PDA

View Full Version : The Sporting News' Dan Pompei: "Saunders Should Succeed Vermeil as Chiefs Coach"


KCChiefsFan88
11-30-2005, 07:13 PM
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=39602



Saunders should succeed Vermeil as Chiefs coach
November 30, 2005

A lot of people around the league expect Chiefs coach Dick Vermeil to retire this season. And they also expect that he'll be replaced by his offensive coordinator Al Saunders.

Why wouldn't he be? Vermeil himself has campaigned for Saunders to be his replacement. The hire will be the responsibility of Chiefs president Carl Peterson. He has been around long enough to appreciate the job Saunders has done. Peterson also has great trust in Vermeil's opinion.

What Saunders has accomplished with the Chiefs offense over the last five years is pretty impressive, especially considering he's never had great receivers. The Chiefs have been able to thrive by plugging in players who have not had tremendous success elsewhere, like quarterback Trent Green, running back Priest Holmes and receiver Eddie Kennison. The Chiefs have been able to remain effective when Holmes has been injured, rolling along with Larry Johnson this season and Derek Blaylock last season.

All of that is a reflection on Saunders, the man Notre Dame coach Charlie Weiss once said was the best offensive mind in the NFL.

You also have to like the fact that Saunders has previous head coaching experience, having been the Chargers' lead man in the mid-80s. He's smart enough to have learned from his mistakes.

Keeping Saunders would give the Chiefs continuity, which is a hidden factor in the success of many teams. It clearly is the right move for Kansas City.

JBucc
11-30-2005, 07:17 PM
It's not that I don't like Saunders, just sometimes he gets a little too smart for his own good. I'd just like it if he stayed at OC and had someone to overrule some of his "cute" playcalls.

FringeNC
11-30-2005, 07:17 PM
"All of that is a reflection on Saunders, the man Notre Dame coach Charlie Weiss once said was the best offensive mind in the NFL."

I guess Weis is an idiot because clearly most of you guys think Saunders is incompetent.

Calcountry
11-30-2005, 07:29 PM
Simple rule, only use "cute" plays when you have leads of more than 21 points.

Reaper16
11-30-2005, 07:31 PM
Simple rule, only use "cute" plays when you have leads of more than 21 points.
Really. Instead of, like, down by three. :banghead:

milkman
11-30-2005, 07:34 PM
"All of that is a reflection on Saunders, the man Notre Dame coach Charlie Weiss once said was the best offensive mind in the NFL."

I guess Weis is an idiot because clearly most of you guys think Saunders is incompetent.

I don't think he's incompetent.

It's just sometimes, he overthinks things.

chop
11-30-2005, 07:46 PM
It's not that I don't like Saunders, just sometimes he gets a little too smart for his own good. I'd just like it if he stayed at OC and had someone to overrule some of his "cute" playcalls.

You can't argue with his success. You can't win on every play you call. He may see a weakness and try to exploit it. Or maybe some of the "cute" plays are designed to keep the defense guessing.

Color Red
11-30-2005, 08:13 PM
The hugely overlooked key aspect of selecting a head coach has to do with recognizing that successful coordinators don't necessarily work as head coaches. Just ask Gunther. And because a coordinator is good doesn't mean he can locate another coordinator do to his old job as well as he did. There are leadership aspects that successful head coaches have that distinguish them as head coaches. We can hope that Saunders has these aspects of his own but we can't assume he has them because he has been a successful coordinator, or because he once was a head coach in the league. Some got it, some don't. I don't know about Al. But we may well find out.

kcfanintitanhell
11-30-2005, 08:38 PM
I really don't know anything about Al Saunders as a person. The only place I've ever seen him is in his booth with a headset on...what kind of personality does he have? Has he been interviewed recently?

stevieray
11-30-2005, 08:45 PM
I really don't know anything about Al Saunders as a person. The only place I've ever seen him is in his booth with a headset on...what kind of personality does he have? Has he been interviewed recently?

The night of the Raider game, we had an auction to attend at the OPCC, so we stopped at Bristol for dinner...we were almost seated when Al tapped me on the shoulder and invited Arrowman and myself back to his table to meet his family, as well as Charlie Joiner and his wife.

He's a very nice guy, very articulate and well spoken.

Runs five miles a day.

tk13
11-30-2005, 08:46 PM
I really don't know anything about Al Saunders as a person. The only place I've ever seen him is in his booth with a headset on...what kind of personality does he have? Has he been interviewed recently?
Everything I've ever seen and heard is that he's a really nice guy. He'll talk to anybody... every fan account I've ever read on here has painted him as a really friendly guy. He does seem kinda reserved in interviews I guess, he doesn't seem real fiery, but he doesn't really seem to have an ego or anything like that.

The biggest problem people have with him is his cute playcalling and his issues with LJ. Dick and LJ have had their problems, but Al and LJ seem to have the biggest rift... Carl, Dick, and and LJ have all kinda hinted that Al has been the guy to keep LJ off the field in certain situations, and LJ has said he doesn't talk to Al. I like Al... I'm not sure I want him to be the head coach but I think he should be considered at least.

Skip Towne
11-30-2005, 09:00 PM
Ever heard of the Peter Principle? It states that a person will continue being promoted until he reaches his level of incompetence and will remain at that level. Al does not make good decisions. Cute play calling is but one example. He calls completely idiotic plays as well. Just before the half of the Pats game, we were at midfield with a chance to extend our lead by at least a FG. He gives the ball to TRich who gains two yards and we get nothing. He doesn't allow Trent to audible and he fails to make adjustments before halftime. His offenses run hot and cold. Three whole points against Buffalo. I want a HC that makes good decisions not a Peter Principled Al Saunders. We already went that route with Gunther.

tk13
11-30-2005, 09:08 PM
Ever heard of the Peter Principle? It states that a person will continue being promoted until he reaches his level of incompetence and will remain at that level. Al does not make good decisions. Cute play calling is but one example. He calls completely idiotic plays as well. Just before the half of the Pats game, we were at midfield with a chance to extend our lead by at least a FG. He gives the ball to TRich who gains two yards and we get nothing. He doesn't allow Trent to audible and he fails to make adjustments before halftime. His offenses run hot and cold. Three whole points against Buffalo. I want a HC that makes good decisions not a Peter Principled Al Saunders. We already went that route with Gunther.
Gunther and Al are not the same guy... so many people on this board are like people who've been burned in relationships. "Well, we tried that and it failed with Gunther, so it could obviously never work." Hogwash I say. I don't think it's the same situation at all.

chiefsfan1963
11-30-2005, 09:12 PM
If DV doesn't come back I vote for AS to be HC! He's earned it if he wants it.

Mecca
11-30-2005, 09:18 PM
Ever heard of the Peter Principle? It states that a person will continue being promoted until he reaches his level of incompetence and will remain at that level. Al does not make good decisions. Cute play calling is but one example. He calls completely idiotic plays as well. Just before the half of the Pats game, we were at midfield with a chance to extend our lead by at least a FG. He gives the ball to TRich who gains two yards and we get nothing. He doesn't allow Trent to audible and he fails to make adjustments before halftime. His offenses run hot and cold. Three whole points against Buffalo. I want a HC that makes good decisions not a Peter Principled Al Saunders. We already went that route with Gunther.

Al Saunders said they have an extensive audible system and the idea that they don't allow Trent to audible is false.

Count Alex's Losses
11-30-2005, 09:20 PM
Hell no. I don't care if he runs fifteen miles a day.

FringeNC
11-30-2005, 10:01 PM
Ever heard of the Peter Principle? It states that a person will continue being promoted until he reaches his level of incompetence and will remain at that level. Al does not make good decisions. Cute play calling is but one example. He calls completely idiotic plays as well. Just before the half of the Pats game, we were at midfield with a chance to extend our lead by at least a FG. He gives the ball to TRich who gains two yards and we get nothing. He doesn't allow Trent to audible and he fails to make adjustments before halftime. His offenses run hot and cold. Three whole points against Buffalo. I want a HC that makes good decisions not a Peter Principled Al Saunders. We already went that route with Gunther.

Amazing. We're not talking about Jimmy Raye, Paul Hackett, Gunther Cunningham, etc. We are talking about a coordinator that has had a top 3 offense for 4 years. Had the Chiefs had any defense these last years...

Sometimes it's tough to judge to performance of a person; in this case it's simple. AS is one of, if not the best OC in the game. It's damn near impossible to argue otherwise, and yet you want his head. It's mind-boggling.

Count Alex's Losses
11-30-2005, 10:21 PM
Al should not be the head coach. Look at how he handled Larry Johnson.

Rausch
11-30-2005, 10:53 PM
Call me a romantic but I believe in 2nd chances.

I honestly think Al could be a good HC. I don't know if he will, and while his style of offense is balls out badasss I hate his in-game play calling, but I suppose I'd give him a shot.

Somewhere, I think Gun will be a good HC. As well. As much as those two have been through I don't know how they couldn't have learned a helluva' lot...

tk13
11-30-2005, 10:57 PM
That's my biggest concern with letting Al go. He might be a little overboard, but odds are hiring anybody else will lead to our offense becoming more conservative...

Count Alex's Losses
11-30-2005, 10:59 PM
odds are hiring anybody else will lead to our offense becoming more conservative...

Bullcrap. There are plenty of agressive offensive coaches in this league.

jidar
11-30-2005, 11:11 PM
Man, almost everyone who has anything to do with professional football at a high level and is actually involved in it thinks Saunders is one of the best OCs in the league. Yet we still get these armchair nutjobs on here who think they know better. It's completely amazing, just absolutely amazing.
How could you be that ignorant?

tk13
11-30-2005, 11:12 PM
Bullcrap. There are plenty of agressive offensive coaches in this league.
Okay, let me rephrase that. Intelligent and aggressive offensive coaches. Mike Martz doesn't count. Plus, I was referring to people who were available. I don't know who'd be available that you're referring to... Bob Bratkowski maybe? I don't know. There are some aggressive offenses, but I don't see anybody that jumps out unless you go way down the coaching chains to a virtual unknown who may or may not be that aggressive offensively. I'm talking "go for it from the 1 with 5 seconds to go/throw a 99 yard bomb from the other 1" type aggressiveness that Saunders would have.

Count Alex's Losses
11-30-2005, 11:13 PM
Man, almost everyone who has anything to do with professional football at a high level and is actually involved in it thinks Saunders is one of the best OCs in the league. Yet we still get these armchair nutjobs on here who think they know better. It's completely amazing, just absolutely amazing.
How could you be that ignorant?

He's a fine OC.

He'd make a horrible HC.

HemiEd
11-30-2005, 11:13 PM
The night of the Raider game, we had an auction to attend at the OPCC, so we stopped at Bristol for dinner...we were almost seated when Al tapped me on the shoulder and invited Arrowman and myself back to his table to meet his family, as well as Charlie Joiner and his wife.

He's a very nice guy, very articulate and well spoken.

Runs five miles a day.


Thanks for sharing that FDE, I like the guy even more now.

Dammit Carl! :cuss: Do the right thing and lock him up

or maybe you already have. :D

Count Alex's Losses
11-30-2005, 11:13 PM
Okay, let me rephrase that. Intelligent and aggressive offensive coaches. Mike Martz doesn't count. Plus, I was referring to people who were available. I don't know who'd be available that you're referring to... Bob Bratkowski maybe? I don't know. There are some aggressive offenses, but I don't see anybody that jumps out unless you go way down the coaching chains to a virtual unknown who may or may not be that aggressive offensively. I'm talking "go for it from the 1 with 5 seconds to go/throw a 99 yard bomb from the other 1" type aggressiveness that Saunders would have.

So you're saying Al Saunders is the only OC in the league that would have done that? ROFL

philfree
11-30-2005, 11:14 PM
The question in regards to hiring Saunders as the next HC is will he call the plays still or will he have an OC take over. As good as our offense has been we all scratch our heads about some of the plays he calls. As the HC Al will still have control of the offense and continue to have his influence on it. But if someone else is calling the plays maybe we won't burn ourselves trying to be to cute when we don't need to be. I will say that part of the reason our offense puts up the numbers it does is because of Al unpredictability and his "Helter Skelter" style of playing calling. All that said I'd prefer DV stick around for one more year. We have a good systems in place on both sides of the ball at this point and IMO we'd be best served to maintain them. We can do that with Saunders as HC but I also think DV is a little luckier then most and I'd like to think that with him around we might be able cash in on that.

PhilFree:arrow:

tk13
11-30-2005, 11:15 PM
So you're saying Al Saunders is the only OC in the league that would have done that? ROFL
That has happened how many times in the last 20 years? Four? Five? How can you act incredulous at that? Most coaches would NEVER do such a thing... too much risk.

Count Alex's Losses
11-30-2005, 11:18 PM
The Buccaneers did it the next week.

I don't have a problem with Al at OC. But he wouldn't make a good head coach. The Larry Johnson fiasco is proof enough.

FringeNC
11-30-2005, 11:19 PM
Man, almost everyone who has anything to do with professional football at a high level and is actually involved in it thinks Saunders is one of the best OCs in the league. Yet we still get these armchair nutjobs on here who think they know better. It's completely amazing, just absolutely amazing.
How could you be that ignorant?

My sentiments exactly. I think that guy Weis knows a little bit about offenses.

jidar
11-30-2005, 11:20 PM
He's a fine OC.

He'd make a horrible HC.

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't, but anyone who points at his playcalling as the reason why he wouldn't be a good HC is full of shit. His offense is flat out better than anyone elses save perhaps the Colts and their talent level on O is over ours. You can't say "his play calling is too cute" because that is litteraly saying the best play calling in the league isn't good enough for you. What do you ****ing want?

I don't know if Saunders would be a good HC, but he's the best damned OC this franchise has ever seen by a damn sight and perhaps one of the greatest this game has ever seen.

tk13
11-30-2005, 11:22 PM
I geniunely question whether the Bucs would've done that had we not done it the week before. I think there are about three teams that would do what we did in that situation. Us, the Rams with Martz... and even that's highly in question, Martz has played for FG's before... and maybe the Colts, and that's only if Peyton takes control. Believing that most NFL coaches would attempt going for it in that situation is naive at best. We've had articles posted here about how conservative most NFL coaches are about things like that... I mean, just watch the games, that doesn't happen. You take your 3 points and play for OT.

FringeNC
11-30-2005, 11:22 PM
The Buccaneers did it the next week.

I don't have a problem with Al at OC. But he wouldn't make a good head coach. The Larry Johnson fiasco is proof enough.

Exactly what fiasco are you referring to?

milkman
11-30-2005, 11:24 PM
Man, almost everyone who has anything to do with professional football at a high level and is actually involved in it thinks Saunders is one of the best OCs in the league. Yet we still get these armchair nutjobs on here who think they know better. It's completely amazing, just absolutely amazing.
How could you be that ignorant?

Almost everyone who had anything to do with professional football at a high level and is actually involved in it also thought the same about Chris Palmer a few years ago.

That myth has been debunked.

Kevin Gillbride, the same.

Sometimes, even the "experts" get it wrong.

FringeNC
11-30-2005, 11:26 PM
He's a fine OC.

He'd make a horrible HC.

You've been on this thread pummeling Saunders, and now you say he's a fine OC? Get your story straight. No one knows whether he or anyone else we hire will be a great head coach. What we do know is that Al is a great OC. Does he make mistakes? Sure. But the Chiefs' offensive stats are easier to look up. I suggest you go to ESPN, look them up for the last few years, and then get back to.

jidar
11-30-2005, 11:27 PM
Almost everyone who had anything to do with professional football at a high level and is actually involved in it also thought the same about Chris Palmer a few years ago.

That myth has been debunked.

Kevin Gillbride, the same.

Sometimes, even the "experts" get it wrong.

See now that's just ridiculous. You're saying no amount of stats, evidence, performance and peer review is going to convince you Saunders isn't a nutty OC. You and the handful of people on here who hate everything about everything year after year (that's just coincidence!) have got it all figured out, the rest of the football world is just wrong.
amazing.

FringeNC
11-30-2005, 11:28 PM
Almost everyone who had anything to do with professional football at a high level and is actually involved in it also thought the same about Chris Palmer a few years ago.

That myth has been debunked.

Kevin Gillbride, the same.

Sometimes, even the "experts" get it wrong.

Did either one of those guys put together a top 3 offense for 4 years in a row? What in the **** does Al have to do? He can't design the offense, and defense too.

tk13
11-30-2005, 11:30 PM
Almost everyone who had anything to do with professional football at a high level and is actually involved in it also thought the same about Chris Palmer a few years ago.

That myth has been debunked.

Kevin Gillbride, the same.

Sometimes, even the "experts" get it wrong.
It should be noted that both of those guys took jobs with other organizations. I think that is a big difference when comparing to a coordinator taking over a team he's already familiar with.

That said, for every one of those guys there is a Gruden, Belichick, Holmgren, Shanahan, Reid, etc...

Count Alex's Losses
11-30-2005, 11:32 PM
You've been on this thread pummeling Saunders, and now you say he's a fine OC? Get your story straight.

I already have. He's a fine OC. He'd make a horrible HC.

Count Alex's Losses
11-30-2005, 11:33 PM
Exactly what fiasco are you referring to?

The fact that he was on the bench. Even when Priest was down.

If Al was up to snuff, he'd have recognized that Larry needed to be on the field.

Instead, both Dick and Al let their egos get the best of them.

Mecca
11-30-2005, 11:34 PM
I'm not sure there's going to be a better canidate than Saunders for the job. I'd rather have Saunders than say Gregg Williams.......

milkman
11-30-2005, 11:34 PM
See now that's just ridiculous. You're saying no amount of stats, evidence, performance and peer review is going to convince you Saunders isn't a nutty OC. You and the handful of people on here who hate everything about everything year after year (that's just coincidence!) have got it all figured out, the rest of the football world is just wrong.
amazing.

You are making assumptions.

Al has pissed me off a couple of times with his play calling, but I'm not an Al hater.

I even hav said that I wouldn't be as pissed if he got the HC job as I was when Marty did, and when Dick did.

I'm just pointing out that the experts aren't always right.

Count Alex's Losses
11-30-2005, 11:35 PM
Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't, but anyone who points at his playcalling as the reason why he wouldn't be a good HC is full of shit.

That's not what I'm saying, but his playcalling is far from perfect. Remember the Eagles game?

tk13
11-30-2005, 11:38 PM
I'm not sure there's going to be a better canidate than Saunders for the job. I'd rather have Saunders than say Gregg Williams.......
Yeah, I'm not sure if I want Al in there... he should be considered though. I think one advantage to hiring him is that we would not likely have to worry about any rebuilding and/or somebody tearing up the roster a little because a new coach wanted "his players" aka Bill Parcells style. I only say that because I don't think we'll have to tear this team up even if DV retires. There might be some parts we need to replace, but I really don't think we need to trash the whole thing and start over... we've got an improving defense, a great RB, and some good offensive linemen to build around. There are a lot of fans who would disagree though... we'll see.

