PDA

View Full Version : Is Trent Green inadvertently harming the Chiefs?


donkhater
01-13-2005, 01:41 PM
First off, I'm a little bored, so humor me.

I was talking to a friend of mine who is a Steelers fan and, of course, bows at the shrine that is Rothlisberger. I pointed out that BECAUSE he was a rookie QB is the reason for the Steelers turn around this season. When Maddox went down, the OC had to call plays more conservatively and the Steelers relied heavily on their very good running game and kept the pressure off their defense.

I think it is obvious that the Head coach and OC of the KC Chiefs have a love affair with Green. How detrimental is this? Green had over 20 turnovers this season and despite DV's claim that most of them weren't his fault, he still passed the ball.

Look at the two most telling games of the season--Baltimore and Atlanta. Both squads had darn good defenses entering those matches--run defenses in particular. KC dominated the line of scrimmage in both those matches. Why wasn't this approach taken in all the games? Clearly the depth was there at RB to get two backs 15+ touches in a game.

I like Green. He's proven to be a good leader, tough and a good passer to boot. But the fascination of the current coaching staff to acheive record breaking offensive numbers may be hurting the team over all.

Two games in particular--That Houston game in which they foolishly passed on 2nd and goal with Holmes in the backfield. What are they trying to prove? And New Orleans. KC was running any running play they wanted against that squad and because the OC decided to play pass happy, Trent turned it over like 3 times I believe.

I know a lot of this has been hashed out here before, but with LJ a proven good backup to Holmes, the entire O-line and TEs returning, there should be no reason for Trent to throw 30 times in any game he plays next year.

This year the only two times he DIDN"T throw 30+ times (Denver and Atlanta) KC outscored the opponent 101-27. Those were two playoff teams BTW.

Valiant
01-13-2005, 01:54 PM
Basically randomization.. Those games we played those teams differently compared to anybody else... They were never ran on before...

As for the ben vs. trent.. We have to pass, our defense cannot hold leads like thiers... We have to get yards in big chunks, in doing so you have to pass...

If you are behind by 10-14 points in the second half you do not want to run the ball and eat up the clock..

NewChief
01-13-2005, 02:17 PM
Two games in particular--That Houston game in which they foolishly passed on 2nd and goal with Holmes in the backfield. What are they trying to prove? And New Orleans. KC was running any running play they wanted against that squad and because the OC decided to play pass happy, Trent turned it over like 3 times I believe.


I don't think this is because of Trent. I think it's because of the philosophy of Al Saunders. Much like Mike Martz, Saunders is going to pass in goofy ass situations from time to time. I think if Trent wasn't here, we'd still be passing constantly if Saunders were calling the plays. Look at the way Martz called the Rams plays when Bulger was out. He kept on chucking the ball downfield, regardless of how many picks were thrown. It's just their philosophy, imo.

donkhater
01-13-2005, 02:19 PM
I don't think this is because of Trent. I think it's because of the philosophy of Al Saunders. Much like Mike Martz, Saunders is going to pass in goofy ass situations from time to time. I think if Trent wasn't here, we'd still be passing constantly if Saunders were calling the plays. Look at the way Martz called the Rams plays when Bulger was out. He kept on chucking the ball downfield, regardless of how many picks were thrown. It's just their philosophy, imo.

I agree. I suppose the title of this thread should be--"Is the OC's and HC's fascination with Trent Green hurting the Chiefs?"

donkhater
01-13-2005, 02:21 PM
Basically randomization.. Those games we played those teams differently compared to anybody else... They were never ran on before...

As for the ben vs. trent.. We have to pass, our defense cannot hold leads like thiers... We have to get yards in big chunks, in doing so you have to pass...

If you are behind by 10-14 points in the second half you do not want to run the ball and eat up the clock..
Yes KC's defense was bad, but the offense stalled many times this season in the fourth quarter.

KC was tied or in the lead going into the 4th quarter in 14 out of 16 ball games.

If you are a one-sided team, that one side better be clutch and dominate, particlary with the game on the line. KC's didn't.

