diving TD Catch".

If this play were in fact "man to man coverage" then you would be correct. It's a cover 3 zone. Break down the coverage. (When i say left/right, it's from the defenses perspective).

Why it's not man to man

1.) Formation is twin WR's. Typically you put your better cover guys (AKA Flowers/Carr) on the receivers in man coverage, but Flowers is lined up on the left side of the defense. Berry is 10 yards (I'm not sure how you want him to bump him in the 5 yards zone) off of Gaffney and Hali is over Gaffney on the ball.
2.) Berry's first steps on the snap of the ball are backwards. You're telling me that if Gaffney runs a 5-yard crossing route he's supposed to cover him?

Why it is a cover 3

1.) This is a 3-deep coverage, Berry has the right 1/3rd, Derrick Johnson the Middle 1/3rd, and Ricky Price the right 1/3rd. Once the defense recognizes pass, Johnson sprints straight backwards in the middle of the field.

Flowers is off in the left flat, Carr has the right flat, and Hali and Belcher are the middle of the field.

2.) Pause the video at 14 seconds, this is where you get the best glimpse of the cover 3. Price is in his 1/3rd, Johnson is in his 1/3rd, and Eric Berry (off the screen) is in his 1/3rd.

If you want to pin a TD on berry for not breaking up the play that wasn't in his zone, you're free to do that, but I guarantee you he's not the one that got yelled at in the film room.


Totally bogus, it WAS in his zone, and he was line up opposite him. Why do you think Berry was chasing after him the whole play? Because it was his job to pick up Gaffney on the play and stay with him. You have no guarantees whatsoever as to who got yelled at the film room. Prices 1/3 was on the other side of the field. Berry is off the screen at 14 seconds because that's how badly beaten he was.

Why did think Orton threw the ball to Gaffney on the play -- because he saw how badly Gaffney had beaten Berry on the play. DJ and Price might have gone for the play-fake, but there was no reason for Berry to when the receiver was running straight at him.

Regardless of what ever coverage one wants to call it, Berry did not even come close to staying with Gaffney, even if he was 10 yards off him -- for all that was worth, he would have been better served coming up into the 5 yard zone and trying to jam him.

So therefore I charge him with that TD. It was still Berry's side of the field where the receiver started his route & it came right at Berry. He just flat out got smoked.

In the Tennessee game, he got beat to the inside. There was nobody on the play other than the TE that he should have been locking onto & there's nobody else on the Chiefs defense that could possibly charged with giving up that reception. McGraw was keeping an eye on the back coming out of the backfield in case the QB checked down to him.

Therefore that makes 9 TD's given up, not 7 as you suggested earlier.




You're going to accuse me of fabricating numbers? Sorry my friend, I get my statistics from ProFootballFocus.com. There philosophy is to "grade every player, from every player, of every game." It's a completely unbiased source of information, and they specifically have Berry down for 7TDs against, 6 of them being in the first 7 games.

That does not mean they are 100% accurate. Obviously they aren't. And if you are paying a subscription to them, you might consider canceling your subscription getting a refund.

chief31
02-08-2011, 11:45 PM
Oh really? Like in the game at Denver? No pass rush, no sacks & 5 TD passes given up. To say that the pass rush was improved by better pass coverage is only true to a very small extent. In the 2nd Denver game they sacked Orton 4 times & put much more pressure on him & no TD's given up.

Bad coverage in the first game translated to no pressure from pass-rushers. Excellent coverage in the second game led to 4 Sacks and constant pressure on the QB. Way to go Eric Berry!



He was near the bottom in the league in that category of TD's given up at his position. Here it is:

NFL Stats: by Team Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=OPP&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASSING&season=2010&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=true&Submit=Go)

Here what is?

This is a team passing defense category. It, in no way, supports your claim.




The difference is that I tried to get back on topic, twice and let go the discussion about Berry.

You either never tried to let go of the "off-topic" discussions, or you failed as miserably as you possibly could.

Continuing to respond to that topic is a failure of an attempt, if it is an attempt at all.


At no time did I try to take the last word. I never told anyone not to respond to me. They did so out of their own choosing.

