PDA

View Full Version : Welcome Back Marty Ball


Chiefnj
07-31-2006, 08:26 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/s...fs/15160557.htm


Can Trent put on the brakes?

Green is not concerned about switch to conservative offense after thriving under Vermeil’s fast-paced attack.
By ADAM TEICHER
The Kansas City Star


RIVER FALLS, Wis. - Trent Green rescued the Chiefs more than once over the years with a long pass fit into a tight spot, a throw another quarterback might not have even tried.

New coach Herm Edwards doesn’t like for his quarterback to be the hero. He would rather see in that role any number of others: running back Larry Johnson, the offensive linemen, members of the revamped defense.

Edwards prefers his quarterback to hand off frequently to Johnson, get out of his way and, most important, not throw an interception when it comes time to pass.

The potential clash is an interesting one: Green’s ingrained willingness to take some chances down the field against Edwards’ decidedly conservative approach.

The success of the Chiefs’ passing game and their offense in general could depend on how well Green adapts. The Chiefs would prefer to figure out a way to harness their quarterback without taking away the quality that made Green a two-time Pro Bowler.

“What we don’t want to do is take away Trent’s aggressive mentality,” quarterbacks coach Terry Shea said. “He has more of that than any quarterback I’ve ever been around. In a lot of ways, that’s what allowed this offense to flourish.

“Trent has always had that flair for pushing the ball into a window, a tight window. He doesn’t lack for confidence in that way because his mind works so quickly that it’s ahead of the ball.

“He’s still who he is, and we want him to play that way as long as he is protecting the ball because that is probably the paramount theme that Herm has brought to the offense.”

It’s inaccurate to paint Green as some wild risk-taker. He’s done well pushing the ball down the field into some tight spots because of his accuracy but hasn’t thrown many interceptions since his 24 led the league his first season with the Chiefs in 2001.

There’s no question Green makes some bold decisions. Backup quarterback Damon Huard was teammates with Dan Marino in Miami and Tom Brady in New England but said Green’s thought process is as aggressive as either of them.

“Trent has such a good feel for this offense,” Huard said. “He knows when to take chances and when not to. That’s what the best quarterbacks do. He knows when to force the ball in there and when not to. He’s really good at that. That’s why I think he’ll do just fine no matter what our offensive philosophy turns out to be.”

Green played exactly the way former coach Dick Vermeil and offensive coordinator Al Saunders wanted. Vermeil and Saunders would tolerate turnovers as long as they were in small numbers and in an acceptable ratio to big plays.

No turnover is tolerable to Edwards.

“We’re going to keep within the theme of what Herm would like to see happen,” Shea said. “The top priority is to protect the ball. If we’re going to turn the ball over, let’s turn it over with our kicking game, either a field goal or a punt.

“With Dick, it was probably understated as compared to Herm. Herm is a lot more vocal about it.”

Stuck in the middle is Green, who thrived in the Vermeil-Saunders system.

The playbook has changed little, but the play-caller is now Mike Solari, a career offensive-line coach who has a fondness for the running game. Solari will operate under authority from Edwards.

Green played early in his career with San Diego and Washington, teams that ran conservative offenses at the time.

“It won’t be much of an adjustment for me,” he said, “because the first half of my career was spent with that philosophy.”

Yet Green can’t hide the player he is. Even though he liked seeing Green attack with downfield passes, even Saunders occasionally had to counsel his quarterback that it was OK sometimes to throw the safer, higher-percentage pass.

It’s not a stretch to think Edwards, Solari and Shea will have the same conversation with Green more often.

“You’re talking about game situations, the heat of the battle,” wide receiver Eddie Kennison said. “You’ve got to make a split-second decision. I don’t think Trent is going to change. I don’t think he can change.

“Trent will still be Trent regardless. He’ll still take his chances. That’s what makes him the player he is.”

Brock
07-31-2006, 08:29 AM
Thank goodness. We don't want to score too many points.

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 08:36 AM
I just threw up a little into my mouth...Do we really have to go through this again?

jspchief
07-31-2006, 08:38 AM
Good. I'm glad it's back. We won more play-off games and saw more play-off appearances with Martyball than we did with Dickball.

BigChiefFan
07-31-2006, 08:38 AM
I'm willing to take a wait and see approach, but it sounds like Herm needs to get the Hell out of the way, when it comes to the offensive side of the ball.

the Talking Can
07-31-2006, 08:39 AM
Good. I'm glad it's back. We won more play-off games and saw more play-off appearances with Martyball than we did with Dickball.

or, you could say we saw more playoffs with good defense and lost all of them because of Martyball....

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 08:42 AM
Good. I'm glad it's back. We won more play-off games and saw more play-off appearances with Martyball than we did with Dickball.

We did? I thought 'we' won with Montana and fizzled with Marty...I'll have to check, it was soooo long ago, I might have gotten that backwards.

wolfpack0735
07-31-2006, 08:46 AM
i sure hope hermie stays out of the offense. i dont think he`s totally a fool,he knows he has a powerful offense. the passing game might even open up more since everyone will be keying on LJ.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 08:47 AM
or, you could say we saw more playoffs with good defense and lost all of them because of Martyball....Sure. You could say whatever the hell you want. You could say that it wasn't the philosophy, it was the decisions made within the philosophy. You could say the Steelers just won a Superbowl playing Martyball. You could say for all the statistical accolades Vermeil brought us, he also brought us a mentally weak team and zero post season success.

You could also call Herm Edwards' scheme Martyball before the team has taken a single snap.

