Wednesday, February 09, 2005
It's the Linebackers, stupid!
Little Bro: I'll kick this blog off with a cozy debate topic that seems to be dividing much of Chiefs nation: what position is in biggest need of an upgrade? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we need to look defense first. If Ryan Leaf were to return today, he would probably thrash us for 300 yards. The bigger question is, where do we need to look to improve our defense? The answer is obvious: our linebackers.
First, let me clarify that I am a strong supporter of upgrading our cornerbacks. However, I strongly disagree with so many Chiefs fans who seem to think that the answer rests in Ty Law or Patrick Surtain. It is especially baffling that so many Chiefs fans seem to think that giving up a 2nd (or even a 1st) round pick for Surtain makes sense. These fans seem to believe that the best way to improve the Chiefs is to get the best to replace the worst. My suggestion is, you get average corners to upgrade our existing group, and do a massive upgrade elsewhere in our lineup.
The Chiefs don't need shutdown corners. Shutdown corners are the most overrated element of football and for whatever reason, they're paid very handsomely. Cornerbacks are as good as their supporting cast allows them to be. Everybody in America thought the season was over for New England when Ty Law went down. Low and behold, they plug in an undrafted rookie and a wide receiver as their corners and STILL shut down offenses. Everybody in America thought that losing Troy Vincent and Bobby Taylor was going to doom the Eagles, but Sheldon Brown and Lito Sheppard both played to a pro bowl level. Meanwhile, Champ Bailey arguably made the Broncos a worse defensive football team and Antoine Winfield was so good that he boomed the Vikings to an astounding 29th ranking in pass defense. You can believe one of two things: a) the Eagles and Pats somehow manage to pump out pro bowl corners like butter or b) they have such a phenomenal supporting cast that Willie Roaf could probably be a shutdown corner in either of those 2 schemes.
I have heard the argument that McCleon and Bartee are so horrible that QBs don't need time in the pocket; they simply chuck it in their direction when the ball is snapped. While I don't disagree with this, let's not forget that McCleon, Warfield, Woods, and Wesley looked like pro bowlers last season when we had a consistent pass rush. QBs were getting knocked on their backs, looked restless in the pocket, and were throwing the ball right into our secondary's hands. I have also heard the argument that upgrading our secondary is a no-brainer, given that we were ranked last in pass defense. Don't be a sucker for this argument. Correlation does NOT necessarily equal causation. Just because our pass defense is bad, that automatically means our cornerbacks are the sole culprit? It's a cop-out argument. That's like saying that a QB is solely responsible for a pass offense. Nevermind that McNabb became a stud when TO put on an Eagles uniform, or that Kurt Warner fell from pro bowler to toilet bowler when his pass protection disappeared.
Our corners are bad simply because they have a terrible supporting cast. It would be like asking Trent Green to do the things he does behind the Giants' awful offensive line. The biggest problem with our pass defense was NOT our corners; it was our safeties. Have you ever seen our safeties hit anybody in mid-reception? Have you ever seen our safeties even within 5 yards of a receiver? No! Watch the premiere defenses in the NFL: Baltimore, Philly, New England--their safeties are all over the field, breaking up passes from all over the field, and punishing any receiver who dares to roam the middle of the field. And our safeties are awful because they're always trying to save our linebackers' behinds. Did you see them bite on Plummer's bootleg? Did you see Woods practically hit the line of scrimmage when Brooks ran a playaction fake? Our corners have no deep help because our safeties have to cover an entire field. NONE of our LB's are capable of shutting down LB's one-on-one, which further extends the reach of our safeties. Even though I support getting major linebacker help, I certainly couldn't complain about picking up a very good safety like Donovan Darius.
Furthermore, our pass rush is spotty at best. The argument is that we are 9th in sacks, so our pass rush is fine. Is that the only indicator for a strong pass rush? A statistic for sacks? Bear in mind that no team ever ran the ball against us, which created more opportunity for sacks and also kept our defense in a pass rush mindset, rather than stacking up into a box to stop the run. I don't rely on a piece of paper to tell me that our pass rush needs improvement. If our pass rush was so good, then no way could QBs continually thrash our pass defense on 3rd and longs. Our pass rush disappeared when we needed them. It's obvious what difference a pass rush makes: Plummer and Vick both looked very uncomfortable in the pocket against us, and couldn't do anything at all even against our awful corners. For whatever reason, our pass rush chose those two games to be flat-out outstanding. But the other 14 games, our pass rush would get a big sack and then would give the QB a whole day to sit in the pocket and find a receiver for a long pass. A lot of that blame falls to our LB's, especially considering how often we blitz. Our LB's are terrible pass rushers. They are good at hitting open lanes, but terrible at creating a pass rush of their own. Given our spotty pass rush, I would contend that even Surtain AND Law couldn't fix the mess that we have on our defense.
We need a true leader for this defense. Cornerbacks are not leaders; they are individuals. Their job is to shut down their man or zone... PERIOD! LB's are born leaders. They direct traffic, call audibles, move players around, use their athleticism to help out other defenders, can cover ground from sideline-to-sideline, and can improve a pass rush by exploding into the backfield for a sack.