Just like you did.

You don't complain that everyone else keeps responding to the topic, and try to absolve yourself, when you keep responding to the same discussion.

Ryfo18
02-08-2011, 11:53 PM
Totally bogus, it WAS in his zone

If this were Berry's zone, then it would be a cover 2. 3 people deep on a cover 2 never happens.


and he was line up opposite him. Why do you think Berry was chasing after him the whole play? Because it was his job to pick up Gaffney on the play and stay with him. You have no guarantees whatsoever as to who got yelled at the film room. Prices 1/3 was on the other side of the field. Berry is off the screen at 14 seconds because that's how badly beaten he was.

Hali was also lined up opposite him, does that make that his guy?

It was not his job to pick up Gaffney and stay with him. If the other WR Lloyd runs deep, Carr is not following him, Berry has to pick him up in his 1/3rd. That is why he cannot just follow Gaffney all over the field. He was never "beat".

Here is how the cover 3 works. It's a little different than the actual image b/c Johnson was deep, but you get the point.

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2011/02/5.jpg

I am 100% certain that Berry did not get yelled at on this play.


Why did think Orton threw the ball to Gaffney on the play -- because he saw how badly Gaffney had beaten Berry on the play. DJ and Price might have gone for the play-fake, but there was no reason for Berry to when the receiver was running straight at him.

Incorrect, it's because he saw a hole in the zone.


Regardless of what ever coverage one wants to call it, Berry did not even come close to staying with Gaffney, even if he was 10 yards off him -- for all that was worth, he would have been better served coming up into the 5 yard zone and trying to jam him.

The first bolded statement: This is a good thing, that means he was doing his job.

The second bolded statement: This would be a bad thing, this is not what he's assigned to do.


So therefore I charge him with that TD. It was still Berry's side of the field where the receiver started his route & it came right at Berry. He just flat out got smoked.

I realize all the babbling you just did justified it in your head, and if you want to count him for a TD you can. But you are not even close to correct, nor are you remotely understanding the coverage that the Chiefs had called. I usually view you as a pretty football savvy guy, but you trying not to be wrong in this instance is hurting your credentials.

chief31
02-09-2011, 12:18 AM
Totally bogus, it WAS in his zone, and he was line up opposite him. Why do you think Berry was chasing after him the whole play? Because it was his job to pick up Gaffney on the play and stay with him. You have no guarantees whatsoever as to who got yelled at the film room. Prices 1/3 was on the other side of the field. Berry is off the screen at 14 seconds because that's how badly beaten he was.



Bottom line? You have your mind made up about Berry, and will not change it no matter how wrong one might prove you to be.

You either have no idea of how defense works, or are just acting like you don't, so you can justify the mistaken judgement on Berry during that play.

Why is DJ even there? was it his man?

No? It was Berry's man?

Then what the he** is Derrick Johnson doing way back there?

It was a cover-2, with DJ playing man against the inside receiver. And the ball was caught in the 'seam', to the right of the offenses right hash mark (or the defenses left).

Cover-2, or cover-3, it was not Berry's zone.

And it most certainly wasn't his man. It was DJ's man. He and Price were burnt on the play.

Three7s
02-09-2011, 01:48 AM
Bottom line? You have your mind made up about Berry, and will not change it no matter how wrong one might prove you to be.

You either have no idea of how defense works, or are just acting like you don't, so you can justify the mistaken judgement on Berry during that play.

Why is DJ even there? was it his man?

No? It was Berry's man?

Then what the he** is Derrick Johnson doing way back there?

It was a cover-2, with DJ playing man against the inside receiver. And the ball was caught in the 'seam', to the right of the offenses right hash mark (or the defenses left).

Cover-2, or cover-3, it was not Berry's zone.

And it most certainly wasn't his man. It was DJ's man. He and Price were burnt on the play.


I gave credit to the Broncos when the play happened. They found a great mismatch and took it.

I'm pretty sure this is how the coverage went. Denver had Lloyd and Royal as the outside receivers, and moved Gaffney to the slot. Normally, Arenas would take the slot guy, but we aren't in nickel coverage, so a LB was on him instead, that being DJ.

Knowing this, a safety was put over the top to help DJ, and that was Price. Flowers was 1 on 1 with Royal and Carr had Lloyd. I'm pretty sure Berry was giving Carr help on Lloyd, but he may have had other responsibilities.

IMO, if anything is to blame on that play, it is the fact that we had a 3rd string safety in that has no idea how to cover. I can't blame DJ because LBs shouldn't cover WRs.

brdempsey69
02-09-2011, 01:55 AM
If this were Berry's zone, then it would be a cover 2. 3 people deep on a cover 2 never happens.


It was a cover 2, there wasn't 5 DB's on the field, there was 4. DJ just happened to see the play was a pass ( he was playing run) & hustled back as best he could ( and a damned good effort at that ).




Hali was also lined up opposite him, does that make that his guy?



Hali dropped into a short zone on that play. Common sense would tell anyone that a wide receiver running a deep route is the responsibility of the DB line up behind him.



It was not his job to pick up Gaffney and stay with him. If the other WR Lloyd runs deep, Carr is not following him, Berry has to pick him up in his 1/3rd. That is why he cannot just follow Gaffney all over the field. He was never "beat".


That's pure BS. Carr went man to man on Lloyd who ran an out and up along the sideline & Carr stayed with him & would have followed Lloyd the whole way thoughout his route. It was Berry's job to stay with Gaffney & he got beat on a post pattern going across from the left hashmark to the right hashmark. Berry's job was to pick up Gaffney on the play.

I've looked at the vid and at 00:13 you can see Price is 20 yards on the opposite side of the field from where Gaffney is. It's clearly the job of the Safety (Berry) on the other side of the field to pick up Gaffney, not Price.



Here is how the cover 3 works. It's a little different than the actual image b/c Johnson was deep, but you get the point.

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2011/02/5.jpg

I am 100% certain that Berry did not get yelled at on this play.


That isn't even the formations that either team was lined up in, so what's the point of that diagram? It's doesn't illustrate anything and is totally useless. Johnson was not deep, he lined up 5 yard from the line of scrimmage where he normally lines up. It was NOT a cover 3, it was a cover 2 that the Chiefs were lined up in. There was no nickel back as seen in that graph -- Vrabel, Belcher, DJ, and Hali were all on the field on that play. For all that diagram is worth, you can print it out & if you run out of toilet paper, then it will come in handy.



Incorrect, it's because he saw a hole in the zone.


Orton saw that Gaffney had Berry beaten to the inside on the play. The play action was to sell run to other side of the field and freeze the defenders on that side of the field. DJ and Price did a creditable job trying to get into the play and help out.




The first bolded statement: This is a good thing, that means he was doing his job.

The second bolded statement: This would be a bad thing, this is not what he's assigned to do.


His job is to get beaten by receivers that he's supposed to cover? I've never heard of that being the job of any DB in the history of the NFL? That's news to me.

Coming up and jamming the receiver a bad thing? It would've destroyed the timing of that play. Even if he's not assigned to do that, he still was assigned to pick up Gaffney on that play, regardless, just based on the formation alone.



I realize all the babbling you just did justified it in your head, and if you want to count him for a TD you can.


It's been justified by my eyes -- by what I saw. The babbling is all on your side.



But you are not even close to correct, nor are you remotely understanding the coverage that the Chiefs had called.


You call it cover 3, it was cover 2. You are incorrect & who's really lacking the understanding here?



I usually view you as a pretty football savvy guy, but you trying not to be wrong in this instance is hurting your credentials.

Same old story -- can't shoot down the message, so shoot the messenger.

I don't care what you think of my football knowledge. That's a lot more laughable than you know. I don't care about your football knowledge either, did you notice that?


Bottom line? You have your mind made up about Berry, and will not change it no matter how wrong one might prove you to be.


Show me the proof. And let Berry prove it on the field. It's up to him to change my mind.



You either have no idea of how defense works, or are just acting like you don't, so you can justify the mistaken judgement on Berry during that play.


Not the case, I've reviewed the play multiple times and there's no mistaking it.