KCTitus
01-13-2005, 02:23 PM
Ive found it interesting that the storyline...unknown rookie replacing a fallen starter vet QB has played out so many times in the last few years.

(much longer ago) Farve replaces a fallen Majikowski and goes to playoffs
Warner replaces a fallen Green and goes to SB
Brady replaces a fallen Bledsoe and goes to SB
Delhomme replaces a horrid Peete and goes to SB
and now,
Rothlisberger replaces a fallen Maddox and wins 14 straight.

Chiefs Pantalones
01-13-2005, 02:26 PM
Ive found it interesting that the storyline...unknown rookie replacing a fallen starter vet QB has played out so many times in the last few years.

(much longer ago) Farve replaces a fallen Majikowski and goes to playoffs
Warner replaces a fallen Green and goes to SB
Brady replaces a fallen Bledsoe and goes to SB
Delhomme replaces a horrid Peete and goes to SB
and now,
Rothlisberger replaces a fallen Maddox and wins 14 straight.

Weird stuff, totally.

Phobia
01-13-2005, 02:29 PM
Ive found it interesting that the storyline...unknown rookie replacing a fallen starter vet QB has played out so many times in the last few years.

(much longer ago) Farve replaces a fallen Majikowski and goes to playoffs
Warner replaces a fallen Green and goes to SB
Brady replaces a fallen Bledsoe and goes to SB
Delhomme replaces a horrid Peete and goes to SB
and now,
Rothlisberger replaces a fallen Maddox and wins 14 straight.

Is this another vote for Todd Collins?

KCTitus
01-13-2005, 02:32 PM
Is this another vote for Todd Collins?

Is Todd Collins a rookie? No. What we need to do is draft a QB in the 6th round, cut Collins and make the 6th round rookie our #2 QB and hope Green gets hurt next season, then we're SB bound baybee!

Calcountry
01-13-2005, 02:39 PM
Is Todd Collins a rookie? No. What we need to do is draft a QB in the 6th round, cut Collins and make the 6th round rookie our #2 QB and hope Green gets hurt next season, then we're SB bound baybee!
Trade LJ to the Dolphins for the #2 pick, then take Leinert if he comes out.

Then hope Green gets hurt, SB bound Baby.

Mile High Mania
01-13-2005, 02:42 PM
Collins is better than Green? Damn, TJ was right... green is over rated.

Chiefs Pantalones
01-13-2005, 03:05 PM
Collins is better than Green? Damn, TJ was right... green is over rated.
ROFL

Yeaaaahhhhhh.

Deberg_1990
01-13-2005, 07:32 PM
I don't think this is because of Trent. I think it's because of the philosophy of Al Saunders. Much like Mike Martz, Saunders is going to pass in goofy ass situations from time to time. I think if Trent wasn't here, we'd still be passing constantly if Saunders were calling the plays. Look at the way Martz called the Rams plays when Bulger was out. He kept on chucking the ball downfield, regardless of how many picks were thrown. It's just their philosophy, imo.

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. Its not Trents fault neccassarily. The philosophy of this offense is to constantly put pressure on an opposing defense. Martz/Saunder/Vermeil could care less about a few picks from time to time because they are going to come right back at you again on the next series. Vermeil has stated many times he doesnt like to put his team in a position where one play will win or lose the game for you. Did you hear that Marty???


Having said that, I do wish they were a little more flexible at times. I think this team is much more successful when they go to a power running game with the air attack as a compliment. The Rams however are quite different because the skill at the WR posistion is much better than ours.

Count Zarth
01-13-2005, 07:40 PM
Our offense is best when we have BALANCE.

The Chiefs have achieved this the last three years.

If we had to pass 40 times it's because the opposition was STOPPING the running game.

End of story.

Wallcrawler
01-14-2005, 01:00 AM
Al Saunders has a penchant for calling ill-advised plays at the worst possible times, and that is the reason that many games are lost by the Chiefs.


You have the ball on the 1 yard line. You have the best O-line in the league. You have the NFL record holder for touchdowns in a single season in the backfield.

