Two Brothers for Chiefs

Like Blaylock, We've Moved On!

2005-03-13T00:26:00.000-05:00

As we indicated earlier, we were preparing to move to a new website. And so we have. We can now be found at: http://chiefs.mostvaluablenetwork.com

Our new site name is "Home of the Chiefs." Our format is a little different. No longer will we have the debate-style blog we had here. I will, of course, continue to comment on his articles, and he will continue to comment on mine, but those will all now be found in the commentary section.

What won't change is our passion for the Chiefs. And I hope that will come through in our contributions. So please, when you have the chance, come on over and talk Chiefs with us. And thanks for reading!

For Whom Kendrell Bell Tolls- The Chiefs!

2005-03-08T14:52:00.000-05:00

Finally! The Chiefs, after some ear-twisting failures to land free agents, signed Kendrell Bell today. The only information available currently is that the Chiefs signed Bell to a 7-year contract.

Initially, this looks like a great move. Kendrell Bell is an elite linebacker-- when healthy. He has missed a lot of time in recent years to injuries. The good news is that it does not seem to be chronic injuries that hamper Bell. He missed time in 2003 because of a high ankle sprain, and he missed 13 games last year due to a groin injury. The bad news is that he does not appear to be a quick healer, and he has a reputation of not playing through pain.

Hopefully, a big contract and a big challenge to turn the Chiefs' defense around will inspire Bell to play through pain. There is no doubt that Bell is one of the most skilled LBs available. We still have to leave some room open to judgment, depending on how big Bell's contract is. If it is too large, that may hamper the Chiefs' ability to obtain a CB. Bell's signing also does not rule out a subsequent signing of Ed Hartwell, because either can also play OLB, but if Bell's cap figure is too large, that may rule out Hartwell.

Let's hope the Chiefs made a good signing and that this is not a panic move.

Samari Rolle

2005-03-07T20:42:00.000-05:00

Chiefs Nation is abuzz with how Samari Rolle went from a guaranteed Chief, to a Raven practically overnight.

There are multiple theories, the most popular being that our front office was too cheap to give him what he wanted. I subscribe to a different theory: injury clause.

Today, the KC Star released an article about a potential health problem diagnosed during Rolle's MRI. The problem, called spinal stenosis, is a condition in which the spinal cord narrows and anyone diagnosed typically suffers a lot of pain when undergoing physical activity.

Samari has very good reason to be upset about the whole fallout. I don't know how the story leaked out to the press, but I believe that this is something that should have stayed between the doctors, Samari, and our front office. That aside, if this story is true, then there is some legitimate concern about Rolle's health. Rolle went on the NFL Network claiming that the Chiefs blindsighted Rolle and that he didn't know that was even a factor until the story was leaked to the press. I find this very hard to believe. The rampant speculation was that the contract talks stalled not on money; not on terms; but on the injury clause.

Now, here's where I think the story gets sketchy. The Chiefs turn down Rolle because of an injury clause, then Rolle runs off and immediately takes an offer that is nowhere NEAR the ballpark of what his perceived market value was. We may all have our opinions about which corner is truly better than the other, but many would find it very hard to believe that Lucas was paid more than Rolle or that Rolle received just a smidgeon higher than Baxter. Samari knows what he should be worth on the open market, and you can't help but wonder what could have prompted such an incredibly quick change-of-heart? Money? No. Spite? Maybe, but do you think any player would turn down cash for spite? Not likely.

It's a wild theory, I know, but my thoughts are that if Samari were truly confident about his health, he wouldn't have ran out and took the first offer that he found, particularly one that wasn't even close to his true value; particularly one that isn't even close to top cornerback money. No. Something stinks. I don't know what it is, and of course, I don't know everything that just took place. But all I know is, Samari was all but a lock in KC, the issue of injury clause came up, an article publishes in the KC Star pointing out a spinal condition, and overnight Rolle is on a plane to Baltimore and he accepts a low deal with the Ravens in a blink of an eye. I don't know if I'm the only one that thinks that's all just a little too weird.

Updates Galore

2005-03-05T12:43:00.000-05:00

At this point in time, it's important to sort out the likely facts from the projections. It seems that this is the best update that we have:

Likely Facts:
Hartwell left KC to test the market in Arizona and Seattle. He wants a contract of $6 mil/year and a $10 million bonus, and KC would like to avoid that kind of figure. Rolle has gone home for his daughter's birthday party, but apparently the Chiefs' front office pulled a very late-night session to free up money internally and to work out Rolle's contract figures. Bell came into KC and passed a physical (he failed the Giants' physical because of a shoulder problem that went away). Dwight Smith visited KC. Sammy Knight will come in probably next week.

Projections:
It sounds like Rolle is extremely close to a deal and other teams have backed off. Hartwell and KC share a mutual interest in each other, but they don't agree on the terms. It sounds as if we are waiting for Rolle to sign, and then we will figure out where Hartwell, Bell, Smith, and Knight fit into the puzzle. The Chiefs don't sound confident that they can sign Hartwell to his high-terms, but it's very possible that Hartwell will come back with a more reasonable offer (after testing the market and, hopefully for Chiefs fans, not finding an offer close to what he's demanding). Dwight Smith is apparently only interested in the Chiefs and Saints, and it sounds like he missed his flight to New Orleans because of his long talks with the Chiefs.

Opinion:
There will be a domino effect in KC. We've waited a long time to hear news, but once Rolle signs (if he does, that is), then we will likely see a few deals happen in a relatively short period of time. Most likely, a MLB (whether it's Bell or Hartwell, it's tough to say) and probably either Smith or Knight.

Trotter Gone; Hartwell Still Around?