The reality is, we don't know what the offense is going to do yet. I'm not going to get worked up about it until I actually see how we execute it in games. I'm just glad we're going in a direction other than the one that got us nowhere for the last 5 years.

HemiEd
07-31-2006, 08:47 AM
I just threw up a little into my mouth...Do we really have to go through this again?

Me too, I hope this is only coach speak.

penguinz
07-31-2006, 08:49 AM
or, you could say we saw more playoffs with good defense and lost all of them because of Martyball....It was because of Marty's decision's not martyball. See the playoff game against the colts for proof.

King_Chief_Fan
07-31-2006, 08:50 AM
Putting the leash on Green is just crazy

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 08:51 AM
...I'm just glad we're going in a direction other than the one that got us nowhere for the last 5 years.

As opposed to Martyball which won 'us' a bunch of playoff games...right?

Just to clarify, Martyball and 'smashmouth' are different to me. Martyball is a 'play not to lose' strategy that loses every time it's tried. Pittsburgh didnt win with Martyball, rather it won with 'smashmouth' football.

Zman
07-31-2006, 08:51 AM
It amazing to me how quick we all fall off the band wagon. I don't care if it's Martyball, Air it out ball or whatever you want to call it. As long as it ends up with a Superbowl. Look at Indianapolis they got the best offense in football and no playoff victories. I think we should all just shut up and see what happens!!!

penguinz
07-31-2006, 08:53 AM
It amazing to me how quick we all fall off the band wagon. I don't care if it's Martyball, Air it out ball or whatever you want to call it. As long as it ends up with a Superbowl. Look at Indianapolis they got the best offense in football and no playoff victories. I think we should all just shut up and see what happens!!!Are you serious?

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 08:54 AM
It was because of Marty's decision's not martyball. See the playoff game against the colts for proof.

That makes no sense...Martyball was exactly what we saw in the Colts playoff game. Running the ball well, Martyball dictates that you 'air' it out, run a fake punt, settle for figgies with a struggling kicker, anything other than playing to your strength...

penguinz
07-31-2006, 08:55 AM
That makes no sense...Martyball was exactly what we saw in the Colts playoff game. Running the ball well, Martyball dictates that you 'air' it out, run a fake punt, settle for figgies with a struggling kicker, anything other than playing to your strength...
Did you watch the game? Marcus was running really well the first half. Then they decided to put the ball in Bono's hands and let him throw the game away.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 08:55 AM
As opposed to Martyball which won 'us' a bunch of playoff games...right?

Just to clarify, Martyball and 'smashmouth' are different to me. Martyball is a 'play not to lose' strategy that loses every time it's tried. Pittsburgh didnt win with Martyball, rather it won with 'smashmouth' football.Of course they did. The only difference between smashmouth and what the Chiefs did in the 90s is a few missed FGs.

Bettis' fumble in Indy had Martyball accusations all over it. Difference being, the team continued to execute after that gaff.

What was our average play-off appearances and wins per year under Marty vs under Vermeil?

What difference does it make that we pass for 400 yards, when Trent Green loses a key fumble to Scott Fujita trying to pass in a situation where we should have been running?

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 08:55 AM
It amazing to me how quick we all fall off the band wagon. I don't care if it's Martyball, Air it out ball or whatever you want to call it. As long as it ends up with a Superbowl. Look at Indianapolis they got the best offense in football and no playoff victories. I think we should all just shut up and see what happens!!!

Actually the Chiefs had the best offense in football and no playoff victories, Indy has at least one, against KC in 2003 and I think they embarrassed Denver the last couple of years in the playoffs.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 08:56 AM
That makes no sense...Martyball was exactly what we saw in the Colts playoff game. Running the ball well, Martyball dictates that you 'air' it out, run a fake punt, settle for figgies with a struggling kicker, anything other than playing to your strength...So what Trent Green is suggesting Herm wants to do has nothing to do with Martyball.

At least we cleared that up.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 08:57 AM
Did you watch the game? Marcus was running really well the first half. Then they decided to put the ball in Bono's hands and let him throw the game away.That sounds like Vermiel/Saundersball.

Zman
07-31-2006, 08:58 AM
Yes What did Vermeil get us a nice show with no playoff victories. All we needed was one stop against Indy and we were going to the Superbowl

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 09:00 AM
Of course they did. The only difference between smashmouth and what the Chiefs did in the 90s is a few missed FGs.

Bettis' fumble in Indy had Martyball accusations all over it. Difference being, the team continued to execute after that gaff.

What was our average play-off appearances and wins per year under Marty vs under Vermeil?

What difference does it make that we pass for 400 yards, when Trent Green loses a key fumble to Scott Fujita trying to pass in a situation where we should have been running?

LOL...just a few missed FG's. It sounds so quaint. Marty never would have pulled the flea flicker trick plays that Pittsburgh used effectively with Randel El. Never would have happened. Im never going to be so bold as to attempt to compare Pittsburgh's SB team to Marty's failed teams in the 90's, but I do appreciate your attempt.

the Talking Can
07-31-2006, 09:00 AM
It was because of Marty's decision's not martyball. See the playoff game against the colts for proof.

Martyball is by definiton the decision's Marty made...his offensive conservatisim cost us...I simply hope that isn't true with Herm...

Championship teams usually have dynamic offenses and dynamic OCs....Dallas, New England, St. Louis, San Fran...occasionaly "run it up the butt, boys" type coaches win...even Cowher figured out you had to throw it (see Denver game) and not "stick to the plan".....if Herm has that flexibility I'll be happy...

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 09:02 AM
So what Trent Green is suggesting Herm wants to do has nothing to do with Martyball.

At least we cleared that up.

