PDA

View Full Version : You know we DID win today...against a pretty good team


Bootlegged
10-16-2005, 03:10 PM
too.

Deberg_1990
10-16-2005, 03:11 PM
It appears the Redskins are underrated this year. I was impressed with their run Defense and Brunell still has some fire left in him. Brunell has always played well against us.

RedThat
10-16-2005, 03:13 PM
Marcus Washington is REALLY REALLY impressive on that team. Damn, i wish we had a linebacker like that.

Sure-Oz
10-16-2005, 03:16 PM
their defense is real good, that O has potential as well.

Tuckdaddy
10-16-2005, 03:40 PM
It's always great to win but the offense looked terrible. The defense actaully won the game for us today and it's been a long time since thast happened.

Count Zarth
10-16-2005, 03:45 PM
The defense stepped up big time today. Offense hung them out to dry in the 2nd and 3rd quarters.

They were dominating time of possession before the 4th quarter. I don't know how we did so well against the run.

cdcox
10-16-2005, 03:45 PM
Yeah, we won which is great. A few years ago I bought into the Vermeil hype and thought he would win a superbowl. He even built half a team for it. But based on what I've seen so far this year, I've given up 95% of that hope and am pretty much resigned to rebuilding. But yeah, winning sure beats losing.

Demonpenz
10-16-2005, 03:54 PM
wow seven points off a bye week excuse me while i jerk off

htismaqe
10-16-2005, 03:55 PM
Yeah, we won which is great. A few years ago I bought into the Vermeil hype and thought he would win a superbowl. He even built half a team for it. But based on what I've seen so far this year, I've given up 95% of that hope and am pretty much resigned to rebuilding. But yeah, winning sure beats losing.

That's what it is for me, too.

Just winning isn't good enough anymore.

I want to win in the playoffs, and right now, this team doesn't look capable, on either side of the ball.

beer bacon
10-16-2005, 03:55 PM
wow seven points off a bye week excuse me while i jerk off

Totally man. How dare they not blow out a 3-1 team. Do people actually expect the Chiefs to have an unstoppable team every week?

cdcox
10-16-2005, 04:01 PM
The defense stepped up big time today. Offense hung them out to dry in the 2nd and 3rd quarters.

They were dominating time of possession before the 4th quarter. I don't know how we did so well against the run.

Gun's D philosophy is pretty simple. He is 100% dedicated to stopping the run on 1st and 2nd down. Then when he gets you in 3rd and long, he wants to kill your QB. That's it.

Thed defense has some decent talent, so if you dedicate them 100% to stopping the run, they do it. Problem is that some teams like to pass on 1st and 2nd downs and teams occasionally screen on passing downs. Gun doesn't handle these contingencies well.

Demonpenz
10-16-2005, 04:01 PM
Totally man. How dare they not blow out a 3-1 team. Do people actually expect the Chiefs to have an unstoppable team every week?

Don't get me wrong i am just happy they didn't piss away a 17 point lead again....at home.

KCJake
10-16-2005, 04:03 PM
I can't believe how much some of you are b!tching! The Chiefs are 3-2. Be happy.

cdcox
10-16-2005, 04:03 PM
Totally man. How dare they not blow out a 3-1 team. Do people actually expect the Chiefs to have an unstoppable team every week?

If the offense was playing like 2002-2004 we would be, at least at home.

DenverChief
10-16-2005, 04:04 PM
wow seven points off a bye week excuse me while i jerk off


HUH? 2 Priest TD's 2 Tynes FG's and a Defensive TD :spock:

siberian khatru
10-16-2005, 04:06 PM
Yeah, we won which is great. A few years ago I bought into the Vermeil hype and thought he would win a superbowl. He even built half a team for it. But based on what I've seen so far this year, I've given up 95% of that hope and am pretty much resigned to rebuilding. But yeah, winning sure beats losing.

EXACTLY.

