PDA

View Full Version : 462 yards of offense


B_Ambuehl
10-22-2005, 09:17 AM
I'm sure there are still some calling for the head of Al Saunders but 462 yards of offense is a lot. Especially considering when you have run blocking specialists and journeyman free agents out there getting over ~150 yards combined in the passing game. (Dunn, Horn, Boerigter). That's what good coaches and good systems allow you to do and there aren't many other coaches or systems who can get that type of production from that level of talent. (Get million dollar results out of hundred dollar players).

DV said last year after a 500 yard offensive performance that it was the first time he'd had a team over 500. Last night's performance didn't come far from that. Someone oughta check to find out where that performance ranks for the year among all teams.

the Talking Can
10-22-2005, 09:19 AM
if AS had stuck with the run in the 1st quarter we'd easily surpass 500 yards...

Chiefs_Mike_Topeka
10-22-2005, 09:28 AM
if AS had stuck with the run in the 1st quarter we'd easily surpass 500 yards...


I agree 100%

I was pretty irritated after seeing 8 straight pass plays in route to 3 three and outs of 4 possesions. Then once they started running again they march right down and score again before half.

I sometimes think Saunders makes adjustments to counter the other teams adjustments before the other team has made theirs.

You just always have to stomach the 2-3 possesions where Saunders/Vermeil just seem to lose their friggin minds, because they always seem to get their head out of their asses eventually!

B_Ambuehl
10-22-2005, 09:31 AM
There's a difference between running the ball and running the ball effectively. Everybody talks about the long runs but there were multiple drive killing runs for no gain or a loss last night that nobody mentions which explain the passes everybody complains about.

The only thing I will complain about is emptying the backfield on 1st down. 50% of the time that leads to problems in protection, batted balls, etc. There's no reason you can't run nearly the same exact play with a back behind the quarterback and by doing so you slow down the pass rush.

the Talking Can
10-22-2005, 09:31 AM
I agree 100%

I was pretty irritated after seeing 8 straight pass plays in route to 3 three and outs of 4 possesions. Then once they started running again they march right down and score again before half.

I sometimes think Saunders makes adjustments to counter the other teams adjustments before the other team has made theirs.

You just always have to stomach the 2-3 possesions where Saunders/Vermeil just seem to lose their friggin minds, because they always seem to get their head out of their asses eventually!

absolutely...it's almost as if AS starts day dreaming, then someone taps him on the shoulder, "Al..Al!...wake up, its time to score.."

morphius
10-22-2005, 09:31 AM
Last nights game reminded me a lot of the last few years as far as offense goes. Some great drives, some wtf drives.

Sully
10-22-2005, 09:37 AM
It's not so much that I want to see the Chiefs run more, it's that I'd like to see em try more runs between the tackles (especially with LJ in the game). We have a great guard tandem that can blow linebackers off the ball, and it seems that the sweep isn't as reliable as it once was, especially now that Priest thinks he's Skip Hicks from back in his UCLA days. (that's obscure, so let me re-image it as Marcus Allen from the Super Bowl).

4th and Long
10-22-2005, 09:41 AM
We had 43 running plays and 34 pass plays. Looks like a pretty balanced offensive plan to me.

Why are people bitching abouit this again, exactly?

the Talking Can
10-22-2005, 09:48 AM
uh, people are discussing the game...you should try it

Pitt Gorilla
10-22-2005, 09:56 AM
We had 43 running plays and 34 pass plays. Looks like a pretty balanced offensive plan to me.

Why are people bitching abouit this again, exactly?
I agree. There is a reason that we pass the ball; it helps to set up the run. Honestly, if we had "kept running," they would have put 10 guys in the box. A good offense achieves a good balance. I thought that was pretty common knowledge, even among non-coaches. It's also difficult to complain about what Green did with the ball.

morphius
10-22-2005, 10:00 AM
We would have had an easy 500 yards if our buddy Boe didn't catch the Chiefs number 2 WR disease which turns hands into bricks. 2 nice catches and 2 third down drops that were right in his hands.

Mr. Laz
10-22-2005, 11:18 AM
Why are people bitching abouit this again, exactly?


