PDA

View Full Version : So what becomes of Trent Green?


Deberg_1990
01-01-2006, 04:40 PM
If we bring in a new coach with a new offensive philosophy does that mean that Trent will leave? Hes never played in any other system but this one. Would he be as good in a different offensive system?? Something else to ponder over........

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 04:42 PM
Whoever we bring will HOPEFULLY not be stupid enough to install a new offense.

They will keep the offense. Solari might be OC next year, although I'd love to see Trent Green call his own plays for a full year.

Hoover
01-01-2006, 04:43 PM
If we bring in a Defensive HC, I think Trent stays 1-2 more years. I just can't see a new coach coming in here and wanting Green to leave. Trent needs to rework his deal for next season, thats all

cdcox
01-01-2006, 04:44 PM
I think Carl will dictate that the offensive systems stays. That and possibly the hire of an OC will be a condition of employment.

alnorth
01-01-2006, 04:45 PM
He's under contract with no outs. He finished second in the AFC passer ratings, barely being edged out by Jake Plummer. I dont care who is the coach, Trent has two choices: play for the Chiefs or retire. This isnt even a topic for discussion, Trent will be a Chief next year. There is financially and strategically no benefit whatsoever for the Chiefs in any situation where Trent is not our starter for 2006.

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 04:45 PM
You really have to give Trent some credit this year. He only threw 10 interceptions, and 7 of those 10 came in three games!

He had 3 INT in the other 13 games!

MichaelH
01-01-2006, 04:46 PM
If Carl was to allow a new offensive system to come in, he's really a complete idiot. And nobody knows the system better than Trent.

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 04:46 PM
He finished second in the AFC passer ratings, barely being edged out by Jake Plummer.

Er, might want to check that again. ROFL

BTW, what are the chances of Norv Turner being our new OC? He's a bad head coach, but a wonderful OC and he knows Trent personally.

Deberg_1990
01-01-2006, 04:47 PM
He's under contract with no outs. He finished second in the AFC passer ratings, barely being edged out by Jake Plummer. I dont care who is the coach, Trent has two choices: play for the Chiefs or retire. This isnt even a topic for discussion, Trent will be a Chief next year. There is financially and strategically no benefit whatsoever for the Chiefs in any situation where Trent is not our starter for 2006.

I agree..i want him to stay, but i cant imagine him running any other offense?? It would be criminal to change offensive strategies now.

Lbedrock1
01-01-2006, 04:48 PM
If we bring in a new coach with a new offensive philosophy does that mean that Trent will leave? Hes never played in any other system but this one. Would he be as good in a different offensive system?? Something else to ponder over........
I beleive we keep Trent as our QB I think he could be successful in another Offensive system that calls plays to his strength. We just have to groom another QB to take his place.

htismaqe
01-01-2006, 04:57 PM
Trent Green is seasoned and smart.

He'll be fine in just about any offense...

alnorth
01-01-2006, 04:58 PM
Er, might want to check that again. ROFL

BTW, what are the chances of Norv Turner being our new OC? He's a bad head coach, but a wonderful OC and he knows Trent personally.

Your right, that should teach me not to pass on something second-hand that I heard elsewhere without checking the facts.

Still, even if the new coach wanted to get rid of Trent for whatever stupid reason, he couldnt. The Chiefs have no other options, we'd have to draft someone this year and start him right away, which means that we throw away any chance at the playoffs in 2006.

Matt Helm
01-01-2006, 05:00 PM
If Carl was to allow a new offensive system to come in, he's really a complete idiot. And nobody knows the system better than Trent.

Without Al Saunders the same offensive system will not be the same. It will be like recreating the wheel from a boulder.

I predict with a new head coach we go no better than 7-9 next year.

Logical
01-01-2006, 05:01 PM
You really have to give Trent some credit this year. He only threw 10 interceptions, and 7 of those 10 came in three games!

He had 3 INT in the other 13 games!While all that is true, he also only threw 17 TDs which is piss poor. It was not such a good year for Trent.

htismaqe
01-01-2006, 05:02 PM
Without Al Saunders the same offensive system will not be the same. It will be like recreating the wheel from a boulder.