Demonpenz
10-16-2005, 04:11 PM
It's one thing to enjoy the win. I am just wanted this team to be a contender for the superbowl. It is clear that this team is not even close to being a contender. You force that many turnovers and the other team still has a chance to win at the end?

Count Zarth
10-16-2005, 04:13 PM
It's one thing to enjoy the win. I am just wanted this team to be a contender for the superbowl. It is clear that this team is not even close to being a contender. You force that many turnovers and the other team still has a chance to win at the end?

This team is far from a finished product. Relax. Last year's club would have lost this game.

Demonpenz
10-16-2005, 04:16 PM
This team is far from a finished product. Relax. Last year's club would have lost this game.

Your right it's not a finished product. Just wait until Trent gets hurt. Then i can go ahead and stamp "FINISHED" on it

beer bacon
10-16-2005, 04:18 PM
Your right it's not a finished product. Just wait until Trent gets hurt. Then i can go ahead and stamp "FINISHED" on it

If Trent acquires a bionic arm and stamps SUPERBOWL WINNER on it then your face sure will be red.

Count Zarth
10-16-2005, 04:20 PM
Your right it's not a finished product. Just wait until Trent gets hurt. Then i can go ahead and stamp "FINISHED" on it

You idiot. We won today despite a pathetic offense. Do you really think our offense is going to fester like this all year? I don't.

mcan
10-16-2005, 04:21 PM
Matt's Grades:

Offense: C-

This unit has a TON of talent, and isn't executing well at all. They won the game, and converted some key 3rd downs today. Trent and Priest each had a couple highlight plays that kept us in this game. For any other team, I give this effort a B- or C+, but we should be held to a higher standard. I would put Welbourne back at right tackle immediately. Black is getting beat at least once per series pretty badly, and Trent is taking shots. We were the number one ranked offense in the league with Welbourne at RT. Addmitedly he was a liability, but I don't see Black doing anything positive to justify the switch.

Defense: B+

Like it or not, the defense won this game outright. They gave up some yards, but by playing physical and aggressive, we were able to create turnovers (and seven points which was the difference in the game). Allen played extremely well with the exception of ONE play. Of course, that play was the bootleg again, and Allen got suckered inside. However, those who say this defense isn't improving isn't watching. The old Chiefs defenses were panzies. They were: out of position, slow, passive, and they MISSED TACKLES on every play. This year were are giving up yards because we're: out of position... That's it... We have playmakers that are getting to the quarterback, laying big hits, and making the open field tackle. Once we can get our guys in the right spots and running in the right direction (and not giving away the corner blitz or taking bad angles on WR screens) we're golden.

Special Teams: A-

Colquit had another monster day, booming punts that were just unreturnable. Tynes was perfect for the day, and we needed those points. The only thing that would have made it better was to get some big returns, but I consider those icing...

Tribal Warfare
10-16-2005, 04:21 PM
Totally man. How dare they not blow out a 3-1 team. Do people actually expect the Chiefs to have an unstoppable team every week?

At home a team should blow out the visitors, on the road is different story. This was a very sloppy game on both sides, and KC is lucky to come up with the win today.

beer bacon
10-16-2005, 04:25 PM
At home a team should blow out the visitors, on the road is different story. This was a very sloppy game on both sides, and KC is lucky to come up with the win today.

Really? At home a team should blow out the visitors? Every game and every team? Or are we just talking about the Chiefs? Should the Chiefs offense gain 600 yards and score 60 points every game too? Should a 2-2 team should blow out a 3-1 team at home? Should the Redskins who have a team specifically geared to keep games close and down to the wire on the road not be able to do that against the Chiefs? What about the Broncos?

Are you on crack?

milkman
10-16-2005, 04:39 PM
Matt's Grades:

Offense: C-

This unit has a TON of talent, and isn't executing well at all. They won the game, and converted some key 3rd downs today. Trent and Priest each had a couple highlight plays that kept us in this game. For any other team, I give this effort a B- or C+, but we should be held to a higher standard. I would put Welbourne back at right tackle immediately. Black is getting beat at least once per series pretty badly, and Trent is taking shots. We were the number one ranked offense in the league with Welbourne at RT. Addmitedly he was a liability, but I don't see Black doing anything positive to justify the switch.

