Looking Ahead to Week 11

[Chiefer]

57 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Aaron Donald moved from 4-3 UT (NOT NT, those are completely different roles) to 3-4 DE. Those are the kinds of positions I'm saying are similar in role and responsibility. That's the same kind of transition as if we went to a 4-3 and moved Chris Jones from 3-4 DE to 4-3 UT.

Chris JoNes is already at 3-tech anyways.!might as well be an UT

[Jakuvious]

1 minute ago, mayanfootball said:

NT at Pitt in their 3-4 anyway.

3-4 NT is still closer to 3-4 DE than 3-4 DE is to 4-3 DE. Both 3-4 NT and 3-4 DE are two gap interior positions. As opposed to 4-3 DE being a one gap spot on the edge.

And even with the transition he did make, check any scouting report on Donald and they'll say he was the exception, not the norm, in playing 3-4 NT in college at his size. Nfl.com:

Quote

Short, scrappy, instinctive, highly productive defensive penetrator who does not look the part, but inspires confidence he can be an exception to the rule.

Walter:

Quote

For the NFL, Donald should be a three-technique defensive tackle in a 4-3 defense. If a 3-4 team is comfortable with an undersized nose tackle, he could be in play there, but that is the exception rather than the norm. Donald doesn't fit as an end in a 3-4 or a nose tackle in a 4-3. Using him in a role other than three-technique in a 4-3 could be a waste of his skills. 

Donald was unique and incredibly undersized at 3-4 NT. Hence why he wasn't drafted to be one. He was drafted to be a 4-3 UT and was moved to 3-4 DE when the Rams made the switch. If he was truly a fit at NT in the NFL, he would be there now, given that they're in a 3-4.

But again, even still, all of these positions being discussed (NT, 4-3 DT, and 3-4 DE) are interior positions. Normally two gapping. Any transition Donald has done in college or as a pro has left him inside. He has never been an edge rusher the way you're suggesting Jones could be. Or maybe that was onejayhawk who suggested that. Either way.

[Jakuvious]

1 minute ago, Chiefer said:

Chris JoNes is already at 3-tech anyways.!might as well be an UT

Correct. They are essentially the same role. Which is why he'd be inside in a 4-3.

[RedGold]

Exactly we don’t really need to define 4/3 DT, 3/4 DE.  It doesn’t really matter, it’s all about what gaps, or how many gaps you’re responsible.  Even in college Donald was responsible for 1 gap,  it was a penatrating 1 gap 3/4 scheme.  He would get eaten alive if he played NT in Wade’s 2 gap.

And no Chris Jones is not ideal for an edge guy in the 4/3.  For 1. He doesn’t have the athleticism to beat OT’s around the edge, 2. If he holds the inside gap, we lose all outside containment, which would be my biggest fear.   I don’t know why Chris Jones is being mentioned as a solution to our Running Defense though, he is our worst DL at stopping the run, still has horrible issues with leverage and gap responsibilities.  OL’s have really just started letting him hit a gap and push him out of the way, clearing a huge lane.  It’s easy to see our run defense improve that first half when he wasn’t in the 4 man rotation that often.  

 

Kpass I could definitely see playing the edge in a 43.  I just don’t think he’s ready.  Limited snaps, but he was getting handled very easy and was really struggling with his leverage.  He’s too easy to move right now,  but I honestly see him as a key person moving forward.  With the pieces I could see is moving to a 4/3 under scheme similar to Seattle. 

[onejayhawk]

BS that Jones does not have the athleticism to play 4-3 DE. However, the statement was that Jones was physically ideal for edge contain vs. the running game.

J

[Jakuvious]

1 hour ago, onejayhawk said:

BS that Jones does not have the athleticism to play 4-3 DE. However, the statement was that Jones was physically ideal for edge contain vs. the running game.

J

Find me a successful 4-3 DE who played at 310 lbs and ran a 40 worse than 5.00.

[Jakuvious]

3 hours ago, samsel23 said:

Exactly we don’t really need to define 4/3 DT, 3/4 DE.  It doesn’t really matter, it’s all about what gaps, or how many gaps you’re responsible.  Even in college Donald was responsible for 1 gap,  it was a penatrating 1 gap 3/4 scheme.  He would get eaten alive if he played NT in Wade’s 2 gap.

And no Chris Jones is not ideal for an edge guy in the 4/3.  For 1. He doesn’t have the athleticism to beat OT’s around the edge, 2. If he holds the inside gap, we lose all outside containment, which would be my biggest fear.   I don’t know why Chris Jones is being mentioned as a solution to our Running Defense though, he is our worst DL at stopping the run, still has horrible issues with leverage and gap responsibilities.  OL’s have really just started letting him hit a gap and push him out of the way, clearing a huge lane.  It’s easy to see our run defense improve that first half when he wasn’t in the 4 man rotation that often.  

 

Kpass I could definitely see playing the edge in a 43.  I just don’t think he’s ready.  Limited snaps, but he was getting handled very easy and was really struggling with his leverage.  He’s too easy to move right now,  but I honestly see him as a key person moving forward.  With the pieces I could see is moving to a 4/3 under scheme similar to Seattle. 

Also, this is a good post.

[onejayhawk]

8 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Find me a successful 4-3 DE who played at 310 lbs and ran a 40 worse than 5.00.

I did not say he would play at 310. Playing weight has much to do with utilization. As a 5 tech, anchoring is a key skill, so he needs the extra bulk. The point being that it's extra, so he could lose 25 pounds for quickness and maintain most of his strength. There are a lot of DE in the 270-290 range.

