WVUFootball29 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Does this mean that Mitchell will not be back in a Chiefs uniform next season? I'm thinking probably not. Which is good if Buffalo wants to make a run at him. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6383 Personally, I would like to see him in Buffalo even if Crowell moves back inside to mike. This would give us another young, but experienced inside backer and still leave us room for a draft pick at MLB. Yes yes, I'm sure someone is going to mention DiGeorgio as the 3rd MLB, but if we draft a rookie, chances are he won't make the squad. Personally I did not see enough in him to keep him on the active roster next year. Thoughts, concerns, hate mail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 The Chiefs got rid of him because he wasn't suited for the Cover 2 Defense. Next question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 And the Vikes got rid of Harris because he wasn't suited for the cover 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUFootball29 Posted March 6, 2007 Author Share Posted March 6, 2007 Even as a back up, he's better than what we have, and he brings to table something we lacked last season, the ability to stuff the run. Nap harris hasnt had a solid season since his second year in the league. His 59 tackles in 14 games is proof of that. The only thing he has going for him is a little bit of speed at the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 The Chiefs got rid of him because he wasn't suited for the Cover 2 Defense. Next question? Man I am sick of hearing "Cover 2." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Kawika Mitchell isn't going anywhere as a backup. He'll be looking for better money then fletch got. Dude is slow can't cover, not a real good tackler, slow, can't blitz. He really doesn't offer anything that you couldn't find in the 3rd-4th rd of the draft other then he has some experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omar Little Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Mitchell isn't good at all. I've read some KC-based articles basically saying he's no loss for the Chiefs. Not that Napo Harris is much better, but Mitchell definitely isn't the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Even as a back up, he's better than what we have, and he brings to table something we lacked last season, the ability to stuff the run. Nap harris hasnt had a solid season since his second year in the league. His 59 tackles in 14 games is proof of that. The only thing he has going for him is a little bit of speed at the position. It makes zero sense that the Bills would bring in any defensive player that wasn't suited for the Cover 2, even as a backup. That would be just wasting a roster spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Mitchell would be a stop gap at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 It makes zero sense that the Bills would bring in any defensive player that wasn't suited for the Cover 2, even as a backup. That would be just wasting a roster spot. Little writeup on Mitchell. Key points bolded: He was a 16-game starter in the middle in 2006 and led the Chiefs with 104 tackle for the season. He is a two-year starter for the Chiefs at the MLB position. He is a good starter, but would not be described as much of a playmaker for the position. He is an every-down player in their defense. He is a smart player and adjusted well this season to the shift to the Cover 2 defense. He is a good overall athlete for the position. He plays hard and he competes on every single down. His athletic ability is better than his strength and he is better uncovered then covered up in their defense. He has improved as a leader in their defense and he does a good job of shifting and aligning players in the front four based on the offensive alignment pre-snap. He has improved his awareness and instincts for the position. Early in his career he would take some false steps in run support but this season he did a much better job of trusting his feel and playing with more of an attacking style. He is a player that shows good sideline to sideline speed and range. He is a player that can make plays out near the numbers based on his hustle and effort, rather than speed. He is not a physical take-on player in the run game. He has size, but he can get engulfed inline and is not a quick-shed player in run support. He is a willing take-on player and will not back down, but you would like to see him shed and make more tackles. Most of his tackles come as a freed up player that can get to the ball with little contact or avoid ability. He is a solid tackler inline and out in space. He is not very explosive, but he is dependable to get the man down to the ground. He shows good enough speed to run the middle of the field in their Cover 2 defense. He can flip his hips and he shows good speed to run with the tight end seam route. He shows good initial quickness to buzz from his zone drop. His instincts from his zone drops are just adequate. He does not break up a lot of passes and can be a step late when trying to make a play on the ball instead of the defender. He is a steady player, but he lacks play making ability. Last season he had two sacks and three pass-deflections despite being an every-down player. He has not forced one fumble in the past two seasons as a starter, which is not a real good stat for an every-down middle linebacker. He makes most of the plays he should, but he is not a guy that makes any plays that he shouldn't. Sounds better then any of the current options, but I am not completely thrilled with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Little writeup on Mitchell. Key points bolded:Sounds better then any of the current options, but I am not completely thrilled with this. Okay, fair enough. It just seems like if the Chiefs, who play a cover 2, are getting rid of him to upgrade the position to Napoleon Harris, then it just doesn't seem like Mitchell is someone that the Bills would be interested in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts