PDA

View Full Version : DV pots game on 610


ChiefsFire
10-31-2004, 03:44 PM
DV on 610

the Talking Can
10-31-2004, 03:47 PM
thanks

el borracho
10-31-2004, 03:48 PM
Dick Vermeil: "We have never been defeated when Larry Johnson has a 19 yard per carry average"

Pants
10-31-2004, 03:49 PM
Dick Vermeil: "We have never been defeated when Larry Johnson has a 19 yard per carry average"

Hahahahahahah. Oh good ol' Dicky V, you kill me...

ChiefsFire
10-31-2004, 03:50 PM
im sorry but that was the ugliest 19 yard run in football history pop warner college pro all football oh well CHIEFS WIN!!!

Bob Dole
10-31-2004, 03:55 PM
Dick is probably going to get fined for the KCFX interview.

Pretty upset with the lack of PI call in the endzone.

Bob Dole
10-31-2004, 03:56 PM
Just made another comment about a lousy call that gave Indy a first down.

Also just commented that 48% of Indy's scoring drives are aided by penalty.

Now ragging on special teams. Both tackling and Tynes short kicks.

ROYC75
10-31-2004, 03:57 PM
He is pissed off about the kick coverage, really pissed !

Blitz
10-31-2004, 03:58 PM
He is going to go after special teams

cdcox
10-31-2004, 04:01 PM
The non-call on the PI on Kennison only ticks me off because of the context. St. Manning got 3 ticky-tack PI calls in his favor, while much more significant contact with the DB not even playing the ball is incidental contact. Call it consistantly, at least.

AZORChiefFan
10-31-2004, 04:11 PM
Yeah the lack of the PI call in the endzone had all of us at Sluggo's yelling especially when the Refs were calling that ticky tack crap earlier. I will say the Chiefs did benefit from a borderline roughing the passer call. Still in the endzone DB not facing the ball putting his hands all over the receiver does seem like PI too me.

Coach
10-31-2004, 04:13 PM
DV says

"Special teams played horrible. Trust me, they're going to hear from me. When your kicker can only get it to the 15, I'm fed up with him. Believe me, they are going to HEAR from me..."

chief4life
10-31-2004, 04:15 PM
looks like tynes is as good as gone

Frankie
10-31-2004, 04:16 PM
I think Mitchell's INT was legit too. The refs were quite onesided favoring Prince Peyton's team.

chief52
10-31-2004, 04:18 PM
looks like tynes is as good as gone

I hope not. The Chiefs could do much worse...as we all know! You gotta keep him until you have better.

Bob Dole
10-31-2004, 04:19 PM
I think Mitchell's INT was legit too. The refs were quite onesided favoring Prince Peyton's team.

No, it wasn't...

Frazod
10-31-2004, 04:20 PM
Dick is probably going to get fined for the KCFX interview.

Pretty upset with the lack of PI call in the endzone.

He should be. We got jobbed the officials all day long.

OldTownChief
10-31-2004, 04:21 PM
I think Mitchell's INT was legit too. The refs were quite onesided favoring Prince Peyton's team.

You got to be ****ing kidding me, he never had the ball.

ROYC75
10-31-2004, 04:22 PM
I think Mitchell's INT was legit too. The refs were quite onesided favoring Prince Peyton's team.


Nope, he never had control of it .

Coach
10-31-2004, 04:22 PM
He should be. We got jobbed the officials all day long.
Especially with no holding at all. There were several offensive holding by the Colts, and I don't recall any one of them being called, even though it was clearly seen by many people that it was a holding.

PastorMikH
10-31-2004, 04:23 PM
Special Teams is in need of addressing. Tynes short kickoffs aren't the only bad part, the poor tackling and letting a guy run through 8 of your guys without being put on the turf doesn't help either. Tynes needs to kick the ball 15-20 yards further and the first guy down there needs to stick the return guy into the dirt. And Tynes can't hit a FG if Cheek can't catch and plant the snap.

On a bright note, Dante looked more today like last season that any other game this year. I thought he was actually going to go all the way a few times out there.

Bwana
10-31-2004, 04:25 PM
I think Mitchell's INT was legit too. The refs were quite onesided favoring Prince Peyton's team.

Umm, no, that was one of the good calls they made. He didn't have control of that ball.

Coach
10-31-2004, 04:26 PM
Special Teams is in need of addressing. Tynes short kickoffs aren't the only bad part, the poor tackling and letting a guy run through 8 of your guys without being put on the turf doesn't help either. Tynes needs to kick the ball 15-20 yards further and the first guy down there needs to stick the return guy into the dirt. And Tynes can't hit a FG if Cheek can't catch and plant the snap.

On a bright note, Dante looked more today like last season that any other game this year. I thought he was actually going to go all the way a few times out there.

Tynes may not be booming on kickoffs, but he's an improvement. One thing I don't get about DV, he will chew on the kicker or punter, but not the other 10 guys on coverage. So what if the ball only gets to the 15? What about the other 20 racked up by the returner? DV needs address the shortcomings by adressing all 11 of them, not just singling one guy out. Tynes may be an easy focal point, but the other 10 aren't helping any.

PastorMikH
10-31-2004, 04:29 PM
Tynes may not be booming on kickoffs, but he's an improvement. One thing I don't get about DV, he will chew on the kicker or punter, but not the other 10 guys on coverage. So what if the ball only gets to the 15? What about the other 20 racked up by the returner? DV needs address the shortcomings by adressing all 11 of them, not just singling one guy out. Tynes may be an easy focal point, but the other 10 aren't helping any.



Exactly!

However, there were 2 distinct times where I was one of our first players down to the returner get held with no flag.



On the Tynes/Booming kickoffs bit, if the air is anything there like it has been here the last week, the heavy, humid air has to shorten those some. FWIW, it didn't look like Indy's kicker was booming them either.

Valiant
10-31-2004, 04:37 PM
most of it is tynes fault...when you line drive the kick to the damn 10-15 yard line..the rest of the team is still 5-10 yards back and blockers already set up...you cannot line drive kickoffs...

you need air in the kicks so the defense can get down there and cover properly..

there is poor tackling on special teams..but 80% of it is tynes kickoffs... seriously i am starting to wonder how much they make him practice kickoffs and fieldgoals because he is getting worse each week on kickoffs...

Frankie
11-01-2004, 09:47 AM
Does ESPN2 show coaches' post-game on Monday afternoons? If so does anyone know when DV's will be on?

Braincase
11-01-2004, 10:27 AM
Umm, no, that was one of the good calls they made. He didn't have control of that ball.

Absolutely right on that call. Festus would've been able to make that call right with his good eye on Miss Kitty.

Frankie
11-01-2004, 10:40 AM
Absolutely right on that call. Festus would've been able to make that call right with his good eye on Miss Kitty.
I disagree. I've seen receivers come down with the ball in that very situation and be given the completion.

Sure-Oz
11-01-2004, 10:54 AM
I doubt Tynes is gone, he can do better than that though.

JimNasium
11-01-2004, 11:01 AM
Tynes is still kicking it farther than Anderson would be.

KCTitus
11-01-2004, 11:05 AM
The most frustrating part about the PI calls and non-calls was they were not consistent.

If you're calling it ticky tack -- it should be ticky tack on both sides. Warfield fell on that one play because he was trying not to make contact with Harrison in the subsequent play after the PI call that saved the Indy drive.

go bowe
11-01-2004, 11:06 AM
Tynes is still kicking it farther than Anderson would be.stop it with the niggling facts, would you?? :D

The Bad Guy
11-01-2004, 11:34 AM
I disagree. I've seen receivers come down with the ball in that very situation and be given the completion.

Just because a ref blew a call you saw previously doesn't mean that Mitchell had an INT.

Christ, you must be blind. How can he have control of the ball when it's laying on the ground?

Brock
11-01-2004, 11:35 AM
Just because a ref blew a call you saw previously doesn't mean that Mitchell had an INT.

Christ, you must be blind. How can he have control of the ball when it's laying on the ground?

No kidding. I'm seriously beginning to doubt whether Frankie has ever watched a football game.

picasso
11-01-2004, 11:38 AM
Exactly!

However, there were 2 distinct times where I was one of our first players down to the returner get held with no flag.



On the Tynes/Booming kickoffs bit, if the air is anything there like it has been here the last week, the heavy, humid air has to shorten those some. FWIW, it didn't look like Indy's kicker was booming them either.

I completely agree with ya. The Indy kicker wasn't that spectacular either and I believe it was due to air conditions. Tynes got the ball up there but the ball would just die.

redbrian
11-01-2004, 11:55 AM
No kidding. I'm seriously beginning to doubt whether Frankie has ever watched a football game.

After the first re-play I saw that it was not even close, it was a good call, the ball was lost on the way down, long before he hit the ground.

Frankie
11-01-2004, 12:16 PM
Just because a ref blew a call you saw previously doesn't mean that Mitchell had an INT.