2005-03-04T15:52:00.000-05:00

As most probably know by know, Trotter has decided to stay in Philadelphia. That still leaves Hartwell and Rolle as KC's top choices. There are conflicting reports about whether Hartwell is still in KC or on his way to Arizona. Rolle will be home for the weekend for his daughter's birthday.

Huge Potential Developments

2005-03-03T20:20:00.000-05:00

Listening to ESPN radio from KC, there could be big news before the weekend is over. Trotter, Hartwell and Rolle all stayed longer than expected. Hartwell will be staying in KC overnight, and in an interview on the radio, his response to the question "Will you be a Chief" was "Looking forward to it."

As for Rolle, it appears he will be going home to attend his daughter's birthday party, then return tomorrow morning. He wants to get something done by Friday, and he has no plans to visit other teams.

Trotter stayed until Thursday night, then plans on visiting some other teams.

Furthermore, Kendrell Bell came in unexpectedly tonight, and he will be back at Arrowhead at 8 a.m. tomorrow.

Stay tuned...

Trotter, Rolle, Hartwell

2005-03-03T10:39:00.000-05:00

According to sources at the Philadelphia and Kansas City papers (www.philly.com and www.kansascity.com) the Chiefs are conducting physical examinations on Trotter and Rolle. Trotter is the main concern because he has had major knee surgery on both knees before. Rolle, of course, missed a big chunk of last season, also because of knee problems. Hartwell will apparently have a full interview today.

Free Agent Update

2005-03-02T20:26:00.000-05:00

Just as a note- my DSL went down, so haven't really had a chance to update the blog. Hopefully, the WR analysis will appear tomorrow.

From the good folks at Chiefs Coalition, word is that Jeremiah Trotter, Samari Rolle, and Ed Hartwell all visited KC today, and that Ty Law if flying in tonight. ESPN reports that Trotter is this close to signing with KC.

Quarterbacks- The Future Is When?

2005-02-26T01:31:00.000-05:00

Stay tuned- we will be moving to http://www.mostvaluablenetwork.com soon!

Today we will be analyzing QBs. Our next update will examine the RBs.

Big Bro: The Chiefs have been pretty blessed with their QB situation the past few years. They gave up a 1st round pick to St. Louis in order to get Trent Green, and they have not regretted doing so. Green is probably the most underrated QB in the NFL right now. He is the only player (that's right, Peyton fans, even he hasn't done it) to post a 90+ QB rating in each of the last 3 years. He has thrown for over 4,000 yards in each of the last 2 seasons.

On paper, 2004 looked like Green's best season. A sterling 95.2 rating. Over 4,500 yards passing. A career-high 27 TD tosses and 66.4% completion percentage. And yet, 2004 was probably Green's most frustrating year since his 1st year with the Chiefs. His 17 INTs were his highest since 2001, and many of those came in crucial situations. He had plenty of opportunities to lead 4th quarter comebacks and failed. And, of course, he lost about 5 more games than expected.

Can everything be blamed on Green? Of course not. Inexplicably, his offensive line collapsed at the end of some games. WRs still dropped key passes. The running game was a little more inconsistent than Chiefs fans are used to. But as the leader of the team, Green does have to be careful. Perhaps he was putting too much pressure on himself because of the sorry state of the defense. But his decision-making was erratic at clutch times, which was rather surprising given his nearly mistake-free 2003 season. Hopefully, a better defense will also lead to better decision-making by Green.

One thing is for certain- the Chiefs need Green to be healthy. Almost miraculously, he has been healthy throughout his Chiefs career (cross my fingers). He doesn't get hit hard, which is a result of the combination of a great offensive line and surprising pocket presence by Green. And when he has time to throw, Green is generally one of the most accurate mid-range passers in the game. He also shows surprising accuracy on the move.

However, if Green gets hurt for a stretch, the Chiefs are in trouble. Collins is a good backup, but he is more Gary Kubiak than he is Tom Brady. Collins knows this offense and the receivers well enough to fill in for a quarter or a half, but he is not the guy you want coming out of the runway as the starting QB. Collins is no spring chicken either, so he is not a long term solution.

Currently, Damon Huard is the #3 QB. He is fine as a #3 QB, but he is also not a long term solution. The Chiefs will have to start looking soon, because Green probably only has two or three more effective years left in him. Casey Claussen right now is their "long term solution," and he was undrafted. This puts the Chiefs in a quandary- do they spend a draft pick on a QB for the future when those draft picks are badly needed to shore up their defense?

As it stands, the Chiefs will probably have to wait to draft their QB of the future. The Chiefs might want to look hard at Mike McMahon, but it would be hard to convince him to sign on as a #3 QB for the 2005 season without guaranteeing him a shot at the starting QB position in 2006.

Little Bro: Sports fans have a tendency to adopt players they like as their own. In many cases, we immortalize players who aren't that good. It was exactly this hubris that convinced so many fans in Chiefs nation that our defensive players would improve dramatically with the addition of one Gunther Cunningham. I will admit that I am one of those people who fell into that trap. Of any player that I defend the most as a Chiefs fan, it is definitely Trent Green. I have long said that Trent Green is the most underrated QB in the NFL. It seems like Kansas City fans are the only people in the entire nation that embrace this position, which made me wonder: is this a case of immortalizing a Chiefs player that really isn't that good? I still say NO! I hope that every football fan that refuses to put Trent Green in their top ten list of QB's will read this post.

The numbers should speak for themselves. Other than Peyton Manning, no QB has even come close to paralleling Green's numbers. His QB rating is consistently above 90. His completion percentage and yardage per attempt are always among the top of the league. His overall yardage is almost unparalleled.