FringeNC
11-30-2005, 11:40 PM
The fact that he was on the bench. Even when Priest was down.

If Al was up to snuff, he'd have recognized that Larry needed to be on the field.

Instead, both Dick and Al let their egos get the best of them.

Are you talking about last year? If so, they were legitimately worried about LJ's pass blocking. It's not easy to pick up. That idiot Lawrence Philips ended Steve Young's career because he didn't know the blocking schemes. I think DV and AS were concerned about it ...as they should have been.

Mecca
11-30-2005, 11:40 PM
Well, I think at the least a partial rebuilding job needs to be done. We have some bad contracts that need need to go.

Rausch
11-30-2005, 11:41 PM
Well, I think at the least a partial rebuilding job needs to be done. We have some bad contracts that need need to go.

Like who?

Count Alex's Losses
11-30-2005, 11:46 PM
Are you talking about last year? If so, they were legitimately worried about LJ's pass blocking. It's not easy to pick up. That idiot Lawrence Philips ended Steve Young's career because he didn't know the blocking schemes. I think DV and AS were concerned about it ...as they should have been.

That's not a good excuse, and it's not a good excuse as to why his ass was glued to the bench in his rookie year.

I mean good christ, the guy is one of our best playmakers, and he couldn't even get a carry until the Colts game.

The only reason LJ got on the field last year was injury. That is just pathetic.

Mecca
11-30-2005, 11:47 PM
Like who?

Shawn Barber, Jerome Woods, Eric Hicks, Dextor McCleon, not to mention Kendrell Bells contract structure makes it where alot of money can be saved by cutting him.

tk13
11-30-2005, 11:49 PM
That's not a good excuse, and it's not a good excuse as to why his ass was glued to the bench in his rookie year.

I mean good christ, the guy is one of our best playmakers, and he couldn't even get a carry until the Colts game.

The only reason LJ got on the field last year was injury. That is just pathetic.
I agree that we could've been more creative with him... you could tell from the Chicago game in '03 and the kick returns in the preseason that he could make things happen. I would disagree that pass protection is something you can just gloss over though...

CoMoChief
11-30-2005, 11:51 PM
I think we should give it a shot at Al running the show. He's already the assistant head coach now, not that it means anything, but it is a title to be take in consideration. How does anyone here know that Al's play calling is all of his fault. Maybe it's Vermeil that overrules whats being called sometimes and sometimes that why we're cute.

The guy certainly has a ton of credibilty making the Chiefs offense the best it has ever been in its history. The guy developed Torry Holt over in St. Louis to help make him what he is today. We have had SHIT recievers to work with and Al has done enough to make up for that slack (having a Tony Gonzalez always helps too). Who else is out there that is available who is any better? Personally I do not want Jeff Fisher to come to KC or Herm Edwards. Christ people hes had to deal with a HOF lineman being gone half the season, thats certainly gonna **** up anybodys offensive gameplan. We need to stay within the Coryell system. Thats all that Trent Green has really played under as well as most of the people on our offense. Trent is too old to start "gelling" under a new system to get this team to where it needs to be to become a successful offensive unit. I would be fine with AS getting the HC job.

Count Alex's Losses
11-30-2005, 11:52 PM
I agree that we could've been more creative with him... you could tell from the Chicago game in '03 and the kick returns in the preseason that he could make things happen. I would disagree that pass protection is something you can just gloss over though...

I'm not glossing over it. There's no way LJ should have been starting in 03 or 04.

But it's not a very good excuse to use as to why he wasn't on the field. LJ doesn't have to block anyone when it's a running play.

FringeNC
11-30-2005, 11:54 PM
That's not a good excuse, and it's not a good excuse as to why his ass was glued to the bench in his rookie year.

I mean good christ, the guy is one of our best playmakers, and he couldn't even get a carry until the Colts game.

The only reason LJ got on the field last year was injury. That is just pathetic.


If I'm not mistaken, there were 32 teams in the league last year, and I think we ranked #1 in offense. # ****ing 1. And your bitching because your favorite player didn't get enough carries....???

Count Alex's Losses
11-30-2005, 11:56 PM
If I'm not mistaken, there were 32 teams in the league last year, and I think we ranked #1 in offense. # ****ing 1. And your bitching because your favorite player didn't get enough carries....???

We were ranked #1 only after LJ had his run as starter at the end of the season.

LJ could have helped us in losses to Houston, Carolina, Denver, Jacksonville etc.

The offense underperformed in all of those games.