Why in the name of all that is holy, would you EVER attempt a pass???

How close do you think Priest needs to be before he can get you the score? You dont get much closer than the one yard line folks.

So he calls the pass, and it gets picked off and returned for the score. They take the momentum, and then they never look back.


If this Offense took a more Smash-Mouthed approach, and ran the ball when they should, this offense would be better than it already is now. Maybe not in terms of total yardage, but in terms of wins. Last I checked, they dont hand out points for total yards in a game.

Or how about the final two minutes of the Oakland game at Christmas?? We got the lead, and the ball, and all we have to do is make the Raiders burn their timeouts and we can win the game.

What happens?

1st down, Al comes out calling a pass. Incomplete, stopping the clock for the Raiders. Really Fin smart.

2nd down, a run up the middle for about 6 yards, Raiders take a timeout.

3rd down. Another pass play, and Trent fumbles the football away, allowing the Raiders to get the ball back, march down the field, and take the lead.

If it werent for the 50 yard kickoff return by Dante Hall, Al Saunders' shitty playcalling would have cost the Chiefs yet another game.


When you have the lead and the ball, and around 2 minutes left, why would you not just run the ball on a team that you have been shredding on the ground all game long??


I guess thats too easy. Good ol Al, he needs a challenge you know. Gotta do shit the hard way.

Hey, he set all kinds of yardage records for the Chiefs. Wooooo-hoooo!! I hope he enjoyed himself, and maybe next season, he might put that effort into WINNING more than 7 games.


The defense is a big part of the Chiefs' failure, you cant argue that.

BUT

Al Saunders KNOWS the defense cant stop anyone, and he KNOWS that his offense has to carry the load. So why does he continually call stupid plays passing the ball, taking chances, when he has the best line in the game and 2 damn fine running backs??

Dont get cute, run the football.

Its very simple. 3rd and 1?? PASS!! Oh thats a passing situation all the way!!

And people wonder why the Chiefs 3rd down conversions have been shitty in a great number of games.

Dick and Al have brought a great offense to KC, but man do they piss me off with some of the shit that they call in certain situations. And when it blows up in their face, they still dont learn from it, and do it in other games as well.

2bikemike
01-14-2005, 01:16 AM
Last year it seemed to me that AS went into this little period where he tried to get cute with his play calling. Then he seemed to either 1.) got told not to do that chit or 2.) figured he was out thinking himself.

This year it just seemed like there were quite a few games where it seemed like he was unaware of the specific situation and he would call a play that was totally wrong for the situation. Almost like he wasn't paying attention.

Tuckdaddy
01-14-2005, 05:59 AM
I will say that sometime Al goes overboard on trying to score with one pass but Trent does not hurt this team at all. If we had Pitt's, NE or Balt's defense we would have gone 16-0.

nmt1
01-14-2005, 06:20 AM
Just my opinion but I believe Saunders knows that if the Chiefs get up by 14 points, they will pretty much win the game every time. I don't blame him for trying to score early and often. I think all this junk about him being obssesed with offensive records or passing or Trent Green's records is BS stirred up by KC sports talk radio.
It also makes sense to me to be at least a little unpredictable. Maybe Saunders does watch film and try to exploit what he perceives as good matchups for our offense against other team's defenses. God forbid Saunders have any confidence in our offense, regardless of which phase.
I just don't understand why so many want to blame either poor offensive execution by our offense or super defensive execution by other teams on Al Saunders play calling/obsession with offensive records. Guess he makes a good scapegoat for a season gone bad.

nmt1
01-14-2005, 06:23 AM
Al Saunders has a penchant for calling ill-advised plays at the worst possible times, and that is the reason that many games are lost by the Chiefs.

Talk radio BS.

Saunders expects the offense to execute regardless of the play call.
The real reason the Chiefs don't win games is they don't score more than the other team. Is it a coincidence that when they get up by 14 points or more, they normally end up winning the game?

htismaqe
01-14-2005, 07:53 AM
Talk radio BS.