I predict with a new head coach we go no better than 7-9 next year.

Why the negativity?

Stand up and support your team!

Demonpenz
01-01-2006, 05:03 PM
hopefully he learns how to hold on to the ****ing ball when he gets tackled

Deberg_1990
01-01-2006, 05:06 PM
While all that is true, he also only threw 17 TDs which is piss poor. It was not such a good year for Trent.

Actually Tony G only had 2 TD's all season. If he would have had his traditional 10-12 TD's Trents stats would have looked a whole lot better. They just didnt call Tonys number much in the Red Zone this year. No surprise considering what the Priest/LJ combo did this year.

theWaltMon
01-01-2006, 05:07 PM
Earlier this season Green, like much of the rest of the team, looked old and tired. But the latter part of the season (overlooking the NYG game), I hope Trent stays.

MGRS13
01-01-2006, 05:08 PM
Trent will stay the real question is who do we bring in as number two/qbotf? I sat Matt schaub the back up in Atlanta I think he would be the perfect replacement for trent.

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 05:09 PM
While all that is true, he also only threw 17 TDs which is piss poor. It was not such a good year for Trent.

It's not piss poor when your running backs score 30 TDs.

Trent's TD passes were down because we couldn't get Tony Gonzalez on track inside the red zone. That doesn't mean Trent had a bad year.

He's one of the few QBs in NFL History to have 3 consecutive seasons of 4,000 yards and 90+ QB rating.

Valiant
01-01-2006, 05:10 PM
Your right, that should teach me not to pass on something second-hand that I heard elsewhere without checking the facts.

Still, even if the new coach wanted to get rid of Trent for whatever stupid reason, he couldnt. The Chiefs have no other options, we'd have to draft someone this year and start him right away, which means that we throw away any chance at the playoffs in 2006.


Especially when your source is Gochiefs...

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 05:11 PM
Especially when your source is Gochiefs...

What? I never said that. I said he finished behind Jake Plummer in a two-man competition. Not in the entire AFC.

Valiant
01-01-2006, 05:12 PM
hopefully he learns how to hold on to the ****ing ball when he gets tackled

You are an idiot.. He was in the bottom third of QB's who fumbled this year.. That shit happens to all Qb's when you get blindsided...

Valiant
01-01-2006, 05:12 PM
What? I never said that. I said he finished behind Jake Plummer in a two-man competition. Not in the entire AFC.


I know, you know, that guy did not when quoting what you wrote...

BigMeatballDave
01-01-2006, 05:18 PM
I predict with a new head coach we go no better than 7-9 next year.That is still better than DVs 1st season here...

Logical
01-01-2006, 05:18 PM
It's not piss poor when your running backs score 30 TDs.

Trent's TD passes were down because we couldn't get Tony Gonzalez on track inside the red zone. That doesn't mean Trent had a bad year.

He's one of the few QBs in NFL History to have 3 consecutive seasons of 4,000 yards and 90+ QB rating.

Sorry but the reason our redzone efficiency fell so much this year is mainly due to the poor TD passing performance by Trent. I like Trent but you have to view things realistically. Chiefs had 31 rushing TDs last year, and 29 in 2003 so that did not really change.

Demonpenz
01-01-2006, 05:20 PM
You are an idiot.. He was in the bottom third of QB's who fumbled this year.. That shit happens to all Qb's when you get blindsided...

sarcasim buddy...i was just saying it before someone else did

Matt Helm
01-01-2006, 05:20 PM
Why the negativity?

Stand up and support your team!

I've decided to join the Chiefs Planet bandwaggon.

Show no support and be negative at every turn. Maybe I can fit in there if I act like the rest of you.

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 05:21 PM
Sorry but the reason our redzone efficiency fell so much this year is mainly due to the poor TD passing performance by Trent. I like Trent but you have to view things realistically. Chiefs had 31 rushing TDs last year, and 29 in 2003 so that did not really change.

Yeah I saw Green overthrowing so many guys in the redzone this year. :rolleyes:

The bottom line is Trent didn't have an effective redzone threat to throw to this year. Whether it was bad playcalling or just age catching up with Tony G remains to be seen.

