Mock #1 1/24/2011

[stevefuller]

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

[brdempsey69]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.