PDA

View Full Version : No Trent would mean NO WINS.


BigVE
08-21-2005, 11:50 AM
Period. MAJOR drop off in skill after Trent...lord help us if...(you know). Todd is well below average and Huard isnt even good enough to called a 3rd stringer. Our season will hinge on Trents health. Sad but true.

ArrowheadHawk
08-21-2005, 11:53 AM
as long as the d plays well and we have a qb that can hand off the ball to lj or priest i think we can go 50-50

go bowe
08-21-2005, 11:54 AM
i kinda like the rookie kill'em...

awfully raw and a little lost out there, but the nfl is a little different from tulsa...

but he showed great mobility, a strong arm, and the kind of grit and determination that i haven't seen in a qb (other than trent, of course)...

ChiefsCountry
08-21-2005, 11:58 AM
i kinda like the rookie kill'em...

awfully raw and a little lost out there, but the nfl is a little different from tulsa...

but he showed great mobility, a strong arm, and the kind of grit and determination that i haven't seen in a qb (other than trent, of course)...

Also he had no good OL protecting him.

UKMike
08-21-2005, 11:58 AM
I don't think theres many teams who have a backup at QB who they could confidently say could take them to anything better than a losing season. I reckon we're in a better position than most because our running game is so good.

Mr. Laz
08-21-2005, 12:01 PM
Todd is well below average .

i disagree

MichaelH
08-21-2005, 12:20 PM
The coaching staff seems to have a lot of confidence in Todd Collins and he knows the system very well. I'm not worried about Collins, but in the rest of the second string players. With the exception of Larry Johnson, there isn't many decent players as witnessed by last night's game.

the Talking Can
08-21-2005, 12:23 PM
most teams are screwed if their QB goes down....except for Miami where all the QBs suck equally

SNR
08-21-2005, 12:36 PM
If you gave Todd the luxury of the starting OL, Priest, and decent receivers, I think there wouldn't be much of a dropoff in production. Obviously there are things Trent does that Collins can't do, but we would definitely be able to survive a season if Collins needed to start for a couple games.

KCChiefsFan88
08-21-2005, 12:37 PM
Period. MAJOR drop off in skill after Trent...lord help us if...(you know). Todd is well below average and Huard isnt even good enough to called a 3rd stringer. Our season will hinge on Trents health. Sad but true.


Just like no Manning would mean no wins for the Colts, and you could say that for most of the teams in this league with a halfway decent starting QB.

The only team IMO that would be okay if their star QB went down would be Minnesota, because Brad Johnson is probably the best back-up QB in the league right now.

SNR
08-21-2005, 12:38 PM
Just like no Manning would mean no wins for the Colts, and you could say that for most of the teams in this league with a halfway decent starting QB.

The only team IMO that would be okay if their star QB went down would be Minnesota, because Brad Johnson is probably the best back-up QB in the league right now.I would take Dilfer in Seattle than Johnson

Rausch
08-21-2005, 12:45 PM
I agree with the "lean on the running game" crowd. We play like we did against the Ravens or Donks (at Arrowhead) and we'd win 2 out of 3 games.

I think we should do that anyway to keep Trent healthy and help out our defense. We should have a deadly play action passing game with Parker and Kennison...

Gaz
08-21-2005, 12:53 PM
I question the “Todd is well below average” comment. How can you make that judgment without seeing him in a real game with the starters?

As far as the idea that we are in trouble if Green goes down, who can disagree with that? Seriously, how many NFL teams have [2] starting-quality QBs on the roster? Actually, there are some NFL teams with no starting-quality QB on the roster.

xoxo~
Gaz
Agrees that an injured Green predicts a drop in Offensive performance.

keg in kc
08-21-2005, 01:07 PM
I don't think "leaning on the running game" would win us that many games. The effectiveness of the running game as we design it is in no small part reliant on the ability to move the ball through the air. We aren't a traditional "run the ball to open up the pass" squad; quite the opposite. That doesn't mean we don't need or want to run the ball 30 times a game, but abandoning the passing game would hurt us more than it would help. Particularly because we're a mobile line with a small-ish center, more of an outside-run and draw oriented attack. We'd have to make fundamental changes to our scheme to turn us into an O with a grind-it-out approach. Not something I'd want them to screw with with the season a couple weeks away, and definitely not something I'd want to f*ck with during the season.

Our success should Green go down will rely totally on how capable Collins is of running the offense as it's designed. If we have to cut back because he can't handle it, we'd be in big trouble.

Let's hope we don't have to worry about it...

Rausch
08-21-2005, 01:19 PM
I don't think "leaning on the running game" would win us that many games. The effectiveness of the running game as we design it is in no small part reliant on the ability to move the ball through the air. We aren't a traditional "run the ball to open up the pass" squad; quite the opposite. That doesn't mean we don't need or want to run the ball 30 times a game, but abandoning the passing game would hurt us more than it would help. Particularly because we're a mobile line with a small-ish center, more of an outside-run and draw oriented attack. We'd have to make fundamental changes to our scheme to turn us into an O with a grind-it-out approach. Not something I'd want them to screw with with the season a couple weeks away, and definitely not something I'd want to f*ck with during the season.

Our success should Green go down will rely totally on how capable Collins is of running the offense as it's designed. If we have to cut back because he can't handle it, we'd be in big trouble.

Let's hope we don't have to worry about it...

As far as just the running game we did an excellent job last year.

The more we ran the ball the more we won last year.

The more we ran the better our defense played last year.

With the healt issues we've had on our offensive line and Trent's age I think the more we can cut down on him having to drop back and pass the better. We've been really lucky the last few years but with the teams on our schedule this year I don't see how Trent is going to start and finish 16 games.

wolfpack0735
08-21-2005, 01:27 PM
yes our offense would drop off. i think todd would win some for us,as long as TG,LJ, Holmes,and the line hold up. also if our defense can hold. funny thing is wasn`t just about 4 years ago people was wanting trent run out of town?

keg in kc
08-21-2005, 01:27 PM
As far as just the running game we did an excellent job last year.

The more we ran the ball the more we won last year.

The more we ran the better our defense played last year.I don't agree with that philosophy at all, and I never will. Balance wins games. We struggle when we rely too much on the passing game, and I think the same would happen if we relied too much on running the ball for an extended period. There will always be individual games where one or the other will really shine, but in the end, the effectiveness of the offense we've built depends on the ability to create misdirection and keep the defense guessing and on their heels. Sometimes that means pounding, sometimes that means outside runs or draws, sometimes that means screens or short passes, sometimes that means throwing long. It's that variety, the ability to do all of those things, that makes us so potent. Cutting out chunks of the playbook would hurt.

I like attacking, both on the ground and through the air. I don't want martyball again. Ever.

Gaz
08-21-2005, 01:40 PM
I have to agree that the unpredictability of our Offense is a major factor in our success. That is the whole rationale behind the multiple pre-snap shifting. If we become one-dimensional, we are crippled.

And, as has been pointed out before, we are not a power running team. Our OLinemen are quick [even Big Willie] and better-suited to playing in space. Draws and screens are a better fit, even with Johnson in the backfield in lieu of Holmes.

xoxo~
Gaz
Hopes this all remains idle speculation.

Rausch
08-21-2005, 01:41 PM
I like attacking, both on the ground and through the air. I don't want martyball again. Ever.

I want to run the ball more, not exclusively.

I'd like to see more play action. Watching Green drop back with an empty backfield on 2nd down makes me want to throw $#it at the TV.

I can see opening it up against teams like the Colts and Vikings, but I can also see us being a better smashmouth team than the Ravens or Steelers if we play them based on their offensive limitations...

PastorMikH
08-21-2005, 01:42 PM
I am liking what I see in Killian. He made some poor throws and an INT last night, but when he's on the field, there is a push to score, not just run the offense. I don't think Killian could do much at first, but give him a couple of games with the first squad and I think he might get it done. I don't think he's a solid answer this year, but he reminds me a lot of Green when Green was younger.

Over-Head
08-21-2005, 01:45 PM
Period. MAJOR drop off in skill after Trent...lord help us if...(you know). Todd is well below average and Huard isnt even good enough to called a 3rd stringer. Our season will hinge on Trents health. Sad but true.

And this is a bad thing how? :hmmm:

keg in kc
08-21-2005, 01:48 PM
I can see opening it up against teams like the Colts and Vikings, but I can also see us being a better smashmouth team than the Ravens or Steelers if we play them based on their offensive limitations...Nothing wrong with gameplanning. Although, the way I see it, I'd rather make a team play on our terms rather than on theirs. I'd rather try to blow out the Ravens or Steelers instead of trying to grind it out. Which doesn't mean not running, but I don't like conservative gameplans. Now with the Colts or Vikings, you're pretty much stuck with doing what you have to do keep up or keep ahead. But teams like the Ravens or Steelers, I'd want to score early and often, put them on their heels and force their offenses into trying to do things they can't. Goad them into mistakes and so forth.

I'm even more in favor of that approach now that I think the defense will be stronger.

BigVE
08-21-2005, 02:29 PM
I guess I could conceed that if Todd came in with all the first stringers he could do better than what I have seen so far. Im more disappointed in his ability to make even the easiest of throws. Leaning on the running game would only last for so long and then we just be facing 8 man fronts so that we would HAVE to throw the ball. Im hoping it wont be an issue at all.

Mr. Laz
08-21-2005, 02:51 PM
I guess I could conceed that if Todd came in with all the first stringers he could do better than what I have seen so far. Im more disappointed in his ability to make even the easiest of throws.

i don't know who your watching ... seems to be a different guy than i am


Collins throws a pretty good ball once he gets warmed up


admittedly he does take awhile to get warmed up ... but that could have as much to do with his lack of practice time/reps than anything.


if he was getting full 1st string reps he would be fine imo