It seems that the media searches for excuses rather than reasons for why a slow, deliberate, journeyman QB
should ever be considered in the upper tier. To some in the media, Green is only good because KC has a powerful running game; nevermind that Kyle Boller had a 2000 yard rusher in his backfield and still engineers one of the worst passing attacks in the NFL. To others, Green is only good because he has a great offensive line; nevermind that Peyton Manning was easily the best protected QB in the NFL and is immortalized by most members of the media. Others use the "super bowl" excuse: that Tom Brady has won Super Bowls and Trent Green has not. I challenge Tom Brady to win a Super Bowl with our pathetic excuse for a defense. I would LOVE to see Mr. Brady be labeled as Mr. Clutch when his defense can't make a single fourth quarter stop. And then, of course, the most contradictory statement of all--despite the fact that NFL "analysts" drone on about how badly KC needs better receivers, those same analysts claim that Green is only good because of the talent that surrounds him.

It frustrates the hell out of anybody to believe that a QB like Green can be a superstar, let alone a starter for an NFL team. He isn't flashy like McNabb or Vick, but don't let that fool you--his pocket presence is superb for a man that does not like to run around a lot. He doesn't rifle the ball like a Brett Favre, but don't let that fool you--KC is not the dink-and-dunk team that so many people label them as. In fact, their bread-and-butter play is a 15-20 yard strike in the pocket of a zone. Somewhere along the line, we began to immortalize QBs who razzle-dazzled and we forgot about fundamentals. We forgot about QBs like Green and Brady, who are among the best at staring down safeties and LB's, and checking down receivers. We forgot about QBs like Green and Manning, who would rather read defenses than find the first opportunity to run.

Yes, Green did run into some late-game problems, but it is unfair to pin that blame on him. KC's offense demands perfection and when anyone makes a single mistake, the defense is not good enough to cover that mistake up. That is the fundamental difference between Green, and McNabb or Brady. Brady and McNabb make lots of late-game interceptions, but Green's INTs are put under the microscope because they usually end up being difference-makers. While Brady can resort to safe, conservative passes to move down the field, Green must think touchdown on every play. Needless to say, I am excited about what Trent Green can do with this team with a good defense. I would love for Green to make a late-minute interception and for the defense to say, "Don't worry, Trent. You were perfect the rest of the 4th quarter, and now it's time for us to make a stop." In our current state, we shudder when it's a tie-game, early in the 4th quarter and we are forced to punt. How pathetic is that, to demand that kind of perfection from your offense?

As for Collins and Huard, I feel comfortable with both of those guys as our backups. I don't think Collins is capable of bringing us to the promised land, but he is a very safe back-up. There comes a certain point when a man knows a system so well that his knowledge of the system trumps any lack of physical ability. This year may be the time to look later in the draft to find a good project QB to replace Green. Huard is a good backup, but he will never be a starter that can win games.

We just have to face the facts that it's Green, or nothing. It's a sad position, but Green is arguably the most important player on this Chiefs football team and I find it hard to imagine that there are a lot of QBs in this league who can parallel the performance he has put on over the past 3 years. It's hard to imagine that we can make it to the Super Bowl without him. With the protection Green gets and the relatively minor mental wear-and-tear, I would hope that we can protect him well enough to stay healthy for the next 2-3 years. Green is the best QB to play in KC since Len Dawson. In a lot of ways, that might apply even more pressure for us to win now, because it might be another 10-15 years before we find another QB that can lead this offense the way Green has over the past few seasons.

Safeties- Step Up or Step Down

2005-02-23T17:58:00.000-05:00

Stay tuned- we will be moving to http://www.mostvaluablenetwork.com soon!

Today is Day 6 of our positional analysis. Today, we will discuss Safeties. Tomorrow, we will discuss the heart and soul of the offense: Quarterbacks.

Little Bro: The status of our safeties provides for a very interesting topic of discussion. Of any position, I believe that this is one where the talent and upside are there, but the results are not.

This is most apparent in our strong safety, Greg Wesley. Wesley has everything a safety needs: he’s extremely physical and is athletic enough to cover a lot of field. It’s simply baffling that he has regressed as he has. It’s a waste of talent to watch this man sit on the bench. It’s like taking a huge risk on an expensive bottle of wine that you’ve never tried before. How frustrating it must be, to watch that bottle age in your cellar when you want nothing more than to kick back and see what you spent your money on. It’s this very reason, I believe, that Vermeil—a noted wine connoisseur—refused to let Wesley sit on the bench. And it’s this very reason why fans like myself are willing to wait on him—because we don’t want to give up on his upside or potential. But really, how much longer can we wait? How much longer must we drink boxed wine out of an expensive bottle of Pinot Noir?

One cannot help but wonder what ever happened to the Wesley and Woods we thought we were gonna get when we signed them to huge contracts. The Jerome Woods that used to cover like a blanket now seems to be three steps behind on every pass play. The same Greg Wesley that used to pop and punish any offensive player that got in his way seems to reluctantly tackle as if they had cooties. I don’t know if Greg Robinson is largely responsible for those gross changes in play, but they better shake it off and fast!

At free safety, I began last season believing that Woods was a stud and that Harts was a very able backup. Now I have extreme doubts. Vermeil claims that Woods was injured and that would certainly explain how he lost a few steps last season, but Woods isn’t exactly young and he hasn’t exactly been a cheetah since his major surgery a few years ago. Harts, like in the past, flashed ability. He would blanket a receiver one-on-one or lay a big hit on a receiver and we would all stand and cheer. That is, until the next five plays developed and you watch Harts magically fall grossly out of position or get flat-out burned in coverage. Like Wesley, I believe he has the ability to be a fairly solid safety. I just wonder why we can't get the guy to play consistently.

Far more intriguing than either of the three above options is Willie Pile. The KC coaching staff loves this kid and I can see why. At times, I really wanted KC to put that fine bottle of Pinot Noir on the shelf and let Pile play—he isn’t as athletic as Wesley, but he makes less mistakes. Equally intriguing is converting him over to free safety, where he played in college. He would be a huge upgrade over Woods and Harts (based on last year’s performance, at least), though he may lack a little speed. Another important offseason development to scan closely is the progress of Scott Connot and Eric Crouch in the NFL Europe. Connot has never flashed anything on the NFL field, but he hits like a freight train. Though I wouldn't watch him too closely, because his upside is probably very limited. Crouch, on the other hand, has tremendous upside wrapped around a huge mess of uncertainty. He has incredible speed and has a quarterback’s mind. The question he will need to answer is: will that speed translate into moving quickly on defense and will he learn to think like a safety? Either way, neither of these two can be depended on to start. I do have perhaps a delusion that Crouch will translate into a solid NFL player; however, I would be crazy to expect this to happen overnight. We simply cannot pencil him in as a starter, no matter how well he performs in the NFLe. There are also interesting options in the draft: Ernest Shazor of Michigan could be a huge sleeper pick. Thomas Davis of Georgia is a stud, though I have my doubts as to whether he can translate into a stud NFL safety.
No matter how we approach the safety issue, one thing is clear: our safeties absolutely MUST… STEP… UP…! They are just as culpable for our failures on pass defense as anybody. Although, I have always given them the benefit of a doubt: I still believe our safeties can play better if they didn’t spend so much time playing LB because our LB’s can’t do anything on their own. I almost want to cry when I watch teams like New England and Philadelphia play. Their safeties are everywhere. I can’t think of a single instance where I remember our safeties breaking up a pass, or hitting a receiver right between the numbers for getting in the way.

And THAT is the fundamental difference between a New England cornerback and a Kansas City one--our corners never have the help they deserve. We always pin the blame on Warfield for not making plays deep. Why do we never mention Woods in the same breath? Isn't that the safety's main job? To prevent the big play? When that ball gets lofted in the air, how is it possible that our safeties are a mile away from the play? There's just simply no excuse for that. None! I want to say that we desperately need help in the offseason, but the answer is more complex than that. I believe that the talent is there. I hope that upgrading the LB's will have a trickle effect on the LB's, but no matter which way you stir it, our safeties simply MUST... STEP... UP...!

Big Bro: You won't find too much argument from me. I don't think there's any doubt that our safeties have talent, but they looked like a completely lost and confused bunch in 2004. Jerome Woods was the biggest surprise to me. I thought he was the big difference when the Chiefs defense played pretty well in the first half of 2003, but he looked like a rookie in 2004. You can kind of understand it, as age and injuries are likely taking their toll. But Wesley's case looked to be a lack of desire and motivation, and, to me, that is more disturbing than a decline attributed to age.

I do not have as much faith in Harts as Little Bro. He looked like a career backup, and I am tired of giving veterans time to step up. If a better replacement can be found for him, I think it's about time they go for it.

I too like Willie Pile, and I do think he can be an adequate replacement. I am perfectly satisfied with having a Woods/Pile tandem, provided they upgrade in other areas.

I do not think Connot will ever amount to much. Crouch might someday do something, but not in 2005.

In a nutshell, the safeties are the most intriguing position. It is perhaps the position in which KC has the most defensive talent, but it is also the position that may end up costing KC a shot at the Super Bowl if it doesn't improve.

Cornerback - Does KC corner the market?

2005-02-21T23:31:00.000-05:00

NOTE: Stay tuned! We will be moving to http://www.mostvaluablenetwork.com soon!

Today is Day 5 of our positional analysis. Today, we will cover cornerbacks. Tomorrow, we will cover safeties.

Little Bro: Allow me to switch gears and start off this post on cornerback. Talk with any Chiefs fan. Hop onto any Chiefs discussion board. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the vast majority of them want a shutdown cornerback. I happen to disagree with that sentiment.

First, let me get one thing straight: our cornerbacks are awful. I know this, anybody with any eye for NFL talent knows this, and judging by Vermeil's comments on 810 radio, the Chiefs know this as well. Warfield is a solid corner. He is not a shutdown corner, but I would still contend that if his help defense was better, he could be a solid #1 corner. McCleon and Bartee are a waste of time. Battle and Sapp have potential, but you can't rest all your hopes on potential, particularly two players who are a long way from being serviceable starters.

The bigger question is: what talent level do we need at cornerback? To get a good feel of the pulse in the Chiefs' fan base, there are generally two schools: 1) Go after Ty Law or Patrick Surtain, or 2) Go after a second-tier corner like Baxter, Lucas, or Dyson. The predominant sentiment is to go with the former. I side with the latter.

I have had extensive arguments with Chiefs fans about my stance. The common response to my position is: "Are you blind? Look at the numbers! Our pass defense is awful! It must be the corners! Trade our second round pick for Surtain! Break the bank for Ty Law! We need a shutdown corner! Hell, give us a Ty Law and throw a Samare Rolle on the side!" Let's break down this all-too-typical response. First, corners are not the only ones responsible for poor pass defense. In our case, our safeties don't provide any help, period! Our linebackers might as well just kneel down before every snap, because they're useless in covering tight ends. And even though we statistically ranked highly in sacks, our pressure on the quarterback is grossly inconsistent and, more often than not, is surprisingly the result of coverage sacks.

Secondly, there is a public misperception that shutdown corners are difference makers. They aren't. I can't think of a single NFL cornerback who is a clear difference maker in their defense. I once thought Ty Law was, until the Pats dominated on defense without him. I once thought Champ Bailey was, until the Redskins pass defense soared without him and the Broncos' pass defense didn't improve one bit with him. I thought Samare Rolle was a shutdown corner, until the Titans' defense imploded no doubt because they lost so much talent up front.