The Chiefs played their best football with LJ as the starter last year. The Chiefs are playing their best football with LJ as the starter again this year. Funny how that works.

philfree
11-30-2005, 11:58 PM
That's not a good excuse, and it's not a good excuse as to why his ass was glued to the bench in his rookie year.

I mean good christ, the guy is one of our best playmakers, and he couldn't even get a carry until the Colts game.

The only reason LJ got on the field last year was injury. That is just pathetic.

Derrick Blaylock was also a factor in why LJ wasn't gettng on the field. The things Blaylock brought to the table fit in perfectly with our O. His speed and recieving skills caused major problems for defenses when he came off the bench. He had paid his dues and knew the offense better then LJ did at that time and he was great on STs. It's hard to have 3RBs on your game day roster so Blaylock got the nod over LJ. IMO the way we've handled LJ has made him into a better player.

PhilFree:arrow:

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:00 AM
The fact that Al Saunders thought Derrick Blaylock should be on the field instead of Larry Johnson is EXACTLY why he SHOULDN'T be our head coach.

CoMoChief
12-01-2005, 12:01 AM
We were ranked #1 only after LJ had his run as starter at the end of the season.

LJ could have helped us in losses to Houston, Carolina, Denver, Jacksonville etc.

The offense underperformed in all of those games.

The Chiefs played their best football with LJ as the starter last year. The Chiefs are playing their best football with LJ as the starter again this year. Funny how that works.




Our shit ass defense could have helped as well. 3 of those teams were shitty offensively and had no business scoring against us at all. Jax was awful offensively avg something like 10 points a game, HOU is HOU, and Carolina had more injuries than almost any other football team. You can't expect to blame the offense for not putting up 30points a game. I cant remember of any offense that scores 30 points a game.

CoMoChief
12-01-2005, 12:02 AM
The fact that Al Saunders thought Derrick Blaylock should be on the field instead of Larry Johnson is EXACTLY why he SHOULDN'T be our head coach.



Blaylock was better than Johnson AT THE TIME.

Rausch
12-01-2005, 12:03 AM
If I'm not mistaken, there were 32 teams in the league last year, and I think we ranked #1 in offense. # ****ing 1. And your bitching because your favorite player didn't get enough carries....???

I don't know about anyone else but I'm bitching because that no 1 offense was capable of carrying our $#at defense in a number of games but horrible play calls at critical moments cost us games.

tk13
12-01-2005, 12:04 AM
I'm not glossing over it. There's no way LJ should have been starting in 03 or 04.

But it's not a very good excuse to use as to why he wasn't on the field. LJ doesn't have to block anyone when it's a running play.
Yeahhh... I don't know, if you only use him for running plays, there is going to be no element of surprise, that's not gonna be very hard to stop. Plus, that requires taking Priest Holmes off the field... and at that time he was performing as well as just about any RB in the history of the game... that's a tough call. I think we should've dabbled in it but really you're not talking more than 4-5 carries a game.

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:04 AM
Blaylock was better than Johnson AT THE TIME.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. :rolleyes:

tk13
12-01-2005, 12:06 AM
We were ranked #1 only after LJ had his run as starter at the end of the season.

LJ could have helped us in losses to Houston, Carolina, Denver, Jacksonville etc.

The offense underperformed in all of those games.

The Chiefs played their best football with LJ as the starter last year. The Chiefs are playing their best football with LJ as the starter again this year. Funny how that works.
I think that's terribly misleading as well. LJ beat up on the Raiders, Titans, the Broncos when they were melting down. Waaay different than facing the Jacksonville and Carolina OLines.

And really, to say a better RB would've helped is false. That was NOT our problem. Priest was performing better than he had in 2003. He was carrying that offense. Like the Denver game? He was a total animal in that game.

Rausch
12-01-2005, 12:06 AM
Our shit ass defense could have helped as well. 3 of those teams were shitty offensively and had no business scoring against us at all. Jax was awful offensively avg something like 10 points a game, HOU is HOU, and Carolina had more injuries than almost any other football team. You can't expect to blame the offense for not putting up 30points a game. I cant remember of any offense that scores 30 points a game.

And that is what boils me.

We had (at the time) the best HB in all of football and we insisted on quick scoring drives. We could have owned the TOP and killed clock, protecting a defense we all knew was dog$#it, but (until last year) we didn't.

Running the ball isn't flashy, but 4 fewer drives for the opponent is 4 fewer that horrible excuse for a defense was on the field...

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:07 AM
Yeahhh... I don't know, if you only use him for running plays, there is going to be no element of surprise, that's not gonna be very hard to stop. Plus, that requires taking Priest Holmes off the field... and at that time he was performing as well as just about any RB in the history of the game... that's a tough call. I think we should've dabbled in it but really you're not talking more than 4-5 carries a game.

4-5 carries a game would have been fine. The fact is Al Saunders should have gotten his ass on the field.

Rausch
12-01-2005, 12:07 AM
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. :rolleyes:

I agree with him.