Christ, you must be blind. How can he have control of the ball when it's laying on the ground?

He had the ball. It came out AFTER he had hit THE GROUND and a couple of guys kicking/punching the ball. Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm not trying to change yours.

Frankie
11-01-2004, 12:18 PM
No kidding. I'm seriously beginning to doubt whether Frankie has ever watched a football game.
Post 37. Read and learn.

Brock
11-01-2004, 12:21 PM
The ball was out before he even hit the ground. Maybe you should stick to soccer.

Swanman
11-01-2004, 12:45 PM
He had the ball. It came out AFTER he had hit THE GROUND and a couple of guys kicking/punching the ball. Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm not trying to change yours.

He had the ball pinned very loosely to his hip and the ball hit the ground when he landed. He in no way had control of the ball when he hit the ground, so it was not even close to an interception.

Iowanian
11-01-2004, 12:48 PM
the Mitchell INT that wasn't, wasn't even close.......While it was a spectacular effort with 3 oline on him and a forearm in the throat........it wasn't even close to being a complete pass/INT.

That wasn't even a catch by John Kerry football standards.

htismaqe
11-01-2004, 01:01 PM
He had the ball. It came out AFTER he had hit THE GROUND and a couple of guys kicking/punching the ball. Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm not trying to change yours.

Incomplete receptions (and INT's) are NOT like fumbles and CAN be caused by the ground.

In order for it to be a catch (or INT) the receiver must maintain possession AFTER he hits the ground.

Mitchell did not, and thus, it was an incomplete pass.

ChiefsFire
11-01-2004, 01:02 PM
the Mitchell INT that wasn't, wasn't even close.......While it was a spectacular effort with 3 oline on him and a forearm in the throat........it wasn't even close to being a complete pass/INT.

That wasn't even a catch by John Kerry football standards.
:hmmm:

jcroft
11-01-2004, 01:48 PM
1. Anyone who thinks that Mitchell caught that ball is either blind, stupid, or way too fvcking big a homer. I thought he did in real-time, but as soon as I saw the first replay it was obvious as could be that it wasn't even close.

2. Tynes did kick 'em short yesterday, no doubt. But, I think over the course of the season he's been above average on kickoffs, and since Indy's kicker was also kicking off very short, I sort of assumed it was something to do with the conditions causing it.

penguinz
11-01-2004, 01:52 PM
He had the ball. It came out AFTER he had hit THE GROUND and a couple of guys kicking/punching the ball. Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm not trying to change yours.
You are blind as hell. Did you try watching the replay after you sobered up? It was not even close to being a catch.

The Bad Guy
11-01-2004, 03:25 PM
He had the ball. It came out AFTER he had hit THE GROUND and a couple of guys kicking/punching the ball. Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm not trying to change yours.

I went back and watched the play again and honestly there's no way to say he had the ball.

He never had CONTROL of the ball, once he hit the ground the ball came out. The ground DIDN'T cause the fumble, the fact that he never had the ball did.

Your opinion is wrong, that's all I'm pointing out.

The Bad Guy
11-01-2004, 03:27 PM
Post 37. Read and learn.

That's funny you tell someone to read and learn, but you have no idea what the rules of football are.

Lzen
11-01-2004, 03:29 PM
The non-call on the PI on Kennison only ticks me off because of the context. St. Manning got 3 ticky-tack PI calls in his favor, while much more significant contact with the DB not even playing the ball is incidental contact. Call it consistantly, at least.

Exactly what I was saying about those. That was so one-sided it was pathetic.
:shake:

Especially with no holding at all. There were several offensive holding by the Colts, and I don't recall any one of them being called, even though it was clearly seen by many people that it was a holding.
I was at the game but I did manage to review about 2/3 of the game at home last night. I noticed on the long screen pass to James in the 3rd(?) that there was an obvious block in the back by (#63?) on Shawn Barber. Of course, the refs didn't see it.

The most frustrating part about the PI calls and non-calls was they were not consistent.

If you're calling it ticky tack -- it should be ticky tack on both sides. Warfield fell on that one play because he was trying not to make contact with Harrison in the subsequent play after the PI call that saved the Indy drive.

I was thinking the same thing. The early ticky tacky calls made our DBs play a little less aggressively on their receivers. That little bit of difference was all they needed. Well, that and the fact that the safeties, linebackers, and even the cornerbacks were biting on that play action in the 2nd half.

Lzen
11-01-2004, 03:31 PM
At the stadium, they didn't even show the replay of Mitchell's interception as they were reviewing it. Why did they not show that?