Finally, the plea for a shutdown cornerback assumes that you have to go from worst on the talent scale to best, and that's the only way you can improve. McCleon and Bartee were awful last year. We probably could have brought back James Hasty out of retirement, and he still would've outplayed the "sultans of jack-squat." Hell, I bet big ole' Willie Roaf could have outplayed those two. But does any of this justify upgrading to a shutdown corner? Lucas, Baxter, and Dyson are all major upgrades. By getting any of those second-tier corners, we go from worst to average. More importantly, we free up room to look elsewhere. If getting one of those three assures that we can lock-in a Kendrell Bell or an Edge Hartwell, then this is a flat-out no-brainer.

I know we like to dream about the Gunther Cunningham defense of the '90's and how our bump 'n' run corners didn't take crap from anybody, no way, no how. But this is a new era. This is a new NFL. Corners are only supporting cast members now. You can't bump 'n' run when strict holding rules forbid you from bumping. You can't "run" when wide receivers are getting so big, strong, and fast that cornerbacks just can't keep up with the improved abilities of wide receivers. You can't shutdown a spread offense like New England's or Indianapolis', both of which will throw it to one of their other four effective receiving options if their top option is covered. Shutdown corners are just not in vogue anymore. They are necessary supporting actors. But as far as their talent level, you can make a wide receiver like Troy Brown look like a pro bowler if you surround him with the right talent.

So that's where we need to approach this whole cornerback fiasco. We don't need or want shutdown corners. We need to get solid corners who won't cost us an arm and a leg, then we need to spend that saved money to solidify the supporting cast. Remember, one Ty Law equals one Baxter plus Kendrell Bell, with potentially extra money on the side.

Big Bro: I agree with you in part. No, I do not find it necessary to get Ty Law and/or Patrick Surtain. If CB was our only problem, then I would not have much of a problem going after one of them. But we do have too many problems at other positions to say that getting either one would be a good idea. Surtain would certainly require trading a high draft pick, one that I do not feel KC can afford. Furthermore, both players will count far too much against the cap. The free cap space needs to be spent on several players, not one CB. And I agree, getting a Baxter, Lucas, or Dyson would help tremendously.

That being said, I don't think it would be a bad idea to draft a CB in the first round if one of the elites (such as Rolle or Pac Man) is available. The Chiefs could use a CB to groom for the future, and if they are able to obtain someone like Baxter or Lucas while also drafting an elite CB in the 1st round, I would consider that a major victory. I agree with the general sentiment that rookie CBs do not make an immediate impact as starters; however, they can make a very good impact as a rookie nickelback while learning how to be an NFL-quality CB (witness what the Eagles did with Shepard and Brown). The Chiefs could probably also draft a different player in the 1st (a LB please?) while drafting their CB of the future in the 2nd round. But PLEASE no more safety-to-CB projects like Bartee or Battle again!

We have to keep in mind that Warfield is likely to face a suspension from the league for his DUI. That leaves the Chiefs in a major bind. I think it is pretty unanimous among Chiefs fans that a quality free agent CB is an absolute necessity. But the Chiefs might need to get 2 CBs. I agree about not breaking the bank in free agency. But I would push strongly for drafting a CB in the 1st or 2nd round.

As for what we've got: Warfield has turned into a good corner (not just solid, but good), having improved his tackling substantially. McCleon is a smart player, but his physical skills limit him severely, and he is no longer able to be a starting CB. The Chiefs should give up on Bartee as a CB. He has the physical skills, clearly, but after several years he has seemingly learned nothing. Battle, I think, might be another Bartee, as he has all the physical skills in the world, but has terrible technique and seemingly did not learn with experience. Finally, I like Benny Sapp. I think he's another McCleon in that he shows pretty good technique, but his physical size will limit him as a starter and probably as a CB as he ages.

MLBs- KC, We've Got a Problem

2005-02-16T21:40:00.000-05:00

This is Day 4 of our positional analysis. Today we will be discussing middle linebackers. Tomorrow, we will discuss cornerbacks.

Big Bro: I think this is the 2nd most important position the Chiefs need to address (1st being CB). In my opinion, Kawika Mitchell has been a disaster as a starter. He's constantly out of position. He's not as good a cover guy as he should be. He's been a remarkably poor tackler, particularly in the open field. There is no doubt he has the physical tools to succeed, but, for lack of a better phrase, he plays dumb. The Chiefs simply cannot afford to go into camp with Kawika Mitchell as the starting MLB. He just hasn't proven that he can do it on a game-to-game basis yet.

I'll admit, I'm a Mike Maslowski fan. I think he studied and worked hard to become a starting player in the NFL, and it showed in his intelligent play. Unfortunately, Maz is undersized, he's slow, and he's not terribly strong. What he is, though, is full of heart and brains. Sure, he can get pushed around by blockers, and he would have problems covering good RB receivers, but he at least kept offenses honest by being in the right place. Of course, the problem is that Maz hasn't played in 1.5 years, so depending on him would be problematic.

In my opinion, the Chiefs have to do something. They don't have to get a marquee MLB or draft a MLB in the first or second round. But they do need a dependable MLB. If the Chiefs chose not to spend big bucks on a MLB, that would be fine with me, so long as they spend some kind of bucks on a MLB. I really think that, with a decent MLB, Scott Fujita will be a much better player. And that, in turn, would make our safeties look better.

Little Bro: I would still contend that our OLB's are much more of a concern for us, but I do agree that a MLB upgrade is just as important. I would earmark this position as our #1 need, mostly because the offseason market will be filthy rich with MLB talent. Kendrell Bell and Edge Hartwell highlight this class, or we could go with Rocky Calmus, a restricted free agent and a former Gunther Cunningham LB. If not one of those free agents, then we could get Kirk Morrison late in the draft or reach to get Channing Crowder early.

