Stray Arrows: Should The Chiefs Look At Matt Jones?

Sentence #2 should have said "more ways to help its offense"

Sean B,

I don't think we are not really disagreeing other than maybe on the point of the help going equally both ways. I still maintain that a good defense has more ways to its offense than does a good offense in helping its defense. To me, offensive time of possession only provides an indirect benefit to a team's defense - in other words, the D still has to go out, make the stop and do their own part in undermining the opposing team's clock game. Even though field position is king, time of possession is also a critical factore because as you correctly point out with the Indy example, good defenses will eventually break down late in the game against good offenses if their own offense fails to show up. Nevertheless, my view is that such situtations reflect more on the shortcomings of the offense than they does on the quality of the defense because, as I said above, bad offenses will make good defense seem worse than they actually are(statistically at least).

Anyway, I absolutely agree that balance is desirable and that, as a fan, a good offense is a wonderful thing to behold - but never at the expense of going without a good defense.

Yeah I get that. And no team is ever really gonna be equally efficient on O and D. Every team usually has either an offensive or defensive personality.

Living in the South since 4th grade and being a Bama fan, I'm a huge fan of running the football and playing tough defense. So a great defensive team is fine by me.

But I did love watching Vermeil's Flying Circus.

Good point to SeanB. I think he was saying that just in another way. You have to be able to do both.

A good offense can also leave your team playing a ton of minutes too. Thats what happened under Dick V. So again I think you hit it right that its a balancing act.

In the NFL because of salary cap and 53-man roster you have to decide which you want to be a little stronger. All I am saying is that I would prefer to invest a tad bit more $$$ in my defense rather than offense. I know other people will see it differently that is just my personal preference.

I think you're wrong, Double D.

Remember our last playoff game against the Colts? Remember how well our defense did for the first half or so of the game?

Do you know why we stopped being able to keep points off the board? It's because our defense got tired. Our defense got tired because our offense was such a piece of shit we didn't complete any passes to a wide receiver the whole game, and didn't make a first down until well into the 3rd quarter. Our defense was on the field almost the entire time.

The offense does help the defense out, and it's by giving them a break. If your offense goes 3-and-out on a constant basis, your defense is simply being worked to much and your players on that side of the ball wear out. And that is exactly what happened to us in the playoffs a couple years ago.

They don't help eachother in the same way, but they do help eachother equally. It's a balancing act.

Exactly. It is intrinsic to the nature and rules of the NFL that a good defense will provide more opportunities and create more situations for their offense to be more effective/successful. The reverse is simply not possible.

DD thats exactly the point I was expressing. Never said that you could have a shitty offense. You actually have to have all three to win it all I just think the defense is a tad bit more important.

Ian,

Actually I think you make my point which is that a good defense will help its offense more than a good offense will help its defense - especially down the stretch. That is why it is preferable to have a good defense over a good offense if you must choose between the two. Obviously you want both to be good. You can talk powerful offense all day long but it is overwhelmingly the case that good offensive teams do not win championships until/unless their defenses are good.

I'm pretty sure offense and defense are both equally important. To pretend one is more important than the other is daft. They complete each other, and a Super Bowl winning team will have good offense AND defense.

You cannot win consistently on only one or the other.

oh and another point we won playoffgames becasue yes defense and scoring points, but we never got to the big one with Marty becasue our defense kept us in the game but our offense, couldn't score enough points, let me say this one more time Offense Wins championships Defense helps

im not saying you have to havea better offense than a defese, your right all those teams had great offenses and defenses and thier defenses stepped it up but none of those teams won becasue thier of thier defense their defense put them in the position to score and the offense got the points they all scored more points than thier opponent and thats what wins games

defensive touchdowns don't occur even close to offensive touchdowns and if they do your offense is terrible and you won't win very many games your not gonna change my mind on this

you all have good points but i disagree the giants didn't win because thier defense stopped the patriots they won becasue.....yet i say it again they scored more points Defense helps You could shut down an offense....hold them to 0 points but i say but again you still have to score points and defese doesn't score points nearly as much as offense and all the things about field and all that stuff but Double D you made my point "Even if a turnover does not produce a touchdown, very commonly they do result in situations that put an offense in or very close to scoring position - again, helping the offense to win the contest of adding the most points." the keyword is helping....they help the offense score points and thats how you win games

...