One of the points about Jones coming out was his scheme flexibility. Jones could successfully play DE. The fact that he is getting sacks as he has been used proves he can penetrate. That said, DE might not be the best use of his talents. That will be generally true of similar players. They make guys his size into DT instead of DE. We went through this in reverse with Dorsey.

As Samsel says, these are young guys still learning the tricks of the trade. KPass is a more natural DE but also very raw. Jones is only second year. A conversion would mean a whole new set of roles and responsibilities. 

J

[RedGold]

6 hours ago, onejayhawk said:

I did not say he would play at 310. Playing weight has much to do with utilization. As a 5 tech, anchoring is a key skill, so he needs the extra bulk. The point being that it's extra, so he could lose 25 pounds for quickness and maintain most of his strength. There are a lot of DE in the 270-290 range.

One of the points about Jones coming out was his scheme flexibility. Jones could successfully play DE. The fact that he is getting sacks as he has been used proves he can penetrate. That said, DE might not be the best use of his talents. That will be generally true of similar players. They make guys his size into DT instead of DE. We went through this in reverse with Dorsey.

As Samsel says, these are young guys still learning the tricks of the trade. KPass is a more natural DE but also very raw. Jones is only second year. A conversion would mean a whole new set of roles and responsibilities. 

J

I question how Chris Jones would lose that much weight.  I mean he isn’t exactly unfit at his current weight.  

Also he is getting sacks by penetrating, but it’s complete opposite if you flip him to an edge 43 player.  He can’t shoot the inside gap every time at that spot, which would be the only way he could rush against an LT or RT.  He doesn’t have the bend or speed to get around the edge.  Doing so would leave all kinds of issues containing the edge in the run game.

4-3 under scheme is still where I see this defense moving.  Kpass fits the scheme perfectly and Houston/Jones are a great fit on the other side.  

[mayanfootball]

 Jakuvious and Samsel23: You are quite fervish in attacking any notion of the Chiefs putting 4 big men up front on the Dline. You both seem to be fighting very hard against the facts and conclusions presented by the article's author. But you haven't talked about the article itself. Please let us know your feelings about this piece. What do you think about the contents? Do you take issue with the author's presentation? If so, why? If not, why not?

What are your suggestions for improving the Chiefs run defense?

[RedGold]

No where in that entire article does it say put 4 “big men” up front.  

I agree with all the points in that article, and the article even states they would like to see more 3 DL sets.  Which is what Jak and I have both stated we wanted to see happen. The article is well written and stats some obvious facts, but no where does it say put 4 “big men” up front.  It might help control the interior(if they actually start playing discipline), but it completely kills edge containment and our ILB’s aren’t exactly the quickest...  

3-3-5 is our best chances at stopping the run.  It helps control the interior(if guys start playing their gap and winning), while not leaving the edge wide open.  I would personally put 2 ILB’s and Houston at LB.  Houston can contain the edge on one side, and he does it at a VERY high level.  The 3 DL can rotate, but really none are performing at a high level.  I would leave Ragland in the middle.  DJ would play over the top on the other side, with the DL controlling the inside gap of the LT and DJ can play the edge containment.  

 

Asking Chris Jones to play edge containment is essentially the same as asking Houston to play in coverage(which everyone complains about so much).  Can he do it?  Probably(although I highly doubt at the level Houston does)... but you are taking him away doing what he does best and that is attacking gaps on the interior. 

[Jakuvious]

1 hour ago, mayanfootball said:

 Jakuvious and Samsel23: You are quite fervish in attacking any notion of the Chiefs putting 4 big men up front on the Dline. You both seem to be fighting very hard against the facts and conclusions presented by the article's author. But you haven't talked about the article itself. Please let us know your feelings about this piece. What do you think about the contents? Do you take issue with the author's presentation? If so, why? If not, why not?

What are your suggestions for improving the Chiefs run defense?

Because the article does not make the same claims that you do. Keyser talks about playing Logan more, the potential of a one gap scheme, needing to get better play out of Jones/RNR/Bailey at DE and Johnson/Ragland at ILB, and about the need to adjust for the lack of Berry and not pretend Sorensen is Berry. Those things are all valid. Nowhere does he suggest a 4 large man DL.

[onejayhawk]

9 hours ago, samsel23 said:

I question how Chris Jones would lose that much weight.  I mean he isn’t exactly unfit at his current weight.  

Also he is getting sacks by penetrating, but it’s complete opposite if you flip him to an edge 43 player.  He can’t shoot the inside gap every time at that spot, which would be the only way he could rush against an LT or RT.  He doesn’t have the bend or speed to get around the edge.  Doing so would leave all kinds of issues containing the edge in the run game.

4-3 under scheme is still where I see this defense moving.  Kpass fits the scheme perfectly and Houston/Jones are a great fit on the other side.  

But he does have explosion, so he can bull rush a not yet anchored RT or LT. As I said, he can play the edge, but that might not be the best use for his talent. As you say, he might do better as a run down DE, though his run contain would have to improve significantly.

J

[jimmydee]

I've been thru a half bottle of Makers Mark trying to make sense of all this blablabla!  I have a unique idea.  ......Block at the LOS, tackle at the LOS, and teach Peters to not tackle like Deon Sanders, and go win a frickin football game.  Toooo damn much talking about technicalities, and not enough of basic hard nosed football. All this 4-3, 3-4, 2-3-5, 3-3-5, etc.,  eieio crap is useless  if you're not tuff enough to make a damn play.  Bunch of *****'s. Worst team in the NFL with a winning or .500 record. If that offends some one, I really don't care.  It's fact!!! We're soft.

[Chiefer]

Ive seen a severe lack of tackling in the defense the last few years, besides Berry. I don't think we practice tackling under Reid.