A MLB is the QB of any defense. Maz may not have been the most talented of LBs, but man could he lead a defense. When he was leading that defense, he was literally grabbing players by their jersey and moving them into a better position to make plays. I don't think it was his ability that led to KC's downfall last year; it was his leadership. If we were to relate defense to offense, a cornerback is like a receiver and a MLB is like a QB. Like a QB, a MLB is the nucleus of the defense. Build around the MLB and every player on defense improves.

However, I don't know how much a MLB would improve our defense. As Donovan McNabb showed, it's great to have a great leader on your offense, but it really pays to improve the players around you--McNabb really came into his own when TO entered the lineup and Westbrook improved. Our OLB's would get better with a better MLB, but not nearly to the level they need to be. I would like to see us get a stud MLB along with lower profile OLB pick-ups. Fujita and Barber still get pushed around far more than any LB should in a Gunther Cunningham defense. With or without a stud MLB, Fujita is still a liability covering tight ends and Barber is still a liability against the run. With or without a stud MLB, our OLB's are still soft and generate no pass rush. I still do believe that with tougher, more aggressive LB's, we wouldn't be so prone to late-game collapse. With or without Mike Maslowski, that has always been our achilles heel. Our players are simply too soft to muscle up the energy to make plays late in games--that has been a characteristic of both the Greg Robinson defense and the new Gunther Cunningham defense. I can't say I can really recall either Barber or Fujita making any big plays late in the game over the past few seasons. More often than not, they look tired and battered, and running backs slip through their late-game tackles as if they had a jersey doused in Crisco.

A stud MLB doesn't patch up the marginal talent on the LB edges. That was a mistake we made last year, when we thought changing the defensive leader (Gunther Cunningham) was going to bring the best out of their players. He will never bring the best out of Fujita or Barber because they are not his type of players, nor should they be. As I have said before, we don't need to go out and get Julian Peterson. We don't necessarily have to trade up to get Derrick Johnson. What we need is two OLBs who aren't afraid to hit, will punish blockers that get in their way, are aggressive as hell, and can actually get to the QB on blitzes. These are the LB's that Gunther Cunningham loves. Fujita and Barber have just never had the aggression that we need out of Gunther Cunningham LB's.

And besides, I'm more comfortable with our MLB talent than I am of our OLB's. Much as I despised Kawika Mitchell early in the year, of any LB I thought he made enormous strides throughout the season, whereas I thought Fujita was equally marginal from start to finish. At times, Kawika looked like an unleashed beast--we could clearly see his potential for growth. I don't know if it's worth giving up on the kid. I don't know if he will ever develop into the leader he would need to be at the position, but he clearly has the athleticism to move sideline-to-sideline. And if Mitchell fails, I don't have a problem with Maz and/or Beisel stepping in as a back-up. Both are solid MLB's. Neither will cover a whole lot of ground, but they're both very good students of the game and they generally do a good job of being at the right place at the right time. Neither would provide the talent, but both would provide the heart and leadership our defense needs. Granted, Beisel was often caught out of position, but given the circumstances in which he was pushed into the position, I can forgive and forget. And the idea of moving Fujita to MLB is certainly intriguing, though I still would contend that Fujita is nothing special. At least his pass coverage becomes less of a liability as a MLB.

Still, MLB is deep with talent in the offseason; OLB is not and I think this should be the first place that they look to upgrade in a big way. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that a good MLB will send a huge ripple effect throughout the LB corps. Upgrade our MLB's first and make damn sure that we don't settle for Barber and Fujita as his supporting cast.

OLBs- Go Play Outside!

2005-02-14T22:39:00.000-05:00

This is day 3 of our positional analysis. Today we will be discussing Outside Linebackers. Tomorrow, because it's pretty much a debate of its own, we'll discuss Middle Linebackers.

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.

This does not mean that we need studs. New England and Philly are perfect proof of that. I don't care how it's done, but Peterson needs to butt out of the decision on our OLB personnel, even if it means giving up on Fujita. Give Gunther Cunningham the keys. We saw what he can do with guys like Keith Bulluck; I want to see what he can do with his own guys. Not Robinson's guys. His guys. This could be one of the positions with the least depth, but we don't need to land a stud at OLB; we need two guy who are good enough and, more importantly, will play a Gunther Cunningham style of defense. There are a few OLB's in the draft who might: Burnett from Tennessee comes to mind. We should probably also take a look into Ian Gold or even Rob Morris--a LB who will be ousted from Indy because he doesn't fit the speed defense that they run (very similar, by the way, to Greg Robinson's style of defense). Until we install OLB's that are aggressive and will hit the lights out of anybody in their path, Greg Robinson will continue to cast a shadow on our defense. And as long as either Fujita and/or Barber is in our starting lineup, it will always be a painful reminder of Greg Robinson's long string of terrible personnel decisions.

Defensive Tackle- State of Flux?

2005-02-11T23:35:00.000-05:00

This is Day 2 of our positional analysis. Today, I tackle (pun intended) the DTs. The next entry will be OLBs (possibly MLBs too), either Saturday or Sunday night.

Big Bro: It's time for the Chiefs to admit it. Ryan Sims is a bust. I've been a defender of his (and admittedly he's my favorite defensive player to control on video games), but I can't defend him any longer. Out of 3 years in the NFL, he's been solid for 1 half (1st half of 2003). Call it lack of commitment, call it overrated physical skills, whatever you want, the Chiefs can't afford to wait for him anymore. And he's probably too expensive to keep around as a backup. It's time to cut him loose.

Lional Dalton is an interesting player to watch carefully next season. Undoubtedly, he had a very good year. He finally managed to tap into the potential he'd shown for so many years, frustrating all his previous coaches to no end (in a way, it kind of hurts me to say this, because it sounds like Sims; nonetheless, I still say Sims has to go). Dalton showed he can disrupt the backfield, take up space in the running lanes, and get to the QB. The question is: can he do it again? This is going to be a crucial decision for the Chiefs. They're going to need an effective Dalton again next season.