Saunders expects the offense to execute regardless of the play call.
The real reason the Chiefs don't win games is they don't score more than the other team. Is it a coincidence that when they get up by 14 points or more, they normally end up winning the game?

No, it isn't.

Calling a FADE ROUTE to Tony G on 2nd down from the 8 when you have Priest Holmes in the backfield is dumb playcalling, any way you try to slice it.

KCTitus
01-14-2005, 08:03 AM
No, it isn't.

Calling a FADE ROUTE to Tony G on 2nd down from the 8 when you have Priest Holmes in the backfield is dumb playcalling, any way you try to slice it.

Here's the plays in question:

1-1-HOU1 (4:47) P.Holmes left tackle to HST 2 for -1 yards (J.Ioane).
2-2-HOU2 (4:09) T.Green pass intended for T.Gonzalez INTERCEPTED by M.Coleman at HST -2. M.Coleman for 102 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

So the first play call was to Holmes and they shut it down.

Coogs
01-14-2005, 08:06 AM
Here's the plays in question:

1-1-HOU1 (4:47) P.Holmes left tackle to HST 2 for -1 yards (J.Ioane).
2-2-HOU2 (4:09) T.Green pass intended for T.Gonzalez INTERCEPTED by M.Coleman at HST -2. M.Coleman for 102 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

So the first play call was to Holmes and they shut it down.

This must be wrong.

I could have sworn I read many times on this BB when LJ or Blaylock didn't get into the endzone, that if Holmes had been healthy we would have scored.

htismaqe
01-14-2005, 08:07 AM
Here's the plays in question:

1-1-HOU1 (4:47) P.Holmes left tackle to HST 2 for -1 yards (J.Ioane).
2-2-HOU2 (4:09) T.Green pass intended for T.Gonzalez INTERCEPTED by M.Coleman at HST -2. M.Coleman for 102 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

So the first play call was to Holmes and they shut it down.

OK, so call PA or a bootleg and run an out with Gonzales while running a drag with the opposite side WR or TE...

They called a fade.

A stupid play all the way around.

KCTitus
01-14-2005, 08:10 AM
OK, so call PA or a bootleg and run an out with Gonzales while running a drag with the opposite side WR or TE...

They called a fade.

A stupid play all the way around.

I dont recall it being a fade...Green was rolling right out after faking to Holmes who went left and he underthrew the ball to a double covered TG. Instead of forcing the ball, Green should have thrown it away. The play like the first down play was covered by Houston.

htismaqe
01-14-2005, 08:18 AM
I dont recall it being a fade...Green was rolling right out after faking to Holmes who went left and he underthrew the ball to a double covered TG. Instead of forcing the ball, Green should have thrown it away. The play like the first down play was covered by Houston.

Gonzales was running a fade route, towards the back corner of the endzone. Green underthrew the play, yes, but that's a DUMB route on 2nd down from the 2. You're putting even the best of QB's in a terrible situation.

I'm not going to argue semantics, but to completely excuse Saunders is BS. There's been a multitude of times when he's shown that he's no better than Marty, only different.

Count Zarth
01-14-2005, 08:37 AM
Was it stupid when we ran it against the Bills for a touchdown?

KCTitus
01-14-2005, 08:47 AM
Gonzales was running a fade route, towards the back corner of the endzone. Green underthrew the play, yes, but that's a DUMB route on 2nd down from the 2. You're putting even the best of QB's in a terrible situation.

I'm not going to argue semantics, but to completely excuse Saunders is BS. There's been a multitude of times when he's shown that he's no better than Marty, only different.

Im not excusing Saunders...by the same token Im not excusing Green for his poor decision. Saunders called 2 plays that Houston had completely covered, but Green shouldnt have thrown that ball. They had 2 more downs to make it from the 2 or kick the FG on 4th.

To put it all on Saunders is short sighted, especially considering the down and distance. Had it been 4th and goal from the 2, now were talking a different scenario.

Otter
01-14-2005, 08:47 AM
Is Todd Collins a rookie? No. What we need to do is draft a QB in the 6th round, cut Collins and make the 6th round rookie our #2 QB and hope Green gets hurt next season, then we're SB bound baybee!