At that time Blaylock was a more developed player.

Far less talent, but a better overall player...

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:09 AM
I think that's terribly misleading as well. LJ beat up on the Raiders, Titans, the Broncos when they were melting down. Waaay different than facing the Jacksonville and Carolina OLines.

And really, to say a better RB would've helped is false. That was NOT our problem. Priest was performing better than he had in 2003. He was carrying that offense.

You can't sit here and say LJ wouldn't have made plays to turn the tide in those games. He's a talented football player. He WOULD have helped.

And you can point to the opposition all you want. LJ's doing the same thing this year.

No one was making excuses against Priest when he ran on someone with a shitty defense.

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:10 AM
I agree with him.

At that time Blaylock was a more developed player.

Far less talent, but a better overall player...

I don't buy it.

Blaylock didn't do shit in his starts apart from the game against New Orleans horrible defense (and Blaylock dropped a pass that led to a game-killing INT in that game).

LJ killed people.

Rausch
12-01-2005, 12:14 AM
I don't buy it.

Blaylock didn't do shit in his starts apart from the game against New Orleans horrible defense (and Blaylock dropped a pass that led to a game-killing INT in that game).

LJ killed people.

Blaylock tied a ****ing NFL record against the Falcons (at the time the no 1 team against the run.)

Blaylock blew up that same year against the lions as well. He's a small, but solid player.

I'm not saying it's all LJ's fault. I love the guy. He's my dream RB.

But the Saunders/DV hatred and his own immaturity kept him off the field. It was a two way street.

tk13
12-01-2005, 12:14 AM
You can't sit here and say LJ wouldn't have made plays to turn the tide in those games. He's a talented football player. He WOULD have helped.

And you can point to the opposition all you want. LJ's doing the same thing this year.

No one was making excuses against Priest when he ran on someone with a shitty defense.
Are you serious? Priest was the only reason we stayed in any of those games. That opening Denver game? He ran for like 150 yards and broke tackles all over the place. The Houston game? He was on freaking crutches, still ran for like 130, and was the only player who tried to make a play on Marcus Coleman's INT return that was the real reason we lost. The Jax game? How about that pitch from a falling Green to Priest, where Priest outruns everybody, makes an amazing run that goes all the way across the field, and goes in for the tying score only to watch Tynes blow the XP. Without Priest we get owned in every one of those games.

philfree
12-01-2005, 12:18 AM
Blaylock is a better reciever then Holmes or Johnson and he is faster then them too. That with his STs play made him very valuable. So if we had 3 RBs on the game day roster who doesn't suit up? I could see LJs talent in his 1st preseason but I can see reasons why things were done the way they were. There was no fault IMO.

PhilFree:arrow:

Rausch
12-01-2005, 12:18 AM
Are you serious? Priest was the only reason we stayed in any of those games. That opening Denver game? He ran for like 150 yards and broke tackles all over the place. The Houston game? He was on freaking crutches, still ran for like 130, and was the only player who tried to make a play on Marcus Coleman's INT return that was the real reason we lost. The Jax game? How about that pitch from a falling Green to Priest, where Priest outruns everybody, makes an amazing run that goes all the way across the field, and goes in for the tying score only to watch Tynes blow the XP. Without Priest we get owned in every one of those games.

Priest was the ONLY reason I didn't give up on this team the last 3 years.

Good luck finding a guy who's accomplished what he has, broken as many records as he has, in the amount of games he's started that isn't in the HOF.

alanm
12-01-2005, 12:19 AM
Man, almost everyone who has anything to do with professional football at a high level and is actually involved in it thinks Saunders is one of the best OCs in the league. Yet we still get these armchair nutjobs on here who think they know better. It's completely amazing, just absolutely amazing.
How could you be that ignorant?
It takes years and years of practice. BTW I'm cool with Al. :thumb:

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:20 AM
Blaylock tied a ****ing NFL record against the Falcons (at the time the no 1 team against the run.)

Those TD runs were nothing special.

Blaylock blew up that same year against the lions as well.

That was 2003.

All you need to know about Blaylock is how he's done in New York this year.

10 carries, 19 yards.

2 catches, 13 yards.

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:21 AM
Are you serious? Priest was the only reason we stayed in any of those games. That opening Denver game? He ran for like 150 yards and broke tackles all over the place. The Houston game? He was on freaking crutches, still ran for like 130, and was the only player who tried to make a play on Marcus Coleman's INT return that was the real reason we lost. The Jax game? How about that pitch from a falling Green to Priest, where Priest outruns everybody, makes an amazing run that goes all the way across the field, and goes in for the tying score only to watch Tynes blow the XP. Without Priest we get owned in every one of those games.

LJ playing in a game doesn't exclude Priest Holmes playing in the same game.

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:23 AM
There was no fault IMO.