Did my comment get deleted or did it just not go through earlier?

Offense vs. defense might have to be a topic soon. Hmmm...

Again, nobody disagrees that you have to have an offense that is capable of putting itself into a scoring position, scoring points, and, in the process, staying on the field for most of the game. Those are keys to a successful offense. The defense's main tasks are to prevent points and to get the opposing offense off the field as quickly as possible.

Such being the case, a good offense has no way of assisting their team's defensive performance other than indirectly through clock control. However, the exact opposite is true of a good defense because good defenses play a key role in the battle for field position as determined by their ability to contain and by creating negative yardage and turnovers. Furthermore, how quickly they remove an opposing offense from the field has a direct relationship on how many opportunities their offensive teammates have to both score and consume clock. As previously alluded to, defenses also have their own ability to add to the point total through safeties and through touchdowns which occur with turnovers. Even if a turnover does not produce a touchdown, very commonly they do result in situations that put an offense in or very close to scoring position - again, helping the offense to win the contest of adding the most points.

Ian I never said you couldn't score points and win games. The Giants beat the Patriots because they shutdown Tom Brady and Co. I think a majority, if not all, people will agree with that. Just look at the last few teams that have won it all this century (Again I am not saying they didn't have an offense but they all of the top defenses):

Giants
Colts
Steelers
Patriots
Patriots
Bucs
Patriots
Ravens
Rams

Rams won in 2000 because their defense shutdown the Titans. The Colts won because their defense was actually stopping people. To win it all you have to be able to stop your opponent.

If you look back and look at the top offenses they dont usually win. Patriots set all kinds of records on offense this year and what happened? Defense prevailed. You also made my point for me, the Patriots couldn't stop the Giants offense so they won.

This argument has gone on and on for decades so no single persons going to have the right answer. ALL I am saying is that I would take a great defense over a great offense. Thats why the Chiefs use to win playoff games!

im not saying you can have a bad defense and win games becasue you can't i am saying that you got to score points and you do that mainly on offense

the fact remains that you still have to have at least one more point than the other team and you do that primarily through offense im not saying that Defense can't win you some games becasue it can but the fact is the Giants beat the Patriots becasue they scored more points, and i may be wrong but i don't think there wasa defensive touchdown correct me if im wrong

Ian,

No disrespect to the old man but is there a slight possibility that he might be a little biased towards putting more emphasis on O?

Nobody can argue with the logic that you must score points on offense to win games.  Equally indisputable is the fact that you must keep the other team from scoring more points than you do.  What's more, it is absolutely better to have a great defense than a great offense because defenses also the ability the score points whereas offenses have no way to take away points. The guns ablazing approach can certainly win you extra games during the regular season (particularly against weak defenses) but rarely holds up in the post season.   

ill take my dad the offenseive cordinator for 15 years  on the highchool levels opinion anyday

the chiefs jad the best offense in the game  and the worst defense in the game yes i know that you have to have both very good but the last time i checked is you won games by scoring more points than the other team and you usally do that through offense but you have to have defense to help you out

Just out of curiosity... what was the knock on Jones at QB?  Just ave. in order to convert to WR in the NFL ranks.  Hell with that speed and jumping abililty... if he can't catch or what ever the problem is... could he play corner or safety.. can you imagine a 6' 6" safety .... or gain some weight and be a speed rusher DE. 

Looking for a wiser minds comments.

Oh more thing before I shut up. If offense wins championships then why didn't the Chiefs win ONE playoff game with the best offense 3 years straight?

Defense wins championships! You have to have a good defense to win. Thats why the Colts won two years ago because their defense was playing out of its mind in the playoffs. OK I will shut up now

I think NFL teams can always beef up every unit. Thats the thing about the NFL is that with the roster limits and salary cap you can always say you can improve units. To me beefing up the LB position is not a pressing need...