LB's are the heart of a defense; cornerbacks are the arms. We can function with two average arms; we cannot function without a heart. The answer is clear: we need to overhaul all our LB's and replace them with the best LB's we can find. Only then can we even begin to consider getting a top-flight corner.
Big Bro Response: There is no question that LB is a need. I also agree that our LBs are not the best pass rushers. But is it our biggest need? No.
These are essentially the same LBs who "anchored" the defense in the first half of the 2003 season, save for one: Mike Maslowski. Everyone will tell you- Maz is not the most talented, not the most physical, not the best LB in the world. But one thing he was- intelligent and hard-working. He knew how to play defense, period. Perhaps more importantly, he knew how to tackle. The Chiefs defense changed completely once Kawika Mitchell took over. Mitchell can't tackle, and he's frequently out of position. In my mind, that has caused Fujita and (to a lesser extent) Barber to regress, because they have to account for Mitchell.
Little Bro argues that all we need are competent CBs. But I'd argue that the same goes for LBs. Look at the Super Bowl teams. New England has LBs that nobody thought were superstars 3-5 years ago. Philadelphia's 2 OLBs are unremarkable, and their MLB, while a Pro Bowler, was also a guy who was cut from the Redskins and played for minimum dollars this year because he begged to come back to Philadelphia. What made those teams successful? They had LBs who fit into their system and played consistently. No superstars, just good players.
That's what the Chiefs need at LB. Good players. I think they already have them in Fujita and (to a lesser extent) Barber. Their problem is that they're not the kinds of players who can overcome other players' shortcomings. But that's also why the Chiefs should look to upgrade, but not sacrifice the farm, for LBs. If the Chiefs can get a competent MLB, that's good enough for me.
Little Bro says getting a top CB doesn't change anything. Well, neither does getting a top LB. That is why a universally regarded stud like Derrick Johnson may still fall to mid-1st round- because LBs, especially OLBs, aren't regarded as difference makers.
In my estimation, the Chiefs need to monitor Maz and see if he can be ready for the season. If so, the Chiefs can afford to draft a MLB in the 2nd or 3rd round, or obtain a non-superstar MLB in free agency. Maz can't be depended upon for a whole season, but if he can play a good MLB for the first several games, that will give a rookie the chance to work himself into a system (and no projects, like Mitchell was; they need a sound, fundamental player there). But the Chiefs need to get a CB. Warfield is no shutdown corner or superstar, but he can get the job done as a starting CB. It's the other side that needs help and fast. The Chiefs need either a 1st round CB or a solid free agent CB. They can't risk any more Bartee-like or Battle-like projects next year.
First, let me clarify that I am a strong supporter of upgrading our cornerbacks. However, I strongly disagree with so many Chiefs fans who seem to think that the answer rests in Ty Law or Patrick Surtain. It is especially baffling that so many Chiefs fans seem to think that giving up a 2nd (or even a 1st) round pick for Surtain makes sense. These fans seem to believe that the best way to improve the Chiefs is to get the best to replace the worst. My suggestion is, you get average corners to upgrade our existing group, and do a massive upgrade elsewhere in our lineup.
The Chiefs don't need shutdown corners. Shutdown corners are the most overrated element of football and for whatever reason, they're paid very handsomely. Cornerbacks are as good as their supporting cast allows them to be. Everybody in America thought the season was over for New England when Ty Law went down. Low and behold, they plug in an undrafted rookie and a wide receiver as their corners and STILL shut down offenses. Everybody in America thought that losing Troy Vincent and Bobby Taylor was going to doom the Eagles, but Sheldon Brown and Lito Sheppard both played to a pro bowl level. Meanwhile, Champ Bailey arguably made the Broncos a worse defensive football team and Antoine Winfield was so good that he boomed the Vikings to an astounding 29th ranking in pass defense. You can believe one of two things: a) the Eagles and Pats somehow manage to pump out pro bowl corners like butter or b) they have such a phenomenal supporting cast that Willie Roaf could probably be a shutdown corner in either of those 2 schemes.
I have heard the argument that McCleon and Bartee are so horrible that QBs don't need time in the pocket; they simply chuck it in their direction when the ball is snapped. While I don't disagree with this, let's not forget that McCleon, Warfield, Woods, and Wesley looked like pro bowlers last season when we had a consistent pass rush. QBs were getting knocked on their backs, looked restless in the pocket, and were throwing the ball right into our secondary's hands. I have also heard the argument that upgrading our secondary is a no-brainer, given that we were ranked last in pass defense. Don't be a sucker for this argument. Correlation does NOT necessarily equal causation. Just because our pass defense is bad, that automatically means our cornerbacks are the sole culprit? It's a cop-out argument. That's like saying that a QB is solely responsible for a pass offense. Nevermind that McNabb became a stud when TO put on an Eagles uniform, or that Kurt Warner fell from pro bowler to toilet bowler when his pass protection disappeared.