Nope, it was Al and Dick's fault. LJ should have been on the field.

I don't know why this is surprising to anyone. These are the same clowns that wanted Priest and Tony Richardson to split carries at the start of 2001.

tk13
12-01-2005, 12:24 AM
LJ playing in a game doesn't exclude Priest Holmes playing in the same game.
You said LJ would've turned the tide. Priest already turned the tide in all of those games... somebody else always came along to screw it up. It wouldn't have been any different for LJ.

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:25 AM
You said LJ would've turned the tide. Priest already turned the tide in all of those games... somebody else always came along to screw it up. It wouldn't have been any different for LJ.

You can't sit here and say that. LJ could have made equally amazing plays in all those games that helped us win them.

There is ZERO EXCUSE for not getting LJ on the field sooner. I'm just glad Carl Peterson knows it, because he's not going to let Al become our next head coach.

I guess now I'm going to catch flak for siding with Carl.... ROFL

Rausch
12-01-2005, 12:25 AM
Those TD runs were nothing special.

You are on crack.



That was 2003.

Mother****er. It was.

And I was at that game. I have no excuse.

All you need to know about Blaylock is how he's done in New York this year.

10 carries, 19 yards.

2 catches, 13 yards.

He was injured week 5, is now out for the season, while backing up one of the most durable RB's in NFL history...

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:26 AM
You are on crack.


I have those TD runs on disk. The O-line pretty much destroys anyone in Blaylock's way.


He was injured week 5, is now out for the season, while backing up one of the most durable RB's in NFL history...

Even more reason...

tk13
12-01-2005, 12:27 AM
You can't sit here and say that. LJ could have made equally amazing plays in all those games that helped us win them.

There is ZERO EXCUSE for not getting LJ on the field sooner. I'm just glad Carl Peterson knows it, because he's not going to let Al become our next head coach.

I guess now I'm going to catch flak for siding with Carl.... ROFL
That was my exact point. LJ could've made equally amazing plays. Don't disagree one bit. And we still would've lost.

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:29 AM
That was my exact point. LJ could've made equally amazing plays. Don't disagree one bit. And we still would've lost.

No, I'm saying LJ could have made OTHER equally amazing plays at OTHER times in the game that could have won the game for us. Our offense f*cked up quite a bit in those games.

Rausch
12-01-2005, 12:29 AM
You can't sit here and say that. LJ could have made equally amazing plays in all those games that helped us win them.

And how can you say that?

Experience makes every player better. You're seeing years of experience this year in LJ, as well as a better and more committed attitude.

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:30 AM
And how can you say that?


Because LJ started making plays as soon as he got a shot to extended touches. When Priest went down in Tampa Bay he got on the field and made several plays in the passing game.

This coaching staff should have had him on the field sooner. They let their egos get in the way.

Rausch
12-01-2005, 12:31 AM
Even more reason...

Using that logic anyone who's had a season ending injury is poo.

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:31 AM
Using that logic anyone who's had a season ending injury is poo.

No. Anyone that does jack shit during the season and then gets hurt is poo.

Rausch
12-01-2005, 12:31 AM
Because LJ started making plays as soon as he got a shot to extended touches.

And he got more touches as he became more of a complete player.

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:32 AM
And he got more touches as he became more of a complete player.

Yeah, that was it. :rolleyes:

LJ became a more complete player right when Blaylock got hurt. It was an AMAZING coincidence.

alanm
12-01-2005, 12:45 AM
We were ranked #1 only after LJ had his run as starter at the end of the season.

LJ could have helped us in losses to Houston, Carolina, Denver, Jacksonville etc.

The offense underperformed in all of those games.

The Chiefs played their best football with LJ as the starter last year. The Chiefs are playing their best football with LJ as the starter again this year. Funny how that works.
The offense under performed at Buffalo last month with LJ, how do you explain that?

philfree
12-01-2005, 12:46 AM
To me it was easy to see that LJ was a better pure RB then Blaylock but there was more to it then that. As good as LJ is I don't think he could have handled all the duties that Blaylock did. When Holmes went down last year I would have made Blaylock the starter but I would have given Johnson more carries. And then when Johnson proved it on the field I would have moved him to starter and Blaylock could go back to what he does best and be a role player and a STs standout.

PhilFree:arrow:

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 12:52 AM
The offense under performed at Buffalo last month with LJ, how do you explain that?

Uh, how about TRENT GREEN?

alanm
12-01-2005, 01:08 AM
Uh, how about TRENT GREEN?
Uh.. that's not the point. Sure Trent threw a few int's but LJ was in the game. Ergo you're hypothesis is flawed. :)

Count Alex's Losses
12-01-2005, 01:19 AM
Uh.. that's not the point. Sure Trent threw a few int's but LJ was in the game. Ergo you're hypothesis is flawed. :)

No, it's not.