I'd could kiss you Titus!!!

NTTIAWWT

KCTitus
01-14-2005, 08:50 AM
I'd could kiss you Titus!!!

NTTIAWWT

LOL...Im suprised it took you that long to find that post.

donkhater
01-14-2005, 09:00 AM
If I was OC of the Chiefs with that offensive line and a TD record-breaking RB when it gets to be 1st and goal at the 1 I call a running play 3or four times and live with the consequences. Even if he loses a yard on the first carry, I run him three times.

Name me one time in the four years Priest has been our RB that he hasn't gotten at least 1 yard on three attempts. You can't do it.

KCTitus
01-14-2005, 09:10 AM
Name me one time in the four years Priest has been our RB that he hasn't gotten at least 1 yard on three attempts. You can't do it.

Im pretty sure it's never been attempted.

Wallcrawler
01-14-2005, 11:36 AM
Basicly, if you can stop Priest Holmes from getting ONE yard behind that offensive line 4 straight times, hey, it wasnt meant to be.



First down, they stopped Priest.

Oh, well then. They stopped him. I guess that does it for this drive. I mean, Priest holmes just got stopped on first down. We dont dare give him another shot. Lets just pack it in with the run, and throw the football from here on out.

Gimme a break.


Al stuck his head in his ass on that playcall, and everyone knows it.

He, as a coach, is supposed to put the team in the best position to win. Yeah, Trent let a bad pass go. But you know what? There should never have been a pass called in the first damn place.

Im just wondering how close Priest has to be before Al trusts him to get the Touchdown. Its asinine.

KCTitus
01-14-2005, 11:43 AM
Basicly, if you can stop Priest Holmes from getting ONE yard behind that offensive line 4 straight times, hey, it wasnt meant to be.

First down, they stopped Priest.

Oh, well then. They stopped him. I guess that does it for this drive. I mean, Priest holmes just got stopped on first down. We dont dare give him another shot. Lets just pack it in with the run, and throw the football from here on out.

Gimme a break.


Al stuck his head in his ass on that playcall, and everyone knows it.

He, as a coach, is supposed to put the team in the best position to win. Yeah, Trent let a bad pass go. But you know what? There should never have been a pass called in the first damn place.

Im just wondering how close Priest has to be before Al trusts him to get the Touchdown. Its asinine.

Wow...Ive read some stupid posts on this BB, but this one takes the cake. So this is all on Al because he 'didnt trust' Holmes to get the TD? How do you explain this motivation or were you in the booth when the play call was made?

If Green throws the ball away, do you still insist that Al 'stuck his head in his ass'? Also, how many other occasions did KC go with a play fake/pass on 2nd down and make a TD?

Simply amazing...had KC run the ball 4 times and not made it, I guess I'd be reading the same thing from you.

Wallcrawler
01-14-2005, 11:55 AM
Glad you enjoyed it.

Apparently, youre in love with Al Saunders, and see nothing wrong with the playcall. Good for you. Giftwrapped tapes of the Texans and Saints game are on their way to your doorstep, so you can enjoy some of Saunders' greatest playcalls.

But yes, I am of the opinion that Al Saunders stuck his head up his ass calling a pass when he had priest holmes in the backfield that close to the goal line.

And I highly doubt that they would stop Priest holmes 4 times in a row, and if they had, I already said that it just wasnt meant to be. Amazing reading skills you have there.

If Priest had been stopped 4 straight times, thats just great defense. With that offensive line and Priest Holmes, it would be extremely difficult to fault 4 straight shots with Priest running the ball. Its intelligent, safe because Priest rarely loses the football, and has a very high chance of success. (Priest IS the NFL holder for TDs in a single season, in case you arent aware o wise one.)


Instead Al called for a pass on only second down, and it went back the other way for a TD. Handing the Texans the momentum on a silver platter.


There are times where they score with a pass that close, but that doesnt mean I agree with the call. If I have Priest holmes in the backfield behind that line, Im plowing it in for the score.