Personally, I think our passing playcalling in the redzone sucks ass.

Demonpenz
01-01-2006, 05:22 PM
I've decided to join the Chiefs Planet bandwaggon.

Show no support and be negative at every turn. Maybe I can fit in there if I act like the rest of you.

sorry we're all full of gays already

BigMeatballDave
01-01-2006, 05:22 PM
While all that is true, he also only threw 17 TDs which is piss poor. It was not such a good year for Trent. You are getting senile. This is a rushing O. They rushed for 2000+ yards this season. Just because Trents TD totals are down, does not mean he had a bad season. Jesus... :rolleyes:

htismaqe
01-01-2006, 05:24 PM
I've decided to join the Chiefs Planet bandwaggon.

Show no support and be negative at every turn. Maybe I can fit in there if I act like the rest of you.

No, you're too negative for us.

Nobody here thinks we'll be 7-9 here except for you.

Logical
01-01-2006, 05:26 PM
You are getting senile. This is a rushing O. They rushed for 2000+ yards this season. Just because Trents TD totals are down, does not mean he had a bad season. Jesus... :rolleyes:

I will repeat this for you.

Sorry but the reason our redzone efficiency fell so much this year is mainly due to the poor TD passing performance by Trent. I like Trent but you have to view things realistically. Chiefs had 31 rushing TDs last year, and 29 in 2003 so that did not really change.

As far as yardage, Trent's performance was similar to the past few years and I am not complaining about that stat.

BigMeatballDave
01-01-2006, 05:26 PM
Sorry but the reason our redzone efficiency fell so much this year is mainly due to the poor TD passing performance by Trent. I like Trent but you have to view things realistically. Chiefs had 31 rushing TDs last year, and 29 in 2003 so that did not really change.I suppose Roaf being out is Trents fault...

Matt Helm
01-01-2006, 05:28 PM
No, you're too negative for us.

Nobody here thinks we'll be 7-9 here except for you.

Wait and see, a new head coach will have a totally different way of running the team and resisting change will have an impact on the players and team in general.

Logical
01-01-2006, 05:28 PM
I suppose Roaf being out is Trents fault...That was 3.5 games. Trent's TDs fell from 27 to 17, that is more than a 33% drop off.

bringbackmarty
01-01-2006, 05:28 PM
While all that is true, he also only threw 17 TDs which is piss poor. It was not such a good year for Trent.
it would have helped if he had some recievers catch the ball once in a while, and do something with it after the catch. 23 of 29 for 349, 61. comp #, qb rating in upper 80's. he is not the problem.

Matt Helm
01-01-2006, 05:29 PM
sorry we're all full of gays already

Then I will be fine. Don't give up, you will find yourself a new boyfriend soon.

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 05:30 PM
That was 3.5 games. Trent's TDs fell from 27 to 17, that is more than a 33% drop off.

We were behind more last year, and we also threw more passes.

Also Roaf was out for SIX games.

Valiant
01-01-2006, 05:31 PM
sarcasim buddy...i was just saying it before someone else did


___] <----- these work great...

Matt Helm
01-01-2006, 05:32 PM
We were behind more last year, and we also threw more.

Also Roaf was out for SIX games.

You can't use logic here, everyone is on a "It's good for DV to be gone" binge.

Valiant
01-01-2006, 05:34 PM
We did have a problem most of the year imo of our WR not gettin seperation outside of the cincy game, that ****er was on fire... And TG did make some bad throws this year while trying to force things... But all in all he did great with what was given to him...

BigMeatballDave
01-01-2006, 05:35 PM
That was 3.5 games. Trent's TDs fell from 27 to 17, that is more than a 33% drop off.Bitching about Trent while he led a top ranked O...
:shake:

htismaqe
01-01-2006, 05:36 PM
You can't use logic here, everyone is on a "It's good for DV to be gone" binge.

Yeah, logic is absolutely not allowed.

Otherwise, people might be forced to acknowledge that 2 winning season out of 5 is not really great...

BigMeatballDave
01-01-2006, 05:37 PM
You can't use logic here, everyone is on a "It's good for DV to be gone" binge.If you cannot see it was time for a change, then you have other issues to deal with...