Our corners are bad simply because they have a terrible supporting cast. It would be like asking Trent Green to do the things he does behind the Giants' awful offensive line. The biggest problem with our pass defense was NOT our corners; it was our safeties. Have you ever seen our safeties hit anybody in mid-reception? Have you ever seen our safeties even within 5 yards of a receiver? No! Watch the premiere defenses in the NFL: Baltimore, Philly, New England--their safeties are all over the field, breaking up passes from all over the field, and punishing any receiver who dares to roam the middle of the field. And our safeties are awful because they're always trying to save our linebackers' behinds. Did you see them bite on Plummer's bootleg? Did you see Woods practically hit the line of scrimmage when Brooks ran a playaction fake? Our corners have no deep help because our safeties have to cover an entire field. NONE of our LB's are capable of shutting down LB's one-on-one, which further extends the reach of our safeties. Even though I support getting major linebacker help, I certainly couldn't complain about picking up a very good safety like Donovan Darius.
Furthermore, our pass rush is spotty at best. The argument is that we are 9th in sacks, so our pass rush is fine. Is that the only indicator for a strong pass rush? A statistic for sacks? Bear in mind that no team ever ran the ball against us, which created more opportunity for sacks and also kept our defense in a pass rush mindset, rather than stacking up into a box to stop the run. I don't rely on a piece of paper to tell me that our pass rush needs improvement. If our pass rush was so good, then no way could QBs continually thrash our pass defense on 3rd and longs. Our pass rush disappeared when we needed them. It's obvious what difference a pass rush makes: Plummer and Vick both looked very uncomfortable in the pocket against us, and couldn't do anything at all even against our awful corners. For whatever reason, our pass rush chose those two games to be flat-out outstanding. But the other 14 games, our pass rush would get a big sack and then would give the QB a whole day to sit in the pocket and find a receiver for a long pass. A lot of that blame falls to our LB's, especially considering how often we blitz. Our LB's are terrible pass rushers. They are good at hitting open lanes, but terrible at creating a pass rush of their own. Given our spotty pass rush, I would contend that even Surtain AND Law couldn't fix the mess that we have on our defense.
We need a true leader for this defense. Cornerbacks are not leaders; they are individuals. Their job is to shut down their man or zone... PERIOD! LB's are born leaders. They direct traffic, call audibles, move players around, use their athleticism to help out other defenders, can cover ground from sideline-to-sideline, and can improve a pass rush by exploding into the backfield for a sack.
LB's are the heart of a defense; cornerbacks are the arms. We can function with two average arms; we cannot function without a heart. The answer is clear: we need to overhaul all our LB's and replace them with the best LB's we can find. Only then can we even begin to consider getting a top-flight corner.
Big Bro Response: There is no question that LB is a need. I also agree that our LBs are not the best pass rushers. But is it our biggest need? No.
These are essentially the same LBs who "anchored" the defense in the first half of the 2003 season, save for one: Mike Maslowski. Everyone will tell you- Maz is not the most talented, not the most physical, not the best LB in the world. But one thing he was- intelligent and hard-working. He knew how to play defense, period. Perhaps more importantly, he knew how to tackle. The Chiefs defense changed completely once Kawika Mitchell took over. Mitchell can't tackle, and he's frequently out of position. In my mind, that has caused Fujita and (to a lesser extent) Barber to regress, because they have to account for Mitchell.
Little Bro argues that all we need are competent CBs. But I'd argue that the same goes for LBs. Look at the Super Bowl teams. New England has LBs that nobody thought were superstars 3-5 years ago. Philadelphia's 2 OLBs are unremarkable, and their MLB, while a Pro Bowler, was also a guy who was cut from the Redskins and played for minimum dollars this year because he begged to come back to Philadelphia. What made those teams successful? They had LBs who fit into their system and played consistently. No superstars, just good players.
That's what the Chiefs need at LB. Good players. I think they already have them in Fujita and (to a lesser extent) Barber. Their problem is that they're not the kinds of players who can overcome other players' shortcomings. But that's also why the Chiefs should look to upgrade, but not sacrifice the farm, for LBs. If the Chiefs can get a competent MLB, that's good enough for me.
Little Bro says getting a top CB doesn't change anything. Well, neither does getting a top LB. That is why a universally regarded stud like Derrick Johnson may still fall to mid-1st round- because LBs, especially OLBs, aren't regarded as difference makers.
In my estimation, the Chiefs need to monitor Maz and see if he can be ready for the season. If so, the Chiefs can afford to draft a MLB in the 2nd or 3rd round, or obtain a non-superstar MLB in free agency. Maz can't be depended upon for a whole season, but if he can play a good MLB for the first several games, that will give a rookie the chance to work himself into a system (and no projects, like Mitchell was; they need a sound, fundamental player there). But the Chiefs need to get a CB. Warfield is no shutdown corner or superstar, but he can get the job done as a starting CB. It's the other side that needs help and fast. The Chiefs need either a 1st round CB or a solid free agent CB. They can't risk any more Bartee-like or Battle-like projects next year.