How many times has everyone in the F'ing stands known that Priest was going to get the ball, and he still scored anyway? Quite a few, if you havent been paying attention. It doesnt matter that they know what is coming, because its damn hard to stop.

Instead, he calls for a pass, where so many different things can go wrong, after only giving Priest a single shot at it.

Obviously you support that kind of stupidity, so you just enjoy that ok? Im sure we havent seen the last of it.

darkchief
01-14-2005, 12:00 PM
No, it isn't.

Calling a FADE ROUTE to Tony G on 2nd down from the 8 when you have Priest Holmes in the backfield is dumb playcalling, any way you try to slice it.
Didn't The Colts just use the same play against The Donkeys? They even have Edge in the backfield . I think it's a decent call because you know everyone was expecting Priest to run it.

This is the first time in a LONG time that That the Chiefs have had a QB of Trent's quality(Montana excluded), so just be happy we have the best QB in the AFC West and one of the top 3 in the AFC period.

htismaqe
01-14-2005, 12:09 PM
Im not excusing Saunders...by the same token Im not excusing Green for his poor decision. Saunders called 2 plays that Houston had completely covered, but Green shouldnt have thrown that ball. They had 2 more downs to make it from the 2 or kick the FG on 4th.

To put it all on Saunders is short sighted, especially considering the down and distance. Had it been 4th and goal from the 2, now were talking a different scenario.

I never put it ALL on Saunders, I was responding to:

Posted by nmt1 - Today at 07:23 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by The Stinger
Al Saunders has a penchant for calling ill-advised plays at the worst possible times, and that is the reason that many games are lost by the Chiefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talk radio BS.

Saunders expects the offense to execute regardless of the play call.
The real reason the Chiefs don't win games is they don't score more than the other team. Is it a coincidence that when they get up by 14 points or more, they normally end up winning the game?

htismaqe
01-14-2005, 12:10 PM
Didn't The Colts just use the same play against The Donkeys? They even have Edge in the backfield . I think it's a decent call because you know everyone was expecting Priest to run it.

This is the first time in a LONG time that That the Chiefs have had a QB of Trent's quality(Montana excluded), so just be happy we have the best QB in the AFC West and one of the top 3 in the AFC period.

They called a FADE route, to the short side of the field, from the 2 yard line, on 2nd down?

If they did, it was a dumb call, regardless of whether or not it worked.

KCTitus
01-14-2005, 12:17 PM
Stinger, that's pure genious (chiefsplanet spelling). So Im clear, anytime KC does not run the ball from inside the 5 yard line, the play call was a bad one according to your expert NFL analysis.

KCTitus
01-14-2005, 12:18 PM
They called a FADE route, to the short side of the field, from the 2 yard line, on 2nd down?

If they did, it was a dumb call, regardless of whether or not it worked.

You keep insisting it was a fade route to the back of the endzone, but the pick was made 2 yards inside the endzone. The endzone is 10 yards deep and even if it was underthrown, there's no way it gets intercepted only 2 yards deep.

donkhater
01-14-2005, 12:35 PM
You keep insisting it was a fade route to the back of the endzone, but the pick was made 2 yards inside the endzone. The endzone is 10 yards deep and even if it was underthrown, there's no way it gets intercepted only 2 yards deep.
Gotta agree with H on this one. Gonzo was clearly headed to the corner which is where the pass was to be delivered. The fact that it was intercepted two yards in just shows how bad of a pass it was.

The fade route in general really boggles my mind. Outside of Moss, I don't know of a receiver that runs that route with a high rate of success. Yet NFL coaches call it at least 2 times a game (seemingly).

Ask Bronco fan how that fade route that Plummer was intercepted on worked for them in the San Diego game. If I recall, Droughns had just hammered the San Deigo D on the two previous plays setting up 1st and goal at the 1 or 2 yard line. One fade route attempt later and it was SD's ball and a Bronco loss.

KCTitus
01-14-2005, 12:38 PM
Gotta agree with H on this one. Gonzo was clearly headed to the corner which is where the pass was to be delivered. The fact that it was intercepted two yards in just shows how bad of a pass it was.