The offense really just sputtered and staggered for most of the day.

The turnovers by the 'Skins provided this team with plenty of opportunities, and they were essentially ineffective.

Defense: B+

Like it or not, the defense won this game outright. They gave up some yards, but by playing physical and aggressive, we were able to create turnovers (and seven points which was the difference in the game). Allen played extremely well with the exception of ONE play. Of course, that play was the bootleg again, and Allen got suckered inside. However, those who say this defense isn't improving isn't watching. The old Chiefs defenses were panzies. They were: out of position, slow, passive, and they MISSED TACKLES on every play. This year were are giving up yards because we're: out of position... That's it... We have playmakers that are getting to the quarterback, laying big hits, and making the open field tackle. Once we can get our guys in the right spots and running in the right direction (and not giving away the corner blitz or taking bad angles on WR screens) we're golden.

Jared Allen had huge day.
Sammy Knight and Kawika Mithchell both played a pretty good game I thought, but overall, this defense still sucks ass.

If Allen doesn't make big plays and force turnovers, and Knight doesn't intercept and return for a TD, then the Chiefs would not even have been in this game

Special Teams: A-

Colquit had another monster day, booming punts that were just unreturnable. Tynes was perfect for the day, and we needed those points. The only thing that would have made it better was to get some big returns, but I consider those icing...

Colquitt's punts might have been high and non returnable, but I wouldn't call them "booming".
What did he average today? About 33 yards a punt?

beer bacon
10-16-2005, 04:41 PM
The offense really just sputtered and staggered for most of the day.

The turnovers by the 'Skins provided this team with plenty of opportunities, and they were in essentially ineffective.



Jared Allen had huge day.
Sammy Knight and Kawika Mithchell both played a pretty good game I thought, but overall, this defense still sucks ass.

If Allen doesn't make big plays and force turnovers, and Knight doesn't intercept and return for a TD, then the Chiefs would not even have been in this game



Colquitt's punts might have been high and non returnable, but I wouldn't call them "booming".
What did he average today? About 33 yards a punt?

I am fine with people saying our defense sucks, but it isn't a valid argument to say that if you took out our best defensive plays then we would have lost. Those plays are actually represent the defense as well.

milkman
10-16-2005, 04:42 PM
Really? At home a team should blow out the visitors? Every game and every team? Or are we just talking about the Chiefs? Should the Chiefs offense gain 600 yards and score 60 points every game too? Should a 2-2 team should blow out a 3-1 team at home? Should the Redskins who have a team specifically geared to keep games close and down to the wire on the road not be able to do that against the Chiefs? What about the Broncos?

Are you on crack?

A home team that has a +4 TO ratio in the game at home should win in a blow out.

Joe Seahawk
10-16-2005, 04:42 PM
I watched the game. Your Defense was pretty lousy at shutting down their offense, but they also are the reason you won.. Those forced fumbles were huge plays..


Washington is a pretty good team if they don't shoot themselves in the foot with turnovers..

milkman
10-16-2005, 04:51 PM
I am fine with people saying our defense sucks, but it isn't a valid argument to say that if you took out our best defensive plays then we would have lost. Those plays are actually represent the defense as well.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

How about, if this defense doesn't get a lot of these kind of big defensive plays throughout the rest of the season, then this suckass defense is going to get it's ass kicked game in and game out until we find a way to tighten up this defense.

How about, yes those plays were a part of the defensive story today, but we can't go into each game expecting to get those kind of plays.

We have to find a way to field a defense that can make stops consistently.

Tribal Warfare
10-16-2005, 04:51 PM
Really? At home a team should blow out the visitors? Every game and every team? Or are we just talking about the Chiefs? Should the Chiefs offense gain 600 yards and score 60 points every game too? Should a 2-2 team should blow out a 3-1 team at home?
Are you on crack?


Where did say 600 yard or 60 points? You my friend are putting words in my mouth. KC should blow out a team who played that sloppy, but the Chiefs combated that with the ineptness of the their very own passing D, and the slow start on offense didn't help.

mcan
10-16-2005, 07:48 PM
The offense really just sputtered and staggered for most of the day.

The turnovers by the 'Skins provided this team with plenty of opportunities, and they were essentially ineffective.



Jared Allen had huge day.
Sammy Knight and Kawika Mithchell both played a pretty good game I thought, but overall, this defense still sucks ass.

If Allen doesn't make big plays and force turnovers, and Knight doesn't intercept and return for a TD, then the Chiefs would not even have been in this game



Colquitt's punts might have been high and non returnable, but I wouldn't call them "booming".
What did he average today? About 33 yards a punt?


1. They were "relatively" ineffective. Remember, they did manage to put up 21 points... That's not a terrible day. It's just not very good. When you consider how high the bar is set for our offense, it's a C-. But do you really think that an offense that puts up two touchdowns, a two point conversion, two field goals, and creates a few big plays against a good defense deserves a D?... I think, if anything, a C- is kinda harsh.

2. Umm... You can say that about anything. If man hadn't invented the wheel when it did, we probably wouldn't have the internet, and if Rodney Harrison hadn't hit Trent Green in the knee, then he would still be the Rams' QB, and we would have tried harder to sign Grbac, and we'd still be watcing him throw 4 yards short of the end zone with no time outs and 10 seconds on the clock... The fact is, the defense WON this game for us, and we should be PROUD of them for it. They didn't play a complete game, but they only gave up 21 points, and scored a touchdown, while taking the ball away.

3. Dustin didn't kick 60 yarders, but they were high and deep enough to negate returns. He also made sure that the Skins were forced to drive the length of the field on most of their drives. What that does is force them to run 10+ plays, instead of 5. That means that the defense doesn't have to be perfect. They can give up some yardage and still not get scored on.

Chris Meck
10-16-2005, 08:34 PM
Oh good lord.

Yeah, and if Derrick Thomas didn't have so many sacks, the defense would've sucked in the 90's, too.


What happens on the field is what happens.


Chris

Deberg_1990
10-16-2005, 08:38 PM
3. Dustin didn't kick 60 yarders, but they were high and deep enough to negate returns. He also made sure that the Skins were forced to drive the length of the field on most of their drives. What that does is force them to run 10+ plays, instead of 5. That means that the defense doesn't have to be perfect. They can give up some yardage and still not get scored on.

I love that the kid rarely allows returns. Pretty impressive the way he hangs them. That last punt of his could have been better, but hes only going to get better.

milkman
10-16-2005, 08:44 PM
Oh good lord.

Yeah, and if Derrick Thomas didn't have so many sacks, the defense would've sucked in the 90's, too.


What happens on the field is what happens.


Chris

And what happened on the field today is that the defense still gave up over 400 yards of offense to the 'Skins.

Gaz
10-17-2005, 07:24 AM
And what happened on the field today is that the defense still gave up over 400 yards of offense to the 'Skins.

What happened on the field today is that the Chiefs Defense forced turnovers and carried the day when the O was crap for the vast majority of the game.

Yardage means squat.

xoxo~
Gaz
Giving it up for the Chiefs D.

Extra Point
10-17-2005, 07:44 AM
"ifs and buts and grandma's nuts"
A win is a win. Hey, Lattimer did you celebrate the victory by eating out at Arby's?

Warrior5
10-17-2005, 07:48 AM
What happened on the field today is that the Chiefs Defense forced turnovers and carried the day when the O was crap for the vast majority of the game.

Yardage means squat.

xoxo~
Gaz
Giving it up for the Chiefs D.