BigMeatballDave
01-01-2006, 05:38 PM
Yeah, logic is absolutely not allowed.

Otherwise, people might be forced to acknowledge that 2 winning season out of 5 is not really great...Hey, don't confuse him with big numbers...

RedDread
01-01-2006, 05:39 PM
This thread should be titled....so what becomes of the Chiefs D line sans Allen

....Woods, McCleon, Bell, Wesley etc


Trent Green has a right to QB this team till he retires, he's earned it.


Edited for clarity.

Logical
01-01-2006, 05:41 PM
Bitching about Trent while he led a top ranked O...
:shake:I am bitching about the drop in TD productivity which led to us missing the playoffs as much as any other factor. We dropped from 62 last year to 46 this year. Yardage means squat. We also dropped from 484 and 483 points the previous two seasons to only 403 points this year an 80 point or 5 point per game drop. That is precipitous, you cannot tell me we would not have won at least one more game had we maintained the last two years point production.

Matt Helm
01-01-2006, 05:42 PM
Yeah, logic is absolutely not allowed.

Otherwise, people might be forced to acknowledge that 2 winning season out of 5 is not really great...


Funny, I heard just about the same argument when Marty was here, it really hurt you guys when you finally figured out after 10 years that Marty couldn't coach a playoff team if his life depended on it.

1. Have some great seasons and get into the playoffs and get shut out.

2. Have some seasons that are not as bad as they look on the books and shitcan the coach because he didn't do for you what he did elsewhere in the right time frame.

Personally I think DV would have taken us to the SB next year and the following year.

Matt Helm
01-01-2006, 05:43 PM
I am bitching about the drop in TD productivity which led to us missing the playoffs as much as any other factor. We dropped from 62 last year to 46 this year. Yardage means squat. We also dropped from 484 and 483 points the previous two seasons to only 403 points this year an 80 point or 5 point per game drop. That is precipitous, you cannot tell me we would not have won at least one more game had we maintained the last two years point production.

You have stated why you are bitching, but I dont' think the reasons are really out on the board. Let us know what is really bothering you.

Bwana
01-01-2006, 05:44 PM
I think he will hang around and do well, but at some point in the very near future, we need to get a QBOTF. I for one don't have any desire to see Todd Collins as our #1 QB.

htismaqe
01-01-2006, 05:47 PM
Funny, I heard just about the same argument when Marty was here, it really hurt you guys when you finally figured out after 10 years that Marty couldn't coach a playoff team if his life depended on it.

1. Have some great seasons and get into the playoffs and get shut out.

2. Have some seasons that are not as bad as they look on the books and shitcan the coach because he didn't do for you what he did elsewhere in the right time frame.

Personally I think DV would have taken us to the SB next year and the following year.

I knew what would happen with Marty when he was hired. I never liked him.

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 05:48 PM
I am bitching about the drop in TD productivity which led to us missing the playoffs as much as any other factor. We dropped from 62 last year to 46 this year. Yardage means squat. We also dropped from 484 and 483 points the previous two seasons to only 403 points this year an 80 point or 5 point per game drop. That is precipitous, you cannot tell me we would not have won at least one more game had we maintained the last two years point production.

Had Roaf played in all 16 games, we would have scored the same number of points IMO.

Logical
01-01-2006, 05:49 PM
By the way I want Trent to stay on, but feel his performance has to be better next year.

BigMeatballDave
01-01-2006, 05:50 PM
I am bitching about the drop in TD productivity which led to us missing the playoffs as much as any other factor. We dropped from 62 last year to 46 this year. Yardage means squat. We also dropped from 484 and 483 points the previous two seasons to only 403 points this year an 80 point or 5 point per game drop. That is precipitous, you cannot tell me we would not have won at least one more game had we maintained the last two years point production. :rolleyes:

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 05:51 PM
Personally I think DV would have taken us to the SB next year and the following year.

Who cares? Dick didn't want to be here past this season.

BigMeatballDave
01-01-2006, 05:51 PM
Had Roaf played in all 16 games, we would have scored the same number of points IMO.The old man is losing it. He should remove logic from his name...