That's fine, but a fade route to the back of the endzone would put TG at or near the rear pylon. Assuming this to be the case, and I really cant remember the play in my mind all that well, we're not going to assume that Green missed his target by over 20 feet are we?

Ive been trying to find a clip of that, surely a Houston site would have it, but to no avail.

Wallcrawler
01-14-2005, 01:25 PM
Stinger, that's pure genious (chiefsplanet spelling). So Im clear, anytime KC does not run the ball from inside the 5 yard line, the play call was a bad one according to your expert NFL analysis.


Expert NFL analysis. Thats nice. Good one.

Funny how mine is the only opinion being coated with such thick sarcasm from you.

Last I checked, Im not the only one thinking it was a bad playcall. You however, are defending it to the bitter end.

Ill go ahead and say it again. Any time you are that close to the goal line, and you cast Priest Holmes and the best Offensive line in the league to the side, and choose to pass, you are a fool.

The Chiefs wide receivers are certainly NOT the strong point of the offense. Everyone and their brother knows that if its a pass, Tony G is going to be the guy it goes to.

Obviously, Tony is a little easier to stop than Priest is, considering that it was the damned Texans who scored on the play.

Lots of things can go wrong on a pass. There isnt as much room to work with, so the defense can play much tighter coverages. Bad passes, dropped passes, good defense, all those things factor into whether or not the play is going to work.

Much less can go wrong just handing the ball off to Priest holmes, and let him work his way across the goal line.

Al either got really stupid, or really bored one of the two. He got creative with the playcalling, and he scored 6 points for the other team when all he had to do was give the ball to the best single season TD scorer the league has ever seen one or two more times. They were kicking the Texans' asses in the ground game to that point already, one time getting stopped should not have deterred Al Saunders from letting Priest cram the ball down their throats for another score.

But, you would rather place blame on Trent Green, and thats fine. Youre just as entitled to your views as I am to mine.

Mike Grose
01-14-2005, 01:26 PM
Titus,
That's one of things that's seared in my mind like a Cristmas in Cambodia. (Oops. Flahback. Sorry.)

But the defender trailed TG by a good yard heading for the corner. But the defender had to come back for the ball. Which is part of the reason he got such a good head of steam heading for the opposite endzone.

As I also remember, I believe Welbourne also got beat by the pass rush causing Green to hurry the throw.

It was clearly a fade route.

If I remember clearly (this part questionable), I believe Gonzalez was actually double-covered high and low. Green, rushed or not, should have ditched the ball.
Mike

nmt1
01-14-2005, 01:27 PM
The pass in the endzone against Houston that was returned for a TD was all on Green. The Chiefs have scored on that play lots and lots of times. Saunders was using the play fake to be unpredictable. You guys would've jumped on Saunders for being too predictable if he'd run the ball three times and Holmes didn't get in on any of the attempts. Holmes has a nose for the endzone but there are times we should use him as a decoy, not to spread the ball around but to be unpredictable therefore making the defense less likely to sell out on one player or play. When teams key on Holmes we throw to Gonzales or Dunn. Nothing wrong with mixing it up. There is something wrong, however, with not executing the play correctly which is exactly what happened. That play can't be defended if Green throws it in the right place.
IMO, it's silly to question Saunders' motivation for calling the plays he calls. No one but him knows what's going through his mind during the game. As far as not trusting Holmes or being more interested in stats, I call big time BS.

nmt1
01-14-2005, 01:29 PM
Ill go ahead and say it again. Any time you are that close to the goal line, and you cast Priest Holmes and the best Offensive line in the league to the side, and choose to pass, you are a fool.

The reason you're being addressed with such sarcasm is because of statements like this. No one cast aside the offensive line or Holmes. It's a ridiculous assertion.

KCTitus
01-14-2005, 01:46 PM
If I remember clearly (this part questionable), I believe Gonzalez was actually double-covered high and low. Green, rushed or not, should have ditched the ball.
Mike

I agree...totally. How does this fall on the shoulders of Saunders is beyond me. The pass should not have been thrown.