I like John Browning. I think he's an underrated player on KC's defense. The problem is, I think he still is a liability as a DT. He's just not big or strong enough. He's a valuable backup to have there, since he generally won't make mistakes. He's definitely worth keeping around as a backup to DT and DE. But if he plays every snap, I think the Chiefs get hurt by that.

Where does that leave KC? They have 1 guy who could be really good or really bad (Dalton). They have 1 valuable backup (Browning). They probably do need to pick someone up, and probably to be a starter. One problem is that there doesn't seem to be a strong class of DTs for the draft, at least, in my mind, not as immediate starter material. There are several good free agent DTs (Pat Williams, Seth Payne, and Shaun Rogers, namely... my personal pick, Corey Simon, was franchised and I think out of KC's reach). So the question is, do they spend big bucks on a DT, knowing that LB and CB, and perhaps S, are bigger needs? Originally, I leaned towards no. But I think I'm leaning more towards yes now. The number of good DTs on the market might drive their prices down a little. Furthermore, I think if there are question marks about Dalton as the only dependable starter, then it's important to make sure a good veteran presence is also out there.

Little Bro: This might be one of those positions where KC is just gonna have to take a deep breath and make do with what they have.

I have to disagree that a DT is going to come cheap. There is a huge market this offseason for free agent corners. I think a big reason why so many of these corners are getting cut is because teams are too tentative to pay a corner a big contract after last year's strict enforcement of defensive holding. Out of all the positions this offseason, corners and defensive tackles carry the most star value. The free agent LB, DE, and Safety classes are all pretty low in talent. I can name on one hand the star players that anchor this entire group: Hartwell, Kendrell Bell, Julian Peterson, Darren Howard, and Donovan Darius. If teams aren't biting on corners, I think they will bite hard on the next best option. In this case, it's defensive tackle. Corey Simon has already been franchised. Shaun Rodgers received an enormous contract extension before the season ended. I guess teams are telling themselves: if our corners aren't gonna be allowed to stop the pass, we'll just have to get somebody to plug the run.

This doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. I'm pretty encouraged by what we already have. Big Bro forgot to mention a man on our roster who I believe has tremendous upside: Junior Siavii. You remember the guy? 330 lb. Samoan. A physical specimen. This is a man that was labeled a work-in-progress; a 2 year project, at minimum. Most scouts predicted he wouldn't see a snap his rookie season. Most critics claimed that he was far too raw to even make an impact in his second season. Those critics were dead wrong. Siavii saw snaps and plenty of them, despite being too "raw." If the man we saw on the field was "raw," then I can't wait to see what he looks like when he's seasoned. This despite numerous setbacks beyond his control: he didn't get to practice until very late in the offseason due to NCAA requirements and his season was cut in half by a filthy chop block by a Falcons' lineman. He's not at the point where he will turn heads, by any means, but he is also not a liability. For a man of his size and inexperience, that can only be a good thing. Like Jared Allen, this is a man who played to a high level despite the fact that there are so many areas where he can stand to improve. He needs to play better with leverage and despite his frame, he needs to hit the weight room and balance out his body strength. He also could stand to polish his often-times weak fundamentals. Of any player on the Chiefs' defense, I think that Siavii has the most upside. I'm ecstatic at what the man could do once he hits a focused, disciplined weight training regimen, and when he has a full offseason to work with our coaches to learn proper technique. I truly believe that by mid-season, he will be a full-time starter and a very good one at that. He may even be an impact starter in the beginning of the season.

I also agree that I was very impressed with how Lionel Dalton played last season. I wouldn't be too discouraged by his "attitude problems" in the past. Let's not forget that they began in Denver, where it seems like "attitude problems" are a common recurrence. Dale Carter, Daryl Gardener, etc.... I don't know if that's Shanahan, or perhaps the physical stress of playing in Denver's thin air, but it's a very good possibility that Dalton's work ethic problems are history.

I have to agree that I'm about on my last limb with Sims and I don't know that we can rely on him as an every day starter. However, I think it's worth the chance to keep developing the kid, who is still fairly young. I don't know if Browning's problem is necessarily that he's too small; rather, I think his problems occur because he gets winded too quickly. It seemed like his problem two seasons ago was that he disappeared in the second half of games. Rotating Sims and Browning as backups is a pretty ideal situation. Neither are good enough to be every-down starters, but both provide much better quality depth.

I say we stick with what we've got. Start the season assuming that we'll go with Dalton and Browning, with Siavii and Sims as depth. As long as Browning doesn't see too many snaps, I think he can apply consistent pressure. Give Sims a chance to prove himself. Develop the hell out of Junior Siavii. My dream is that Siavii will have come so far along in the offseason that Vermeil will have no choice but to replace Sims with Siavii. We know that it takes a lot to convince Vermeil to replace his core starters. If we see Siavii get pencilled in as a starter, we'll know that he's ready, and with his size and specs, that is a possibility that I am extremely excited about.

Defensive Ends- Overrated Need?

2005-02-10T17:00:00.000-05:00

This is Day 1 of our positional analysis debate. Obviously, defense is the biggest need, so we will tackle defense first, then offense, then special teams. For defense, we will analyze the positions in this order: DE, DT, OLB, MLB (perhaps combining the two), CB, S.

Big Bro: This is a topic I'm anxious to talk about, because a lot of NFL "experts" cite Defensive End as a dire need for the Chiefs. Some draft analysts also say that a DE should be the Chiefs' 1st round pick. I just don't see it that way. I would consider DE to be a need, but not a glaring one.