4th and Long
01-01-2006, 05:51 PM
By the way I want Trent to stay on, but feel his performance has to be better next year.
He had a few rough games but overall, his numbers we not that bad. Keep in mind that having Jordan Black blocking for him instead of Roaf was not in the best interest of his performance to be sure.

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 05:51 PM
By the way I want Trent to stay on, but feel his performance has to be better next year.

Gues what? If Tony G returns to his form of past seasons, Trent's TD production will go right up.

Mr. Laz
01-01-2006, 05:53 PM
So what becomes of Trent Green?........
http://www.gothamgazette.com/graphics/bum.jpg









,

RedDread
01-01-2006, 06:00 PM
http://www.gothamgazette.com/graphics/bum.jpg









,

In other news Maurice Clarett was busted for robbing some people.

Wile_E_Coyote
01-01-2006, 06:00 PM
at one time Trent was the second most sacked QB in the league. David Carr was #1. He didn't have time to set his feet before he was hit. Damn we have short memories

whoman69
01-01-2006, 06:06 PM
No question Trent comes back, but there needs to be a youngster waiting in the wings. Collins is not the QB of the future, and I still can't believe that Damon Huard still draws an NFL paycheck. Being a backup QB for a SB champion is not a point on the resume if you never got in the game.
You don't start rebuilding when you have Larry Johnson and Tony Gonzales with our line.

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 06:09 PM
at one time Trent was the second most sacked QB in the league.

Actually it was "most hit" but whatever. "TrINT" is officially dead.

Wile_E_Coyote
01-01-2006, 06:16 PM
Actually it was "most hit" but whatever. "TrINT" is officially dead.

I would have swore going into the Houston game it was the 2 most sacked QBs in the league playing

Matt Helm
01-01-2006, 06:20 PM
Who cares? Dick didn't want to be here past this season.

You should, wait until this time next year and think about what you said today. Without pressure from the media and others DV wouldn't have stepped down.

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 06:21 PM
You should, wait until this time next year and think about what you said today. Without pressure from the media and others DV wouldn't have stepped down.

He made the decision after we beat Denver. There was very little pressure at that time.

Matt Helm
01-01-2006, 06:22 PM
He made the decision after we beat Denver. There was very little pressure at that time.
Don't read the papers much do you? And it was the Dallas game.

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 06:24 PM
Don't read the papers much do you? And it was the Dallas game.

Did you even listen to DV's press conference today?

He said he made the decision after we beat the Broncos.

4th and Long
01-01-2006, 06:25 PM
Don't read the papers much do you? And it was the Dallas game.
You don't watch television much, do you? Straight from DV's own mouth, the decision was made after we beat DENVER!

DV left on his own terms. Please stop trying to blame everyone else. Unless you are a certified mind reader with accompanying credentials, your speculation as to why he stepped down takes a back seat to what left the man's mouth; wanting to spend his remaining healthy years with his family.

JohnnyV13
01-01-2006, 06:27 PM
I am bitching about the drop in TD productivity which led to us missing the playoffs as much as any other factor. We dropped from 62 last year to 46 this year. Yardage means squat. We also dropped from 484 and 483 points the previous two seasons to only 403 points this year an 80 point or 5 point per game drop. That is precipitous, you cannot tell me we would not have won at least one more game had we maintained the last two years point production.

Vlad, your "realism" is a little myopic. Does Peyton Manning need to worry about having a "bad" year b/c his TD passes "precipitously" fell off from 49 last season?

What you are ignoring is scoring and offense were way up last year because of the rule enforcement differences with pass intereference. This season, however, defenses have adjusted and offenses are down league-wide. For example....the Colts only scored 439 points on offense, a drop-off very similar to KC. Yardage totals are down too.

htismaqe
01-01-2006, 06:33 PM
Owned by gochiefs...

Ouch.

Brock
01-01-2006, 07:10 PM
Don't read the papers much do you? And it was the Dallas game.

MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BigMeatballDave
01-01-2006, 07:13 PM
Vlad, your "realism" is a little myopic. Does Peyton Manning need to worry about having a "bad" year b/c his TD passes "precipitously" fell off from 49 last season?