Why is DJ even there? was it his man?


Great hustle on DJ's part. No, it was not his man. DJ was playing run first, then saw it was a pass and ran back to try to help out.



No? It was Berry's man?


Most certainly was Berry's man. He just got smoked.




Then what the he** is Derrick Johnson doing way back there?


See above response regarding DJ.



It was a cover-2, with DJ playing man against the inside receiver. And the ball was caught in the 'seam', to the right of the offenses right hash mark (or the defenses left).


No DJ wasn't playing man against the inside receiver. He was playing run first and came a couple of steps toward the line of scrimmage when the play started. Once he saw pass he ran back towards the deep zone.



Cover-2, or cover-3, it was not Berry's zone.


It was his job to pick up the receiver on his side of the field, in this case Gaffney. Gaffney ran a post pattern from the left hashmark to the right hashmark & left Berry in the dust.



And it most certainly wasn't his man. It was DJ's man. He and Price were burnt on the play.


No way was it DJ's man. It was Berry's man. Price was on the other side of the field at least 25 yards away from where Gaffney made his break to the inside. Somehow I suspect that if Berry & Price had been lined up on opposite sides of the field, Price would still get the blame & people would say "it wasn't Berry's fault because he was lined up on the opposite side of the field" -- but that wasn't the case, now was it?

Ryfo18
02-09-2011, 02:09 AM
It was a cover 2, there wasn't 5 DB's on the field, there was 4. DJ just happened to see the play was a pass ( he was playing run) & hustled back as best he could ( and a damned good effort at that ).

The coverage is not determined by the personnel you have in place.


You call it cover 3, it was cover 2. You are incorrect & who's really lacking the understanding here?

In this case, as you acknowledged, DJ was in deep coverage. So what we have is a 3-deep cover 2 zone...better known as a cover 3.

Ryfo18
02-09-2011, 02:20 AM
I just realized I was kind of wrong. The defense they employed play has the official name of a "Tampa 2", but it's similar to the cover 3 in the sense that you have 3 deep. As the Wikipedia page will tell you: "The defense is similar to a Cover 2 defense, except the middle linebacker drops into a deep middle coverage for a Cover 3."

Notice in the image, the 2 safeties take a 1/3rd of the field and middle linebacker drops back and takes the middle 1/3rd. It doesn't matter what the offense lines up in, these are the zones each player is responsible for.

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2011/02/6.jpg

Ryfo18
02-09-2011, 02:32 AM
And here is a nice YouTube video of former Super Bowl winning coach Brian Billick explaining the Tampa 2, and the MLB's duty.

YouTube - Billick Chalktalk 101 -- More on Tampa 2 and 3-deep defenses






Here's one on a basic cover 2 if anyone is interested. The emphasis, and you'll hear Billick say it, is "2 deep".

YouTube - Billick Chalktalk 101 explains the "Tampa 2" defense

brdempsey69
02-09-2011, 02:39 AM
The coverage is not determined by the personnel you have in place.

In this case, as you acknowledged, DJ was in deep coverage. So what we have is a 3-deep cover 2 zone...better known as a cover 3.

DJ was not in deep coverage on that play & there was nothing in my posts to suggest otherwise. As I had said, he simply played the run first & hustled back when he saw it was a pass.

Ryfo18
02-09-2011, 02:44 AM
DJ was not in deep coverage on that play & there was nothing in my posts to suggest otherwise. As I had said, he simply played the run first & hustled back when he saw it was a pass.

But in a cover 2, as you said the Chiefs were in earlier, he's not responsible for deep coverage. He's responsible for intermediate routes in the middle of the field. Why on earth would he sprint backwards so fast the second he realizes it's not a run?

Ryfo18
02-09-2011, 02:47 AM
DJ was not in deep coverage on that play & there was nothing in my posts to suggest otherwise. As I had said, he simply played the run first & hustled back when he saw it was a pass.

There WAS something in your post to suggest otherwise.



No DJ wasn't playing man against the inside receiver. He was playing run first and came a couple of steps toward the line of scrimmage when the play started. Once he saw pass he ran back towards the deep zone.