First, any talk of DE has to start with Jared Allen, who surprised a lot of people last year. It's clear that he can be a pass rushing threat. The question becomes whether he can be a good every-down DE. When he won the starting job, his performance tailed off a little bit and his deficiencies were a little more glaring. He's prone to overpursuit, and he can get pushed off the line if he doesn't get a head start. He could also stand to develop another move. One thing he has definitely shown, though, is that he can hunt ballcarriers down. His motor is constantly running, and he was pretty good at making sure runners didn't get out of his grasp. Those are elements this defense sorely needs.

Eric Hicks has clearly lost a step, but I don't think he's a liability (unlike the situation at other positions). He could probably stand to benefit from focusing a little more on pass rushing again. I think he kind of fell into a run-stop mindset a little too often last year. Hicks will probably never be a double-digit sack machine again, and he will probably have to be replaced in the next few years, but I don't see an urgent need to replace him. I think he can be a part of a decent defense.

Vonnie Holliday is probably the most likely candidate to get cut out of all the major Chiefs players. He simply hasn't made nearly the impact they expected. He has been adequate-to-good on run defense, but they already have Hicks. I don't think any defense can afford to have two run-stop-only DEs, which leaves Allen for most plays, and I think Hicks' all around game is better than Holliday's. Holliday just doesn't have the ability to shed blockers who stay in position on pass plays.

If the Chiefs shake up their DTs, then John Browning is a good candidate to either start instead of Hicks or at least provide depth. Browning is probably a better DE than he is a DT, and I think he can be an adequate DE. He's shown the ability to bull rush the passer when he plays on the end.

Jimmy Wilkerson doesn't look like he'll be an impact player as a starter or as a backup. He might provide some depth, so if Holliday goes, Wilkerson might stay around. But the Chiefs could probably afford to spend at least a mid-round pick on a DE, which would jeopardize Wilkerson's spot on the roster if Browning's moved to DE.

Overall, like I said, DE is a need. But it's not a big need. I think the Chiefs need to address their CB, LB, S, and DT situations before they even start to consider DEs.

Little Bro: I have to say that I'm a bit on the fence on this issue. While I completely agree that the need for a DE is overblown, I've become a bit more receptive to the idea of a new DE simply because it might be the best defensive player we could pull off in the draft.

Unlike BigBro, I don't have much confidence in Eric Hicks. I like him a lot as a rotational player, but don't think he adds a whole lot of value as a starter. There were a few moments where he seemed to outmuscle his guy and add some late pressure, but also lots of moments where he just looked flat-out outmatched. The most obvious case I can recall is game 1 against the Broncos, when Plummer would bootleg opposite of Hicks, and Hicks looked as slow as an offensive tackle sprinting after a QB. Granted, Hicks and Browning don't make mistakes on their end, but neither of them adds any value. I can't think of a single instance where Hicks applied immediate pressure to a QB. The only time he is ever in the backfield applying pressure is because of good coverage. In other words, Hicks' and Browning's role is not to make plays; instead, it's to avoid making mistakes. But we'll save that for a future discussion. It's not even worth bringing up Vonnie Holliday, because Carl Peterson would have to be on crack to keep him. As for Jimmy Wilkerson, I'm sick of hearing this "raw, developing talent" label. We've had far too many of those. Wilkerson has not flashed any potential so far and I'd be surprised if he started now. Of course, there could be a strong argument that it's not the problem with our end, but with our tackle--Ryan Sims.

As for Jared Allen, you can only help but feel optimistic about the kid's potential. He came in as a smallish DE and still sparked a pass rush. I'm excited to see the kid's potential when he adds a little muscle mass.

In total, I can't say I disagree with Big Bro that it's a problem, but it's a minor problem in the grand scheme of our defensive mess. I think there are better ways to improve our pass rush, most notably, by installing a LB that actually has at least one pass rush move at his disposal (amazingly, none of our current LBs have that ability). One guy I am particularly intrigued by is Keyaran Fox, and I wish he would have had some time to strut his stuff. His profile seems to be ideal for speed rush situations (a role that I think Stills was absolutely awful at last season)--a smallish LB with a lot of speed off the edges and good pass rush moves. Then again, if he didn't see the field, maybe there's a very good reason for that.

We may look to free agency early for a cornerback. And if Derrick Johnson is off the board by our first pick, then we would be reaching for the next best LB. While I don't think that DE is a need, I think that if Merriman and Pollack are sitting on the board when we pick first, they just might be the most attractive option. And while DE isn't an enormous "need" for KC, a quality pass rush from the right end would be an enormous upgrade. If we fill our need for cornerback and DJ is off the board, I think we'd be foolish NOT to look into D-ends when we're looking to burn our first pick. The only other defensive player outside of DE I could see us going for without reaching, in this instance, is someone like Thomas Davis out of Georgia.

It's the Linebackers, stupid!

2005-02-09T21:12:00.000-05:00

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.

Welcome!

2005-02-09T12:01:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the Two Brothers for Chiefs blog! We are two brothers (aged 3 years apart) on the East Coast who live and die by the Kansas City Chiefs. We will be posting our comments on Chiefs-related topics. Our hope is that every day, one of us will post something Chiefs-related. Often, we will both post on the same day, one person reacting to the other.

We readily admit- we are not football experts. We are simply 2 die-hard fans who react to Chiefs-related events of the day or week. We hope you enjoy it.

Please note- no profanity or vulgarity is allowed on this board. Any comment with profanity or vulgarity will be deleted in its entirety. The comment board will be moderated, but only mildly in that completely senseless comments will be deleted. This means that comments such as "Chiefs suck!" will be deleted, but comments such as "bigbro, your post was stupid because..." will be allowed.

Thanks for visiting. We hope you enjoy our blog. Please be patient with us, as we are tinkering with the format and logistics of this site, but we hope all will be smoothed out by draft time!