What you are ignoring is scoring and offense were way up last year because of the rule enforcement differences with pass intereference. This season, however, defenses have adjusted and offenses are down league-wide. For example....the Colts only scored 439 points on offense, a drop-off very similar to KC. Yardage totals are down too.Exactly. Well said...

chappy
01-01-2006, 07:15 PM
anyone think trent green would be a nice coach for us in the future?

Guru
01-01-2006, 07:16 PM
Er, might want to check that again. ROFL

BTW, what are the chances of Norv Turner being our new OC? He's a bad head coach, but a wonderful OC and he knows Trent personally.

Now I really like that idea. ESPN reports Turner may be out soon too. Like that was a surprise.ROFL

whoman69
01-01-2006, 07:57 PM
anyone think trent green would be a nice coach for us in the future?
Not really, too nice a guy.

Deberg_1990
01-01-2006, 08:04 PM
Now I really like that idea. ESPN reports Turner may be out soon too. Like that was a surprise.ROFL

Me too, ive been on that bandwagon for awhile. Hes a hell of a O-Coordinator and basically the one who discovered Green.

thurman merman
01-01-2006, 08:06 PM
trent green is awesome.

Logical
01-01-2006, 08:07 PM
Vlad, your "realism" is a little myopic. Does Peyton Manning need to worry about having a "bad" year b/c his TD passes "precipitously" fell off from 49 last season?

What you are ignoring is scoring and offense were way up last year because of the rule enforcement differences with pass intereference. This season, however, defenses have adjusted and offenses are down league-wide. For example....the Colts only scored 439 points on offense, a drop-off very similar to KC. Yardage totals are down too.

Not true for us we actually only scored 1 point different last year than we did the year before. The pass interference rules did not help us.

Count Alex's Losses
01-01-2006, 08:09 PM
The pass interference rules did not help us.

ROFL

Is that why Green's yards shot up by 500 and Eddie Kennison suddenly posted 1,000 yards for the first time ever? Not to mention 8 TDs.

Even more glaring was the increase in Green's passing percentage.

Logical
01-01-2006, 08:12 PM
ROFL

Is that why Green's yards shot up by 500 and Eddie Kennison suddenly posted 1,000 yards for the first time ever? Not to mention 8 TDs.

Even more glaring was the increase in Green's passing percentage.Keep up we have been talking scoring. If you will note we are first in yardage this year yet we scored 80 points less.

GoDickGo
01-01-2006, 08:14 PM
so did they name the new HC yet?

JohnnyV13
01-02-2006, 12:22 AM
Not true for us we actually only scored 1 point different last year than we did the year before. The pass interference rules did not help us.

Sure they helped us. In 03 we had a healthy priest holmes who worked his red zone magic. In 04 we lost the best red zone back in the NFL for half the season. This injury hurt our scoring efficiency. LJ came in, and played well, but he only had 4 or 5 starts. AND, he wasn't as good in the red zone as he later became.

Yet, we scored about the same despite this loss. Why? Because the passing game picked up considerably.

Add Roaf's injury and the leaguewide downward trend in offenses, and you get why our scoring is off.

Logical
01-02-2006, 12:23 AM
Sure they helped us. In 03 we had a healthy priest holmes who worked his red zone magic. In 04 we lost the best red zone back in the NFL for half the season. This injury hurt our scoring efficiency. LJ came in, and played well, but he only had 4 or 5 starts. AND, he wasn't as good in the red zone as he later became.

Yet, we scored about the same despite this loss. Why? Because the passing game picked up considerably.

Add Roaf's injury and the leaguewide downward trend in offenses, and you get why our scoring is off.Sorry but that just is not true. Only 29 rushing TDs for the Chiefs in 2003, 31 in 2004 so we had more rushing TDs last year than we did in 2003.

Tinlar
01-02-2006, 12:27 AM
If someone comes in here and starts jacking with the very core of our Offense to try to fix our playoff problem I'm putting a Jihad on him.

philfree
01-02-2006, 02:28 AM
If we bring in a new coach with a new offensive philosophy does that mean that Trent will leave? Hes never played in any other system but this one. Would he be as good in a different offensive system?? Something else to ponder over........