Mike Grose
01-14-2005, 02:08 PM
Titus, Other than the predictability of:

Stuffed on 1 --> Throw on 2

I have no problem with deciding to call a pass on second and short.

KCTitus
01-14-2005, 02:17 PM
Titus, Other than the predictability of:

Stuffed on 1 --> Throw on 2

I have no problem with deciding to call a pass on second and short.

Predictable, most likely, since Houston had Gonzo bracketed and the DE beat the RT on the play and was all over Green. Just as predictable as giving the ball to Holmes on first down, which Houston promptly stuffed.

The point here is execution...

Mike Grose
01-14-2005, 02:21 PM
Predictable, most likely, since Houston had Gonzo bracketed and the DE beat the RT on the play and was all over Green. Just as predictable as giving the ball to Holmes on first down, which Houston promptly stuffed.

The point here is execution...

Like the tackle caving in the face of the rush.

NewChief
01-14-2005, 02:23 PM
I agree the pass shouldn't have been thrown. If it was thrown, it should have been more on the money, that's for sure.

As for running Holmes every single time you're on the goal line, I don't agree with that. I'm all for us being able to pass on people in the red zone. We need to be able to pass on people anywhere. As Titus has said, it's the players' responsibility to make sure disaster doesn't strike. That being said, disaster is always going to strike a few times in a season. Whether you can overcome that singular disaster or not is the difference between a good team and a mediocre team in the NFL.

KCTitus
01-14-2005, 02:25 PM
I agree the pass shouldn't have been thrown. If it was thrown, it should have been more on the money, that's for sure.

As for running Holmes every single time you're on the goal line, I don't agree with that. I'm all for us being able to pass on people in the red zone. We need to be able to pass on people anywhere. As Titus has said, it's the players' responsibility to make sure disaster doesn't strike. That being said, disaster is always going to strike a few times in a season. Whether you can overcome that singular disaster or not is the difference between a good team and a mediocre team in the NFL.

KC had more than their share of red zone 'disasters' when players were close to scoring only to get the ball stripped.

NewChief
01-14-2005, 02:28 PM
KC had more than their share of red zone 'disasters' when players were close to scoring only to get the ball stripped.

There's definitely some weird luck or karma or something involved in the NFL as well. Watching that game against Carolina...I've never seen a luckier QB than Delhomme. He was getting freaking swung around like a little kid on the end of a game of crack the whip and he tosses the ball out kind of sidearm without even looking as he's going down for a TD. Of course, if our D was on top of shit, they would have picked it. Luck's still a factor (even though I know you "make your own luck.")

htismaqe
01-14-2005, 03:15 PM
I agree...totally. How does this fall on the shoulders of Saunders is beyond me. The pass should not have been thrown.

It doesn't completely fall on Saunders' shoulders. It's just a more vivid example than others I can think of.

Like running a naked bootleg on 4th and inches.

htismaqe
01-14-2005, 03:16 PM
I agree the pass shouldn't have been thrown. If it was thrown, it should have been more on the money, that's for sure.

As for running Holmes every single time you're on the goal line, I don't agree with that. I'm all for us being able to pass on people in the red zone. We need to be able to pass on people anywhere. As Titus has said, it's the players' responsibility to make sure disaster doesn't strike. That being said, disaster is always going to strike a few times in a season. Whether you can overcome that singular disaster or not is the difference between a good team and a mediocre team in the NFL.

I never said that we should run the ball 4 times in a row.

I said we shouldn't have run a route that's supposed to be used from 20 yards out on the 2 yard line. BIG difference...

NewChief
01-14-2005, 04:35 PM
I never said that we should run the ball 4 times in a row.

I said we shouldn't have run a route that's supposed to be used from 20 yards out on the 2 yard line. BIG difference...

I agree with that as well. I'd alot rather see them do something like declare a lineman an eligible receiver, overload one side, fake the run to that side, roll Trent out weakside and hit the TE on a delayed release, ala the Raiders game.