Uh last time I checked the Giants (better defense) beat the Patriots (better offense) in the Superbowl :) True story.....

and i agree that beefing up our linebackers wouldn't hurt, if we bench Nap harris wqe will be very undersized at linebacker, Donnie Edwards is a much better strong side than he is middle and Demorrio williams is just tooo tiny and im not that impressed wit hhim so i do think next year we need to draft a middle or strong side linebacker in the 2nd to the 5th round that can come in and evetually replace Edwards or Harris

I'll give you that Zach but you still got to realize that the chiefs were ranked 13th defensively and almost dead last offensively, I am a strong believer that OFfense wins championships Defense helps, and the defense did as good as they were capable of and we sucked so bad becasue we had no offense, so while i agree that the whole teamn was a dissapointment i actually looked forward to watching the chiefs D last year and cringed when it was time for the offewnse to go on, only thing was TG and D bowe and i think with a better o-line and maybe a better Qb the jury is still out i think Bowe could have gone for ill dare to say it 1200 yards so yeah the offense did underachive and the defense could have been better but did a decent job

OK for someone to say one unit sucked or didn't live up to their potential is just plain stupid. THE WHOLE TEAM DIDN'T LIVE UP TO ANYTHING!

On Williams, he played CB at a Junior College after they found him working on an oil field. He walked on and he went out for CB. Then they switched him and played LB at Nebraska. If you can play LB at Nebraska you can play LB anywhere, in my book.

Another thing I want to end is the Dick Vermeil man crushes. Did we have a great offense under him? YES. How many playoff games did we win? ZERO! How many times did he go to the playoffs? Once, the same as Herm Edwards. Vermeil left us with shit because he staff was horrible at scouting, drafting and developing talent. I am not on the Dick "Cry Me River" Vermeil bus, as you can see :)

Yeah Chief he was QB at Arkansas

I don't remember exactly... but, didn't he play QB in college.... then switched to WR in the NFL.

Now, children...

I understand, Crane, but don't expect me not to reply when you decide to make pointless pissy comments in my direction.

I DON'T LIKE HERM EITHER. He was the last guy I wanted us to hire when Dick Vermeil retired. I reviewed the list of candidates and said "please not Herm Edwards". I bitched to my dad (who doesn't even watch football) endlessly about the Chiefs' decision to hire the guy.

But the way I look at it is this: he's what we've got. Nothing we can do about it.

On the upside, he HAS dramatically improved our defense. Unfortunately, it seems to be at the expense of our offense, which is where our stars are. It would make more sense to me to build a team around it's strengths.

I'm also constantly irritated by his lame philosophies ("Keep it close and fight it out in the end!" WHAT?) and his stupid quotes.

One thing I can say for him is that he drafts very well, and that's certainly a good thing considering we're in a much-needed youth movement (under Vermeil, we had like the oldest roster in the entire league.)

As far as Carl Peterson goes, I can take him or leave him. Yeah, he's let parts of the team deteriorate and done nothing about it (O-line) and let one of the best blocking fullbacks in the league walk.. but other than that I've always been pretty confused as to why people hate him so much. "Evil King Carl" IS, after all, the only reason we have Larry Johnson.

As far as referring to me as "fans like you", I find that slightly offensive. Unless by "fans like me" you mean I'm optimistic, realistic, and not cynical. In which case I fail to see the problem.

Crane, I don't want to ignore you or be ignored by you. What I want is to be able to discuss what we have in common, our beloved Chiefs, like adults. Now can we do that?

Yes, we pretty much sucked last year...but you're talking about 3 pro bowl LB's in our guys, DeMorrio is a stud and will prove it. I'm just saying in our D, its hard to say LBs isn't the strongest, bc it def. isn't CBs or DEs right now.

Nap Harris was HORRIBLE last year. Talk about misleading stats. This bum was consistently blown up at the LOS and was making tackles downfield. He was the opposite of Kawicka, who was an excellent gap filler and a big, and stupid loss for us. Harris would be gone if we had a decent MLB. As it is, a non entity like Pat Thomas may beat him out.

You and me are done Sean.

We are the complete opposite. You love Croyle and Carl...think we are deep at O line and now you say our backers stink.

I think Carl has ran us into the dirt, I'm anti-Herm, and think Croyle isn't the answer. I think our O line is hurting despite Waters and Albert, and I think linebackers are our biggest strength on D.

You're an optimist when it comes to the Chiefs' plan and I am not. Fool me once...

Fans like you are what Carl counts on to keep his job and his head attached to his body in KC. I personally don't have anything against you, but this will be the last comment I direct toward you.

*grabs your face* "You're nothing to me now, Fredo.

That's fine, Sean, but WR is a much more pressing need.

Brian, Koren Robinson is an effing horrible idea. A recovering alkie with an arthritic knee. My God. Matt Jones can at least blame some of his problems on his age and his situation. No thanks.

Look, I don't know. I'm just saying I don't feel like we're as "set" at linebacker as some seem to think we are. We need to be at least shopping around, and I can almost guarantee you we will draft a linebacker in 2009. Mark my words.

Napoleon Harris led the team in tackles, yes. But that's what middle linebackers do in a Tampa 2 system. But our linebackers were expected to be one of the best units in the league last year and they did not live up to that. Far from it. They underachieved compared to linebackers in rest of the NFL. Don't believe me? Look at the numbers.

Donnie is approaching ancient, and if the season were to start today Napoleon Harris probably wouldn't be the starter. DJ is the only starter that doesn't warrant worrying about. 1 out of 3 isn't good.

However, I am interested in seeing Demorrio Williams get on the field in red and gold. But he seems undersized to me for an NFL linebacker. He used to play cornerback for god's sake.

@Crane: still nothing constructive to say I see. What else is new?

I got a way better idea than Matt Jones, we should get Koren Robinson. He was a stud, he had substance abuse problems, but he had a semi comeback year last year in Green Bay. They just have so many good receivers that they don't have a place for him. He could even potentially handle some return duties. He has at least done something, instead of a big pile of steaming potential like Matt Jones.

Crane beat me to a link, but here's the Hashmarks link

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/hashmarks/0-7-559/WR-Jo...

He definitely hasn't been released, that's what I get for skimming.

I think they are high on our backers. I thought everybody was, for the most part. They will look a lot better with more speed (Williams) and an improved DT situation.

He's just going on what CP and Gun say...lol

We have four solid linebackers. We added Williams, Edwards is fine for now and Harris played pretty well last year, despite what some say. LB is not a pressing need. It can wait at least until next year's draft. In fact, after TE it might be what we need the absolute least.

Adam:

Nope, not a joke. In case you hadn't noticed, DJ is our only real solid LB right now. Donnie Edwards is great, but he's also close to the end, I'm afraid. And we don't even have a declared starter at MLB right now.

Of course, I'd rather pay attention to the O-line first. That's definitely more of a problem area.

My buddy actually partied with Matt Jones and his best friend. Says he likes to drink a little too much sometimes.

He also always text his best friend right before the game to just chat it up with him. I was somewhat shocked to find out a guy is texting 15-30 minutes before a game. Who knows maybe he was giving him inside betting information, lol

from: http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2008/5/20/520198/2008...
Matt Jones: If the Jaguars elect to carry only five wide receivers, Matt Jones is gone. There are just too many hard working players that actually seem to enjoy the game of Football to let Jones occupy a roster spot. That said, he had a fairly respectable season last year when he was allowed to play, and somehow he catches the ball in clutch situations. The constant fade routes drive fans crazy though. Were Matt Jones to show up to OTA's and Training Camp in good shape and with the right attitude, he could almost be considered a lock. Unfortunately, Matt Jones needs to decide if he wants to be a football player or if he wants to pack it in.

By the way
Jacksonville Jaguars 6/16
Ryan Gibbons (T) cut.
Craphonso Thorpe (WR) cut.
Brian Smith (DE) cut.
Isaac Smolko (TE) cut.

http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/Jacksonvill...
he's not cut yet...

"Jones is low on the depth chart and has missed some practices with his typical nagging injuries. He would be an intriguing waiver claim because Jones' base salaries are only $625,000 and $565,000 in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The Cowboys, Dolphins, and Browns might have some interest."

You have a link for that? I was under the assumption that his release wasn't official yet.