I can't imagine Carl changing the O since we've been pretty much the best in the league over the last four years and Trent is the best QB Carl has ever had. I can see a situation like the one in Indy where the kept the O and brought in a D minded HC. Of course it did take Dungy 4 years to get his D off the ground. I'll be very upset of if they screw up the last few years of Greens career by making dumb changes.

PhilFree:arrow:

JohnnyV13
01-02-2006, 03:25 AM
Sorry but that just is not true. Only 29 rushing TDs for the Chiefs in 2003, 31 in 2004 so we had more rushing TDs last year than we did in 2003.

Vlad, that's just the raw number. What's the red zone efficiency? I'll bet you anything its down in 04 vs. 03. Now, if this is the case, then the 31 TDs in 04 occurred b/c the offense was in position more than in 03.

JohnnyV13
01-02-2006, 03:37 AM
Further, I did a quick check of the 04 rushing TD's stats, and it seems to bear out my basic thesis.

First 8 games (with Priest)
18 rushing TDs

Last 8 games (without Priest)
13 rushing TDs

That means we were at a 36 rushing TD pace with Priest, and dropped off without him. This trend suggests we would have scored more in 04 had we stayed as healthy as in 03.

And, ta da, what created those shots at the end zone? Seems to me the increased passing yardage.....and yards per pass (both league-wide trends btw) is the explaination.

Logical
01-02-2006, 03:56 AM
Vlad, that's just the raw number. What's the red zone efficiency? I'll bet you anything its down in 04 vs. 03. Now, if this is the case, then the 31 TDs in 04 occurred b/c the offense was in position more than in 03.I searched to find the stats on that and have not been able to come up with them.

Would this not just point out that our scoring off the passing game fell off since our running TDs were virtually identical all three years?

JohnnyV13
01-02-2006, 11:09 AM
I searched to find the stats on that and have not been able to come up with them.

Would this not just point out that our scoring off the passing game fell off since our running TDs were virtually identical all three years?

Vlad, we're getting into a rather complicated area of statistical analysis: systems modelling. Now, unfortunately, I have only some rudimentary education in this area, since I took a class in enviromental systems modelling as a molecular bio grad student (a degree I never finished).

Also, I have some training in experimental analysis, which is trying to discern what experimental results mean.

Now, the basic thing I'm talking about is that statistical models are, by nature, simplifications of dynamic systems. If they weren't simplificiations they'd be useless, b/c what you are doing is breaking down a dynamic system into simplier components to allow you to compare, and analyse, different situations.

What you are saying, that the overall rushing TDs indicate a similar rushing performance each of the last 3 seasons MAY be true. BUt, it also may NOT be.

Sometimes, in a complex system, a "bottom line" stat may say the same so that the system appears static, but beneath the surface there is actually quite a bit of change going on. This is because in a dynamic system the "outputs" can be affected by multiple factors.

You basically have taken the "static" position, while I'm taking the "change beneath the surface" position.

My contention is that in 04, offenses trended upward due to adjustments to rule changes, and league-wide that trend is pretty clear if you compare it to 03 and 05. Now, in application to the chiefs, this trend doesn't seem to hold true b/c points were virtually identical.

However, total yards and passing yards were up. I'm contending that Priest's injury in the 1st half of 04, "disguised the upward trend" b/c it made a less efficient offense score the same amount.

That 1st half vs. 2nd half rushing TD analysis seems to suggest that my analysis is a reasonable interpretation of the data. At the first half pace we'd have 36 rushing TDs, but in the second half of the season that dropped to 26 TDs per season (below the 03 production).

Now, when we look at 05, yards and points are down across the board for offenses. NO ONE scored 480 points in the NFL this season. Yardage is also down by about 20 yards per game.

Add in the Roaf injury, I think you account for most of the drop off in externals factor rather than a significant drop in Trent's performance.

But, this is all a murky situation. We don't have enough repetitions or controlled conditions to make a difinitive analysis. We're just looking at inadequate data trying to also use our experience in watching the actual games to analyse a data trend. This is murky business.

What this data means is actually a rather unclear matter of analysis.