Yes, our pass D needs to improve. But the key point in Gaz' post rings true: the Chiefs defense forced turnovers. These weren't Redskin mistakes; the Chiefs D physically knocked the living crap out of the ball carriers and jarred the ball loose. Anyone else notice how many Redskin players had to be helped off the field? I stopped counting at 3, and Portis was limping for much of the second half.

I'm confident Warfield's return will improve the pass D; what I'm most concerned about now is the anemic offense getting back on track.

jspchief
10-17-2005, 08:00 AM
Colquitt only had one bad punt.

5 Punts:
2 inside the 20
2 inside the 25
One bad punt to the 32.

Looking at average to determine if he did well is asinine. He was routinely required to punt short in order to pin the Skins deep.

jspchief
10-17-2005, 08:04 AM
Anyone that thinks the D played well yesterday must also think we had a good D in 2003.


It's easy to ignore giving up guady yardage when you're getting the occasional big play or great individual effort. But I can look back at 2003 and recognize that while that formula helped us win 13 games, we were not a good defense, and we were not a team that could win the game we needed to win most... a play-off game.

Kyle401
10-17-2005, 08:50 AM
Chiefs win!! PBJ
Chiefs win!! PBJ
Chiefs win!! PBJ
Chiefs win!! PBJ
Chiefs win!! PBJ
Chiefs win!! PBJ


The rest is just details.

Hey, here's a great stat; If we win our next 14 games in a row, we will win Superbowl XL.

Wooo Hooo!! Go Chiefs!

Gaz
10-17-2005, 08:51 AM
Well, that was refreshing.

xoxo~
Gaz
Glad to see someone enjoying the win.

Chris Meck
10-17-2005, 10:49 AM
I don't think anyone's intimating that the defense is fixed and is now a dominant force.

It is a reason for concern to give up 400 yards. It's a reason for concern that McCleon just can't seem to get it done. That's all true.

However, you can't discount that the run defense was again solid; that we forced 3 fumbles with hustle and hard hitting; and that we sacked Brunell what, four times and should've been five or six?

You also can't discount that the offense pretty well hung them out to dry for a long stretch in the 2nd and 3rd quarters. But there they were at the end, working the clock, and making a play as time ran out.

And let's look at that yardage-like 80 of 'em were on a wide receiver screen that Wesley could've had for a loss. He took a funny angle to the ball and missed the tackle. So that's a correctable 80 yards, or nearly 1/4 of the total yardage allowed in just ONE play. One guy's in position on one play and it negates 25% of the total yardage acrued.

That's the difference between 320 yards of offense and 400, and we're not even talking about McCleon yet.

So no, it wasn't a flawless, dominating performance. It WAS better, and they DID win the game. They gave up a net of 14 points and forced 3 turnovers. I see reason to be optimistic about this defense, particularly when Warfield gets back in good standing with whichever coach is pissed at him (understandably, really) and lines up opposite Surtain.

These guys are much more physical than recent defenses; they ballhawk, they make some big plays. It's true that they're still not always in position, but it's getting better.

Chris

ChiTown
10-17-2005, 10:52 AM
We won?

Hmm, I guess I need to go back and re-read this bb a few more times. I'm almost positive we lost...........

Joe Seahawk
10-17-2005, 11:03 AM
I wouldn't panic about your offense.. The Skins held Denver, Seattle and now KC to well under their season averages. Thats 3 pretty good offenses they've slowed down.

I was interested in watching the game so I could see how your offense (which I have a lot of respect for) would do against their D and compare it to what we did.. It was kind of apples and oranges because we played them at their house and they were not missing their starting corner and safety.

We only had 8 possessions in the entire game, the Skins did a nice job of controlling the clock, the killed us in T.O.P. They were able to get pretty good pressure on Hass, but somehow we still eeked out 355 yards against them. (Not bad in only 8 possessions) We missed 2 field goals including the game winner with 1 tick left, then lost in OT.

:banghead: