Monday, February 14, 2005
OLBs- Go Play Outside!
Big Bro: I think OLBs could be the position that is most up for debate. I actually think our OLBs aren't as big a deficiency as many people think. Remember that Scott Fujita looked like he was headed to the Pro Bowl in the first half of 2003. Shawn Barber has been a disappointment, but I don't think he's a terrible LB. I think their problem is that they are not so good that they can cover up deficiencies of the MLB. Let's look at them individually.
Fujita obviously has some weaknesses. He is not a great cover guy. He is not terribly strong. But he has good quickness, and I think he is a good blitzer. He is a pretty solid tackler, though he has his moments where he does not completely follow through and lets the runner get away. He shoots the gaps OK and makes some plays in the backfield. Overall, I like him. He is replaceable, but I do not think he is a liability.
I would replace Barber before replacing Fujita. For a guy who is supposed to have good speed, he can look awfully slow on the field. He is a better cover guy than Fujita, but he is a relatively poor tackler and does not make much noise on blitzes. RBs do not fear him. He does not make as many plays as I expected him to when he first came over to KC.
Monty Beisel is a good utility guy, and if the Chiefs do not obtain a big-time OLB somehow, then he is a serviceable substitute for Barber until he recovers from his injury. Beisel's solid, but far from spectacular. He isn't really fast enough to be an every-down starter in the NFL, but he is a smart player who can get the job done in short stints. I think the Chiefs would be wise to re-sign him.
Keyaron Fox saw almost no time, so I cannot make much of an opinion on him. He looked decent on special teams, but LB is very much a thinking man's position. KC probably should have considered giving him more of an opportunity towards the end of last season to at least see what he's got. Quinton Caver and Fred Jones are nothing more than roster-fillers.
An interesting possibility is Kawika Mitchell. I happen to think he is woefully unsuited for MLB, but he could be better at OLB. He is not proven to be a very smart player, and MLB is like the hub up front, so I don't think he will be successful there in the near future. He does seem to have the physical tools, however, so there is a good chance he could be a good OLB. That's a big risk to take for the Chiefs, though, at least for the immediate future.
I think the Chiefs need to have a good idea of what they are going to do with the CB and MLB positions before deciding on what to do with their OLBs. With a good MLB, I think Barber/Beisel and Fujita can be good. Without one, I think their deficiencies are badly exposed. So I say that OLB should be addressed, but not urgently.
Little Bro: I would take just the opposite stance on our outside LB's and I believe they are our biggest liability. They are the wrong LB's for the wrong scheme. They are Greg Robinson, soft, zone Linebackers in a Gunther Cunningham, hard, attacking scheme. Much as I am indifferent to the writing of Bob Gretz, he brings up a great point: LB's should not just fill space; they need to punish any blocker that gets in their way. Even if they don't get a push, they need to wear down blockers. Is it really any wonder that our OLB's, like so many of our soft players installed in the Greg Robinson era, are so prone to collapse in the second halves of games? Sure, they're smart and quick enough to cover some decent ground, but they are just too soft for Gunther Cunningham's defense.
And besides, our linebackers are just not that good, period. Here's a good benchmark measure: would any of our OLB's start on any top 10 defense? Fujita may start for one or two, but essentially, they would be back-ups in the majority of those schemes. That's pretty sad. People are quick to point the finger at our cornerbacks for poor coverage, but for whatever reason slow to point out that our LB coverage against tight ends has been just as bad. Let's not forget that Indianapolis began to thrash our defense only when they began to run two tight end sets. I would like to see OLB's who can actually provide help on defense; instead, we have two LB's who miss tackles and are one-dimensional. Fujita has proven to be a decent LB outside of pass coverage, but his coverage skills are a huge liability. Barber has proven to be a decent coverage LB, but he's nowhere near the ball against the run. In both instances, neither are even close to exceptional in that one dimension. A sound set of OLB's would have a ripple effect on the defense, most notably, by allowing our safeties to play their game. Instead of guarding the deep zone, our safeties are too often covering up for our OLB's failures. The extent to which our safeties bite on playactions and bootlegs is a pretty clear sign that they have zero confidence in our OLB's to contain the run. And what if we had LB's who could actually cover tight ends? Our safeties could actually cover space, rather than staying in the box to help our OLB's cover their man; to help them do their job. The worst part about our OLB's is that they provide zero support in the pass rush. I have watched our LB's closely, and I can't think of a single instance where they've utilized a pass rush move. They almost seek out blockers to get in their way; it's almost a magnetic force. The only times I see them get to the QB is when there is a wide-open lane as a result of a mis-read by the blockers.
Like Hicks, our OLB's are serviceable,and that's about it. This group is by far most victimized by the horrible project that was the Greg Robinson defense. This is the group that would see the most dramatic effects after an upgrade. Most arguments claim that they're serviceable, but not great. OLB is too important of a position to insert place fillers. We need difference makers; guys who can cover a lot of ground. I don't want serviceable OLB's. I want ones who can make plays on their own regardless of their supporting cast. Don't fall for the hype of 2 years ago. The defense excelled not because of our LB's, but because our defensive line was putting enormous pressure on opposing QBs and that forced a lot of turnovers. That was clearly a fluke, and we can't expect that kind of pressure against much of our major conference rivals, like Indy and New England. For as much as we blitz, our LB's should be swarming into the backfield; instead, they're always slowly trudging their way in, usually putting pressure after good coverage. Improving our OLB's improves our pass rush and improves the help defense provided by our safeties--seems like a no-brainer to me.