4th and long is never happy unless he has another fan to piss and moan about. 99.9% of the threads he starts are classified as "fan bashing" or "Rufus Dawes" material.

tiptap
10-22-2005, 11:33 AM
While the evalutation from Scout.com was that all of the line played well, I didn't see the game. I didn't get the feeling that we had success running to the right. (Unless you want to count Priests cut back to the right as such.) But if there was improve play at RT in the running game that will be the best news. We will continue to have a good running team along as Waters and Roaf are pushing on the left side. But we will have easy, dominating wins if we can get production running to the right without tipping our hand by putting Dunn on that side.
Also tell me did the LB jump the vacated pulling lineman in the stretch plays. That is what we are starting to see as teams play us? That would be countered by having better play at RT too.

Rausch
10-22-2005, 11:37 AM
We had 43 running plays and 34 pass plays. Looks like a pretty balanced offensive plan to me.

Why are people bitching abouit this again, exactly?

I'd say that ratio is perfect for the talent we have.

My bitch is WHEN they decide to run/pass.

You don't empty the ****ing backfield on 1st down in a game you've got a big lead. There's no ****ing reason to do it and no ****ing reason to risk a sack/fumble/int at that point.

The last two weeks we've had a lead at the end of the game only needing to run out the clock. What do we do?

We pass.

It boggles the ****ing mind...

Calcountry
10-22-2005, 11:48 AM
There's a difference between running the ball and running the ball effectively. Everybody talks about the long runs but there were multiple drive killing runs for no gain or a loss last night that nobody mentions which explain the passes everybody complains about.

The only thing I will complain about is emptying the backfield on 1st down. 50% of the time that leads to problems in protection, batted balls, etc. There's no reason you can't run nearly the same exact play with a back behind the quarterback and by doing so you slow down the pass rush.Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the Radio feed, Lenny the cool kept going, OOOOO empty backfield. As in, WTF are you doing?????

John_Wayne
10-22-2005, 11:53 AM
I've seen our offense produce more TDs from less yards. Lots of yards is great, but I'd prefer more TDs.

jidar
10-22-2005, 12:02 PM
Everybody bitches about the passing, but then everyone agrees that passing game opens up the running game and vice versa.

If we ran the ball as much as you geniuses seem to think we should, and we always did it in the obvious situations, then you'd all be bitching about the return of Martyball. AKA the vanilla predicatble offense that everybody and their mom knows how to beat. Sometimes from the outside things can look a little cute, but it works it produces results, and nearly 500 yards of offense is god damned results I don't care who you are.

Jesus christ. Shut up you're embarassing yourselves.

JBucc
10-22-2005, 12:04 PM
I'm just glad TG had more than 1 catch for 2 yards. And the running back rotation worked perfectly.

acasas4
10-22-2005, 12:13 PM
I've seen our offense produce more TDs from less yards. Lots of yards is great, but I'd prefer more TDs.
462 yards AND 30 points against a pretty damn good defense. I'll take that any day. :)

tk13
10-22-2005, 12:21 PM
You know, I don't have a problem with the empty backfield stuff. We've played so conservative and uptight because of the OL problems most of the year, there have been a couple games where we didn't even try to spread it out and take shots downfield, we need to get back to that, at least make it a threat for people to think about. That makes the running game more effective.

RINGLEADER
10-22-2005, 01:22 PM
I'd say that ratio is perfect for the talent we have.

My bitch is WHEN they decide to run/pass.

You don't empty the ****ing backfield on 1st down in a game you've got a big lead. There's no ****ing reason to do it and no ****ing reason to risk a sack/fumble/int at that point.

The last two weeks we've had a lead at the end of the game only needing to run out the clock. What do we do?

We pass.

It boggles the ****ing mind...

Can really disagree with this...especially when you have a big lead...

Sully
10-22-2005, 01:25 PM
I'm actually very excited because the Tight End screen gained more than 3 yards last night. That can only lead to great things for this offense!!!

4th and Long
10-22-2005, 03:27 PM
4th and long is never happy unless he has another fan to piss and moan about. 99.9% of the threads he starts are classified as "fan bashing" or "Rufus Dawes" material.
100% of Laz's posts are filled with sigs that most people wish would go away. :p

Deberg_1990
10-22-2005, 03:32 PM
We had 43 running plays and 34 pass plays. Looks like a pretty balanced offensive plan to me.

Why are people bitching abouit this again, exactly?

Because we didnt win 65-3.

Back off Saunders people....hes far from perfect but would you prefer Hackett and Jimmy Raye???

4th and Long
10-22-2005, 03:34 PM
would you prefer Hackett and Jimmy Raye???
http://img457.imageshack.us/img457/4933/eek44tg.gif :shake: