Originally Posted by suzzer99:
I was actually super encouraged by that play. He's a rookie, and he still came inches from recovering and knocking the ball out - for what would have been an incredible play.
We've had plenty of veterans in the secondary who just fade away on that play and never even come close to the knocking the ball out.
I'm super pumped about our young secondary and LBs. Our DL not so much.
Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic:
Standing in front of a runner and making the tackle is literally what the defender is supposed to do.
So, I will say Reid isn't soft, but as a group, our safeties are soft. I am so sick of watching Thornhill dip his shoulder in an attempt to tackle, instead of actually tackling.
I feel like our safeties play like extra cornerbacks, instead of like safeties. And not good corners, either.
Yes, Reid has been willing to get trucked, but he hasn't played great. And Thornhill seems lost, especially when he has deep coverage.
Thornhill had one shot at an interception, and that's it. The safeties of our past would have at least a couple of picks, especially playing QBs who like to throw deep.
Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger:
It looks like the dominant run game we saw against the bucs may be a mirage like the 200 plus rush yards we put on buffalo in 2019...Andy just can't help himself even when he has proof that it's what's best for the team smh.
Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic:
Standing in front of a runner and making the tackle is literally what the defender is supposed to do.
So, I will say Reid isn't soft, but as a group, our safeties are soft. I am so sick of watching Thornhill dip his shoulder in an attempt to tackle, instead of actually tackling.
I feel like our safeties play like extra cornerbacks, instead of like safeties. And not good corners, either.
Yes, Reid has been willing to get trucked, but he hasn't played great. And Thornhill seems lost, especially when he has deep coverage.
Thornhill had one shot at an interception, and that's it. The safeties of our past would have at least a couple of picks, especially playing QBs who like to throw deep.
Sent from my moto g stylus 5G using Tapatalk
Thornhill is a single high safety - he's not Steve fucking Atwater. Dipping his shoulder is fine.
Cook and Reid - they're more physical safeties. Not as good in space, more willing hitters. And both have demonstrated that they WILL hit somebody.
You need both.
This doesn't seem complicated. Just like Bolton and Gay are different players, or Sneed and McDuffie, or MVS and JJSS, you need complementary skill sets.
Thornhill and Reid are really good complements to each other. And it's a very good safety duo. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
For the doubters, namely superturtle.
When have I doubted him? Again, the only things I've said are currently he's a JAG that fits in with the rest of our RB room and has the potential to be a cog in an effective RBBC. That's it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
When have I doubted him? Again, the only things I've said are currently he's a JAG that fits in with the rest of our RB room and has the potential to be a cog in an effective RBBC. That's it.
He's not JAG though and nothing about his play has said he is. When given the touches he's performed like a starting RB. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
He's not JAG though and nothing about his play has said he is. When given the touches he's performed like a starting RB.
:-) When he's gotten the touches he's performed almost exactly the same as CEH had in the same game. Fits in perfectly with MEH so far. The nice thing is he's a 7th round rookie with hopefully a lot of development in front of him. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Thornhill is a single high safety - he's not Steve ****ing Atwater. Dipping his shoulder is fine.
Cook and Reid - they're more physical safeties. Not as good in space, more willing hitters. And both have demonstrated that they WILL hit somebody.
You need both.
This doesn't seem complicated. Just like Bolton and Gay are different players, or Sneed and McDuffie, or MVS and JJSS, you need complementary skill sets.
Thornhill and Reid are really good complements to each other. And it's a very good safety duo.
Been pleasantly surprised by Reid, not so much Thornhill. At the start of the year I wanted us to prioritise holding on to him but after the Arizona game he DOES look lost. He should absolutely be a complement to Reid, good speed, range...but man he just never seems to be there in coverage. Maybe people are seeing stuff I'm missing, I really have liked the tools, but this year he hasn't made the step forward I thought he might. Maybe he goes on a tear now. [Reply]
Reminder, in those 2 games some of y'all use to beat off about Pacheco being a superstar he went 23 for 125. CEH went 26 for 134. They were the same. Relax. His time to actually prove himself a viable piece in the offense will come soon enough when Reid trusts him to take on all the responsibilities of a RB in this offense instead of just clock killing duties. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
When have I doubted him? Again, the only things I've said are currently he's a JAG that fits in with the rest of our RB room and has the potential to be a cog in an effective RBBC. That's it.
You said he's the exact same as CEH but those charts prove that false. His expected ypc is less than 3.6 but he's averaging 4.8
CEH is getting 4.4 ypc when his expected ypc is more than 3.9.
One gets over a yard per carry more than expected and the other is getting less than 0.5 more.
That's a pretty significant difference. And the eye test bears this out as well.
With that being said, I'm not as down on CEH as many are on here but Pacheco is performing better. [Reply]
Yeah, CEH has had a couple horrendous games where he went 7 for 0 and 9 for 15. That's fucking dog shit. The same games Pacheco went 3 for 9 and 1 for 0. That's also pretty dog shit even if he didn't get much of an opportunity. I'm guessing that's where most of the difference in that chart came from. But when the OL is blocking well, they're both adequate and serviceable as it stands. [Reply]