Pulling the 'reins in' does give me pause. If you're dominating a team via the passing game, keep passing. If you're dominating on the ground, keep running. Marty ball would suggest the opposite.

If Im still not clear on that, you just let me know. K?

Brock
07-31-2006, 09:02 AM
Yes What did Vermeil get us a nice show with no playoff victories. All we needed was one stop against Indy and we were going to the Superbowl

Crack is bad.

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 09:05 AM
...All we needed was one stop against Indy and we were going to the Superbowl

Um...no. It was obvious in the Minnesota game that this team was going nowhere in the playoffs.

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 09:06 AM
Adam Teicher doesn't know the definition of Martyball either. He should get on the horn with Whitlock, because Whitlock understands it much better than he does.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 09:11 AM
Pulling the 'reins in' does give me pause. If you're dominating a team via the passing game, keep passing. If you're dominating on the ground, keep running. Marty ball would suggest the opposite.

If Im still not clear on that, you just let me know. K?Herm is talking about emphasizing ball security with a lead. That means running the ball. If you think running the ball is "anything other than playing to your strength" then we're going to have trouble seeing eye to eye.

Al Saunders was classic for getting away from a successful running game in the second half. It may have produced gaudy numbers, but it didn't produce play-off wins. Yet I never heard you calling Saunders' play-calling Martyball.

the Talking Can
07-31-2006, 09:12 AM
Herm is talking about emphasizing ball security with a lead. That means running the ball. If you think running the ball is "anything other than playing to your strength" then we're going to have trouble seeing eye to eye.

Al Saunders was classic for getting away from a successful running game in the second half. It may have produced gaudy numbers, but it didn't produce play-off wins. Yet I never heard you calling Saunders' play-calling Martyball.

ahh..we lost to the Colts becuase of Saunders getting pass happy...

jspchief
07-31-2006, 09:15 AM
ahh..we lost to the Colts becuase of Saunders getting pass happy...Much like Marty lost play-off games because the FG kicker missed....

the Talking Can
07-31-2006, 09:16 AM
Much like Marty lost play-off games because the FG kicker missed....

I have no clue what point you think you're making.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 09:19 AM
The point I'm making is everyone is wringing their hands over losing something that never got us a damn thing. And no one even knows whether it's actually been lost.

the Talking Can
07-31-2006, 09:24 AM
The point I'm making is everyone is wringing their hands over losing something that never got us a damn thing. And no one even knows whether it's actually been lost.

:hmmm:

anyways, my post was this: "or, you could say we saw more playoffs with good defense and lost all of them because of Martyball...."

and I stand by it...we didn't lose because Marty was unlucky...we lost because of his conservative offensive philosophy and his unwillingnes to change it or take risks, unlike Cowher....

and we lost the Colts game becuase of our defense (for which DV is responsible), not because Saunders was pass happy...if we would have tried "ball control" we would have lost 30-14....

all I've said on the subject is that I hope Herm is flexible and willing to take risks...Marty wasn't

jspchief
07-31-2006, 09:30 AM
:hmmm:

anyways, my post was this: "or, you could say we saw more playoffs with good defense and lost all of them because of Martyball...."

and I stand by it...we didn't lose because Marty was unlucky...we lost because of his conservative offensive philosophy and his unwillingnes to change it or take risks, unlike Cowher....

and we lost the Colts game becuase of our defense (for which DV is responsible), not because Saunders was pass happy...if we would have tried "ball control" we would have lost 30-14....

all I've said on the subject is that I hope Herm is flexible and willing to take risks...Marty wasn'tAnd like I said, we don't know yet what Edwards will do in these situations. People are crying Martyball before they have the slightest clue what Herm will do in those situations.

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 09:37 AM
:hmmm:

anyways, my post was this: "or, you could say we saw more playoffs with good defense and lost all of them because of Martyball...."

and I stand by it...we didn't lose because Marty was unlucky...we lost because of his conservative offensive philosophy and his unwillingnes to change it or take risks, unlike Cowher....

and we lost the Colts game becuase of our defense (for which DV is responsible), not because Saunders was pass happy...if we would have tried "ball control" we would have lost 30-14....

all I've said on the subject is that I hope Herm is flexible and willing to take risks...Marty wasn't

We may not have lost the Colts playoff game because of Air Saunders, but we certainly lost a few regular season games because of it.

Also, conservative <> "Martyball".

The 2nd half of the 1995 playoff game against the Colts was anything but conservative. We completely abandoned the run and Bono threw 3 picks. It was reminiscent of Saunders' playcalling at Buffalo last year.

THAT is Martyball.

Martyball has nothing to do with scheme, with conservatism, or with running the football.

Martyball is taking out the RB that just made a 25-yard run and benching him for a quarter. Martyball is running prevent defense when you're up by 3 with 5 minutes left. Martyball is running a draw on 3rd and 15 to protect the lead when you're down by 3.

FringeNC
07-31-2006, 09:38 AM
The point I'm making is everyone is wringing their hands over losing something that never got us a damn thing. And no one even knows whether it's actually been lost.

Why does the offense need to change to improve the defense?

If someone could tell me a story as how our good offense made our defense bad, I'd love to hear it. I'd say just the opposite: the offense's high time of possession kept the defense rested.

I don't think we'll get as conservative as many fear, but just the fact that herm wants to **** with it all tells me the guy is a moron.

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 09:38 AM
And like I said, we don't know yet what Edwards will do in these situations. People are crying Martyball before they have the slightest clue what Herm will do in those situations.

Yep.

dirk digler
07-31-2006, 09:42 AM
I consider what Herm did in the playoffs in 2004 classic Martyball. I think many here at the time said the same things.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 09:43 AM
Why does the offense need to change to improve the defense?

If someone could tell me a story as how our good offense made our defense bad, I'd love to hear it. I'd say just the opposite: the offense's high time of possession kept the defense rested.

I don't think we'll get as conservative as many fear, but just the fact that herm wants to **** with it all tells me the guy is a moron.So you think we're going to try and reduce our ToP? Where does this opinion that we're going to stop trying to move the ball down the field come from?

I don't really think the offense needs to change to improve our defense. Maybe only in keeping them off the field. IMO, it's more about the personality of the team. From finesse to brawn. I think it's about altering the mindset of the entire team.

MOhillbilly
07-31-2006, 09:43 AM
protect the ball and score points:hmmm:

that works if the D can make stands and cause turnovers.

dirk digler
07-31-2006, 09:45 AM
protect the ball and score points:hmmm:

that works if the D can make stands and cause turnovers.

Yep which this D has yet to even come close to proving it can on a consistent basis

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 09:47 AM
So you think we're going to try and reduce our ToP? Where does this opinion that we're going to stop trying to move the ball down the field come from?

I don't really think the offense needs to change to improve our defense. Maybe only in keeping them off the field. IMO, it's more about the personality of the team. From finesse to brawn. I think it's about altering the mindset of the entire team.

Yep.

This team was a surgeon and they're trying to turn it into a construction worker...

MOhillbilly
07-31-2006, 09:49 AM
Yep which this D has yet to even come close to proving it can on a consistent basis

whats been said about the O can be said about the D.

we wont know till they hit the field.



i for one think the D will return to the days of old,IF they can stay healthy.

FringeNC
07-31-2006, 09:49 AM
So you think we're going to try and reduce our ToP? Where does this opinion that we're going to stop trying to move the ball down the field come from?

I don't really think the offense needs to change to improve our defense. Maybe only in keeping them off the field. IMO, it's more about the personality of the team. From finesse to brawn. I think it's about altering the mindset of the entire team.

where did i say that about TOP? My point was the the O made the job of the D easy, not hard, and they still ****ed it all up. The O was not the problem of this team, so just the thought of changing it is absurd.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 09:52 AM
I consider what Herm did in the playoffs in 2004 classic Martyball. I think many here at the time said the same things.And I don't think there was a thing wrong with that play-calling.

They were in a range that their kicker hadn't missed fom all year. He had just missed a longer one by being a foot short, dead center. They tried to win and still make sure they didn't leave the Steelers time to respond.

The kicker choked. It had nothing to do with the plays called.

dirk digler
07-31-2006, 09:54 AM
And I don't think there was a thing wrong with that play-calling.

They were in a range that their kicker hadn't missed fom all year. He had just missed a longer one by being a foot short, dead center. They tried to win and still make sure they didn't leave the Steelers time to respond.

The kicker choked. It had nothing to do with the plays called.

Didn't Herm run the ball against the Chargers with over 1:30 half left to try to kick a long field goal when he had a enough time to try to score a TD?

FringeNC
07-31-2006, 09:55 AM
We may not have lost the Colts playoff game because of Air Saunders, but we certainly lost a few regular season games because of it.

Also, conservative <> "Martyball".

The 2nd half of the 1995 playoff game against the Colts was anything but conservative. We completely abandoned the run and Bono threw 3 picks. It was reminiscent of Saunders' playcalling at Buffalo last year.

THAT is Martyball.

Martyball has nothing to do with scheme, with conservatism, or with running the football.

Martyball is taking out the RB that just made a 25-yard run and benching him for a quarter. Martyball is running prevent defense when you're up by 3 with 5 minutes left. Martyball is running a draw on 3rd and 15 to protect the lead when you're down by 3.

Saunders lost us some games? Now that's a funny one. Perhaps against some unattainable perfection where one can see the future and always makes the correct call. You live by the sword; you die by the sword. Sometimes not being risk-averse is going to bite you, but in the long-run, it is better to just go out there and try to score points.

Now, again, I don't think the change on offense is going to be all that great like some fear. It's simply the point of the matter: why are we even messing with it. The offense is independent of the defense. Look at Vermeils years in Stl. THE SB year the D was really good, as was the year they lost to NE. Other years it was terrible. I just don't see how you can argue that the O was the cause of the bad D(unless you are related to Gunther Cunningham.)

jspchief
07-31-2006, 10:02 AM
Didn't Herm run the ball against the Chargers with over 1:30 half left to try to kick a long field goal when he had a enough time to try to score a TD?They beat the Chargers. Kaeding missed a FG to tie that game.

They lost to Pittsburgh. The Jets interecepted the ball with tie ball game at 1:46. They moved the ball 13 yards with 1 pass and 3 runs. With 6 seconds on the clock, Pennington kneeled down. Doug Brien missed wide left.

The only questionable call would be the kneel down. But with only 6 seconds, running any play is risking running out of time to kick the game winner.

Could he have passed more and run less on that drive? Yea. But like I said, Brien had been solid at that range. To risk turnover to get closer for a kicker that you shouldn't need to get closer for... I just don't think you can blame play-calling. Teams rely on kickers to win games for them all the time.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 10:04 AM
Saunders lost us some games? Now that's a funny one. Yes.

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 10:05 AM
Saunders lost us some games? Now that's a funny one. Perhaps against some unattainable perfection where one can see the future and always makes the correct call. You live by the sword; you die by the sword. Sometimes not being risk-averse is going to bite you, but in the long-run, it is better to just go out there and try to score points.

Now, again, I don't think the change on offense is going to be all that great like some fear. It's simply the point of the matter: why are we even messing with it. The offense is independent of the defense. Look at Vermeils years in Stl. THE SB year the D was really good, as was the year they lost to NE. Other years it was terrible. I just don't see how you can argue that the O was the cause of the bad D(unless you are related to Gunther Cunningham.)

Yes, there were some games that could have been won had the offense protected the ball instead of going for the throat.

I realize questioning Jesus isn't popular, but the truth can't be denied.

Rausch
07-31-2006, 10:08 AM
With no more Meat Roaf and RT up in the air this offensive philosophy might just extend Green's career.

He's not a spring chicken and most QB's last this long. At his age we don't need Green getting rocked 10 times a week, there's no way he'd last the season.

Argue all you want about DE or CB or WR but without Green this team has concrete shoes...

dirk digler
07-31-2006, 10:15 AM
They lost to Pittsburgh. The Jets interecepted the ball with tie ball game at 1:46. They moved the ball 13 yards with 1 pass and 3 runs. With 6 seconds on the clock, Pennington kneeled down. Doug Brien missed wide left.



To me right there is classic Martyball. IIRC the FG attempt was around 45-50 yds.

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 10:16 AM
The point I'm making is everyone is wringing their hands over losing something that never got us a damn thing. And no one even knows whether it's actually been lost.

Hardly wringing my hands, but I dont like the tone of the message...anything but an attacking offense makes me very nervous.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 10:17 AM
To me right there is classic Martyball. IIRC the FG attempt was around 45-50 yds.43 and he hadn't missed from that range all year.

His succes rate for that FG was certainly higher than Pennington's success rate for pass completions.

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 10:21 AM
Hardly wringing my hands, but I dont like the tone of the message...anything but an attacking offense makes me very nervous.

I can understand this. But I also think that we've got such different personnel from what Marty had here, or what Herm had in NY, that they couldn't go conservative if they wanted to.

By definition, running the ball with Larry Johnson IS "attacking" in a way that running the ball with Donnell Bennett or Curtis Martin isn't. Johnson's style kind of blows up the 3 yards and a cloud of dust offense because he can go 90 at any time.

jAZ
07-31-2006, 10:22 AM
If you throw out the dooms-day headline, remember that it's an Adam Teicher penned article and highlight the actual quotes from the article, you get an entirely different vibe from the thing. One that isn't nearly as dramatic.


...

The Chiefs would prefer to figure out a way to harness their quarterback without taking away the quality that made Green a two-time Pro Bowler.

“What we don’t want to do is take away Trent’s aggressive mentality,”

...

“He’s still who he is, and we want him to play that way as long as he is protecting the ball..."

...

It’s inaccurate to paint Green as some wild risk-taker. He’s done well pushing the ball down the field into some tight spots because of his accuracy but hasn’t thrown many interceptions...

...

“Trent has such a good feel for this offense,” Huard said. “He knows when to take chances and when not to."

...

The playbook has changed little...

...

“It won’t be much of an adjustment for me,” he said, “because the first half of my career was spent with that philosophy.”

...

"I don’t think Trent is going to change. I don’t think he can change. Trent will still be Trent regardless. He’ll still take his chances. That’s what makes him the player he is.”

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 10:24 AM
I can understand this. But I also think that we've got such different personnel from what Marty had here, or what Herm had in NY, that they couldn't go conservative if they wanted to.

By definition, running the ball with Larry Johnson IS "attacking" in a way that running the ball with Donnell Bennett or Curtis Martin isn't. Johnson's style kind of blows up the 3 yards and a cloud of dust offense because he can go 90 at any time.

Good point. I just dont want to lose balance on the offense.

dirk digler
07-31-2006, 10:25 AM
43 and he hadn't missed from that range all year.

His succes rate for that FG was certainly higher than Pennington's success rate for pass completions.


What bothers me there was 1:46 left in the game. A ton of time to try to score a TD or get a hell of alot closer than a 43 yd FG.

I am going to give Herm and Solari the benefit of the doubt and I hope they keep our O aggressive as much as possible.

FringeNC
07-31-2006, 10:31 AM
Yes, there were some games that could have been won had the offense protected the ball instead of going for the throat.

I realize questioning Jesus isn't popular, but the truth can't be denied.

I'm surprised that some people are buying into our Great Leader Peterson's historical revisionism. The new narrative is that we lost because of Vermeil and Saunders, so they were thrown under the bus and now Edwards and Gun are the saviors.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 10:34 AM
I'm surprised that some people are buying into our Great Leader Peterson's historical revisionism. The new narrative is that we lost because of Vermeil and Saunders, so they were thrown under the bus and now Edwards and Gun are the saviors.That's a load of shit.

I was complaining about play calling in games while Saunders was still here, and when he was getting consideration for the HC job. And others were as well.

For you to claim we're just being snowed by Carl is completely ridiculous.

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 10:38 AM
I'm surprised that some people are buying into our Great Leader Peterson's historical revisionism. The new narrative is that we lost because of Vermeil and Saunders, so they were thrown under the bus and now Edwards and Gun are the saviors.

It's not a new narrative for me.

I've been saying this since about 2003.

noa
07-31-2006, 10:44 AM
Saunders lost us some games? Now that's a funny one. Perhaps against some unattainable perfection where one can see the future and always makes the correct call. You live by the sword; you die by the sword. Sometimes not being risk-averse is going to bite you, but in the long-run, it is better to just go out there and try to score points.

Now, again, I don't think the change on offense is going to be all that great like some fear. It's simply the point of the matter: why are we even messing with it. The offense is independent of the defense. Look at Vermeils years in Stl. THE SB year the D was really good, as was the year they lost to NE. Other years it was terrible. I just don't see how you can argue that the O was the cause of the bad D(unless you are related to Gunther Cunningham.)


I would say that Saunders lost us the Philly game last year. We threw that little short pass to EK so many times it was inevitable that they would jump the route and score a TD, but we did it anyway rather than run the ball, which is basically what that pass is equivalent to. After that play, the game shifted entirely toward Philly's favor. I blame Al. I saw that coming from a mile away.
Also, I think its great that Herm wants to stick to the basics. We were more shaky in the red zone last year than we should have been, and its because we weren't sticking to the basics. We threw the ball too much in the red zone (remember the Dallas game?). I'm all for mixing it up, but you should still heavily favor the run in that area and pass to TG if we need to pass. He only had two TDs last year, which speaks to the change in our red zone focus. Even if teams were focusing on him more, we could have found ways to get him a few more TDs.

BigRock
07-31-2006, 10:45 AM
I don't know how many have seen it, but when they show the last Super Bowl on the NFL Network, there's a piece of sideline footage where Big Ben goes up to Cowher sometime in the second half and tells him something like "hey, let's keep playing to win, let's not start playing not to lose." Meaning don't clamp down on the offense like Marty on crack and turn into a run-run-run 3 and out team and give Seattle a chance to get back in it.

Whatever changes happen with the offense, and I agree it's mostly being blown out of proportion, I'd be willing to bet that Trent would have the exact same conversation with Herm in a big game situation.

FringeNC
07-31-2006, 10:47 AM
It's not a new narrative for me.

I've been saying this since about 2003.

I certainly recall you suggesting we were "soft" because of Vermeil, but I am not sure you explicitly called for a change to a more conservative offensive approach.

(By the way, didn't Boomer Esiason call Herm Edwards' teams the softest in the league?)

jspchief
07-31-2006, 10:48 AM
Oh, well if Boomer said it...

FringeNC
07-31-2006, 10:49 AM
That's a load of shit.

I was complaining about play calling in games while Saunders was still here, and when he was getting consideration for the HC job. And others were as well.

For you to claim we're just being snowed by Carl is completely ridiculous.

Same question to you: were you last last year calling for a more conservative offense? I just don't think you felt that was our problem last year.

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 10:50 AM
I certainly recall you suggesting we were "soft" because of Vermeil, but I am not sure you explicitly called for a change to a more conservative offensive approach.

(By the way, didn't Boomer Esiason call Herm Edwards' teams the softest in the league?)

I wouldn't call running the ball on 3rd and 1 at the opponent's 45 "conservative". Especially when you have either Priest Holmes or Larry Johnson back there and you have the best offensive line in football.

I would call that SMART.

FringeNC
07-31-2006, 10:51 AM
Oh, well if Boomer said it...

FWIW, I never understand how a football team can be soft. Point being, if there is such a thing, I don't think we solved it by hiring Edwards.

I think what the talking heads mean by soft is a coach is a players' coach, but I could be wrong.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 10:51 AM
Same question to you: were you last last year calling for a more conservative offense? I just don't think you felt that was our problem last year.Yes. There most certainly were games where I complained about the play-calling. Specifically Saunders' tendency to pass more in the second half even when the run was effective.

I was doing it in 2004 as well.

FringeNC
07-31-2006, 10:52 AM
I wouldn't call running the ball on 3rd and 1 at the opponent's 45 "conservative". Especially when you have either Priest Holmes or Larry Johnson back there and you have the best offensive line in football.

I would call that SMART.

That's a dodge.

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 10:56 AM
That's a dodge.

ROFL

Let me put this in terms you can understand:

I've been criticizing Saunders' playcalling, specifically in short yardage and goal line situations, for going on 4 years.

That DOES NOT equate to a "conservative" offense. That equates to not taking unnecessary risks.

The boxer who jabs 100 times a round and the boxer who throws 10 wild haymakers are BOTH aggressive. The second fighter has a much higher percentage chance to knock his opponent out early, but he also has a significantly higher chance of getting knocked out himself...

FringeNC
07-31-2006, 10:59 AM
ROFL

Let me put this in terms you can understand:

I've been criticizing Saunders' playcalling, specifically in short yardage and goal line situations, for going on 4 years.

That DOES NOT equate to a "conservative" offense. That equates to not taking unnecessary risks.

The boxer who jabs 100 times a round and the boxer who throws 10 wild haymakers are BOTH aggressive. The second fighter has a much higher percentage chance to knock his opponent out early, but he also has a significantly higher chance of getting knocked out himself...

So are you suggesting that's the only thing that is going to change? Nobody really knows, so we are all guessing...

jspchief
07-31-2006, 11:01 AM
Look for my comments about the pass play called from the 2 yard line against Houston in 2004.

That's a perfect example of a place I'd rather have Herman Edwards than Al Saunders.

noa
07-31-2006, 11:02 AM
I thought we passed the ball way too much on first downs last year.

MahiMike
07-31-2006, 11:13 AM
or, you could say we saw more playoffs with good defense and lost all of them because of Martyball....

Nicely done. :clap:

MahiMike
07-31-2006, 11:14 AM
When Vermiel took over we were the Rams West. Now we're the KC JETS!

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 11:17 AM
So are you suggesting that's the only thing that is going to change? Nobody really knows, so we are all guessing...

I'm not suggesting anything about what is GOING to change.

I'm only talking about what I HOPE they change.

Chiefnj
07-31-2006, 12:01 PM
Look for my comments about the pass play called from the 2 yard line against Houston in 2004.

That's a perfect example of a place I'd rather have Herman Edwards than Al Saunders.


With Herm they would have been forced to punt before they crossed the 50.

Complaints about 1 or 2 play calls over the course of 2 seasons is going to be replaced by complaints about play calls every set of downs.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 12:07 PM
With Herm they would have been forced to punt before they crossed the 50.

Complaints about 1 or 2 play calls over the course of 2 seasons is going to be replaced by complaints about play calls every set of downs.That's your opinion.

To be honest, I'd be happy to still have Saunders here, even though I heted his play-calling at times. Saunders was a great coordinator.

That being said, I'm not going to get all bent over someone's interpretation of a few comments made by coaches or players. We haven't seen a single play called yet, and people have already determined it's Martyball. I have no doubt those people have made up their minds, but I'm going to remain open, and I'm excited about the possibility of making changes that will make a mediocre team into a great one.

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 12:11 PM
That's your opinion.

To be honest, I'd be happy to still have Saunders here, even though I heted his play-calling at times. Saunders was a great coordinator.

That being said, I'm not going to get all bent over someone's interpretation of a few comments made by coaches or players. We haven't seen a single play called yet, and people have already determined it's Martyball. I have no doubt those people have made up their minds, but I'm going to remain open, and I'm excited about the possibility of making changes that will make a mediocre team into a great one.

I feel exactly the same way you do.

RedThat
07-31-2006, 01:04 PM
Yes. Im happy we are going to return to Martyball...lol
It won us games, and got us into the playoffs.

At least we as Chiefs fans can say, this time we ACTUALLY HAVE A GOOD RB. And a GREAT O-LINE, GOOD QB, and a GOOD TE, with a pair of decent receivers. This is something we never had during Marty's time here. To top that off, we have a defensive minded coach that can actually have the potential to make our defense good. And possibly a better decision maker as well? I dont know? But we may find out?

Roaf's retirement aside, there is plenty to be optimistic about going into the season.

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 01:06 PM
...I'm excited about the possibility of making changes that will make a mediocre team into a great one.

I thought the changes that were needed were on defense? Why change an offense that's working?

RedThat
07-31-2006, 01:09 PM
I thought the changes that were needed were on defense? Why change an offense that's working?

Different philosophy? :shrug:

Edwards wants to protect the ball more? I dont know?

Im fine with running the ball with LJ there.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 01:13 PM
I thought the changes that were needed were on defense? Why change an offense that's working?
I already addressed this in an earlier post. I think it's more about change in the disposition of the entire team.

Besides, I don't think it's reasonable to bring in a HC and say " make this thing work, but do it our way". Herm has to be able to make the team his own.

All I know is after five years of Vermeil's way, we need a new song to dance to.

DJJasonp
07-31-2006, 01:17 PM
As opposed to Martyball which won 'us' a bunch of playoff games...right?

Just to clarify, Martyball and 'smashmouth' are different to me. Martyball is a 'play not to lose' strategy that loses every time it's tried. Pittsburgh didnt win with Martyball, rather it won with 'smashmouth' football.


Sometimes dumb luck came into play too....if it werent for a blocked punt against Pittsburgh in the playoffs (at home - again - no less), we would never have made it to Houston or to Buffalo (with Montana).

I like the idea of a good defense again....but man, please no more 2 yard out patterns on 3rd and 8...and no more draw plays on 3rd and 12.

(or at least keep them to a minimum)

deja vu all over again.

FringeNC
07-31-2006, 01:19 PM
I thought the changes that were needed were on defense? Why change an offense that's working?

Because the offense is judged against an unattainable perfection where as the defense gets a free-ride because Gunther's shits cure cancer.

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 01:20 PM
Sometimes dumb luck came into play too....if it werent for a blocked punt against Pittsburgh in the playoffs (at home - again - no less), we would never have made it to Houston or to Buffalo (with Montana).

I like the idea of a good defense again....but man, please no more 2 yard out patterns on 3rd and 8...and no more draw plays on 3rd and 12.

(or at least keep them to a minimum)

deja vu all over again.

Saunders ran draw plays on 3rd down on several occasions.

It's the difference between Donnell Bennett and Priest Holmes...

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 01:21 PM
Because the offense is judged against an unattainable perfection where as the defense gets a free-ride because Gunther's shits cure cancer.

Wrong. But then again, you knew that before you typed this.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 01:21 PM
Because the offense is judged against an unattainable perfection where as the defense gets a free-ride because Gunther's shits cure cancer.You're a f*cking moron. Go suck Saunders' cock some more.

FringeNC
07-31-2006, 01:26 PM
You're a f*cking moron. Go suck Saunders' cock some more.

How is pointing out that the Chiefs have had cumulatively the best offense in the league under Saunders not a legitimate argument? To suggest that there is a big room for improvement when you are already #1 in a league that is very competitive doesn't seem to be a very good argument to me.

But continue with childish remarks if you want..

shaneo69
07-31-2006, 01:28 PM
I thought the changes that were needed were on defense? Why change an offense that's working?

Because you need a Roaf or Orlando Pace in order to run the Rams, I mean the Coryell, offense. Tait couldn't handle it, Black couldn't handle it, and I doubt if Svitek can handle it. You have to adjust to personnel changes.

As I said before, transition is not always a bad thing.

jspchief
07-31-2006, 01:30 PM
How is pointing out that the Chiefs have had cumulatively the best offense in the league under Saunders not a legitimate argument? To suggest that there is a big room for improvement when you are already #1 in a league that is very competitive doesn't seem to be a very good argument to me.

But continue with childish remarks if you want..You do nothing but spout your pouty crap over the loss of Saunders. Try adding some mature comments to the discussion, and I'll respond with something other than remarks fitting your level of participation.

No one said there is a big room for improvement on offense. What they have said is that the team needs a new attitude. You seem to think the offense operates in a vacuum that has no bearing on the rest of the team. IMo that's not the case.

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 01:34 PM
Because you need a Roaf or Orlando Pace in order to run the Rams, I mean the Coryell, offense. Tait couldn't handle it, Black couldn't handle it, and I doubt if Svitek can handle it. You have to adjust to personnel changes.

You know, that's probably it...Edwards had planned all along to leave the offense alone and then on Friday, changed everything overnight when Roaf retired. Makes sense to me.

FringeNC
07-31-2006, 02:08 PM
You seem to think the offense operates in a vacuum that has no bearing on the rest of the team..

You're right. I do. [unless there is some TOP story and that doesn't apply to the Chiefs.] And I think the Rams under Martz support my position. After the 2000 debacle, the Rams rebuilt their D from about last to first by gutting the players and the coordinator. They were #1 or close to it the next year, running the same offense.

The Colts are similar. They didn't change around their offense. Worked to build up their D.

Seattle the same thing -- didn't change their offense, Holmgren kept firing D coordinators until he found one that was successful.

What I find funny is that the Chiefs weren't really an aggressive team on O. I'd say average. I think Vermeil costs us quite a few games by punting on 4th and short, given our putrid D. Belechick/Weiss were way more aggressive on offense than were Vermeil/Saunders...they just didn't have the personnel outside Tom Brady that we do.

The O isn't going to change that much, because it can't. There is only so much you can run the ball in the NFL before you become predictable. The Chiefs were close to being a 50/50 team the last few years. I just find this whole discussion that we need/are going to change our offense to be absurd.

If this team is to be successful, you'll see an offense that is very similar to last year, and a defense that is much better.

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 02:09 PM
You know, that's probably it...Edwards had planned all along to leave the offense alone and then on Friday, changed everything overnight when Roaf retired. Makes sense to me.

You don't lose a guy like Roaf every day. It is true.

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 02:11 PM
You don't lose a guy like Roaf every day. It is true.

What's true? The fact that KC's going to Martyball, Herm re-wrote the Offensive playbook on Friday night or that Roaf retired?

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 02:16 PM
You're right. I do. [unless there is some TOP story and that doesn't apply to the Chiefs.] And I think the Rams under Martz support my position. After the 2000 debacle, the Rams rebuilt their D from about last to first by gutting the players and the coordinator. They were #1 or close to it the next year, running the same offense.

The Colts are similar. They didn't change around their offense. Worked to build up their D.

Seattle the same thing -- didn't change their offense, Holmgren kept firing D coordinators until he found one that was successful.

What I find funny is that the Chiefs weren't really an aggressive team on O. I'd say average. I think Vermeil costs us quite a few games by punting on 4th and short, given our putrid D. Belechick/Weiss were way more aggressive on offense than were Vermeil/Saunders...they just didn't have the personnel outside Tom Brady that we do.

The O isn't going to change that much, because it can't. There is only so much you can run the ball in the NFL before you become predictable. The Chiefs were close to being a 50/50 team the last few years. I just find this whole discussion that we need/are going to change our offense to be absurd.

If this team is to be successful, you'll see an offense that is very similar to last year, and a defense that is much better.

You say the offense doesn't need to change and in the same breath say that Vermeil costs us games because he wasn't aggressive enough.

penguinz
07-31-2006, 02:20 PM
What's true? The fact that KC's going to Martyball, Herm re-wrote the Offensive playbook on Friday night or that Roaf retired?
I heard we weren't going to use an offense at all this season now that we don;t have Roaf. Our offensive unit will not even see the field because our D will end every drive with a turnover for a TD. If no turnover then every punt or kickoff will be returned for a score.

htismaqe
07-31-2006, 02:24 PM
What's true? The fact that KC's going to Martyball, Herm re-wrote the Offensive playbook on Friday night or that Roaf retired?

The fact that Roaf retired, and that guys like him don't grow on trees.

KCTitus
07-31-2006, 03:08 PM
I heard we weren't going to use an offense at all this season now that we don;t have Roaf. Our offensive unit will not even see the field because our D will end every drive with a turnover for a TD. If no turnover then every punt or kickoff will be returned for a score.

ROFL

Baby Lee
07-31-2006, 04:35 PM
Same question to you: were you last last year calling for a more conservative offense? I just don't think you felt that was our problem last year.
Right about the time Fujita got Trent all JACKED UP!!!

Same thing the year before when Trent tried to froce the ball into a triple teamed Gonzo in the corner of the endzone against the Texans.

The effing TEXANS!!!

dirk digler
07-31-2006, 04:50 PM
If this team is to be successful, you'll see an offense that is very similar to last year, and a defense that is much better.

I totally agree.

Baby Lee
07-31-2006, 04:58 PM
If this team is to be successful, you'll see an offense that is very similar to last year, and a defense that is much better.
Only, it'll look a little more like demoralizing the Falcons in 2004 with a bajillion rushing yards, or the Jets, Dolphins and Bengals games of last year, than the 01/04 shootout with the Colts,

CoMoChief
07-31-2006, 05:02 PM
Good. I'm glad it's back. We won more play-off games and saw more play-off appearances with Martyball than we did with Dickball.


You got to score to win the game. We also had stellar defenses during most of the years under Marty. With DV, you could almost argue that a HS team could score on us all day with the defense we put on the field, not really but you get my drift.

Marty ball has it's positives and negatives. However running the ball on 3rd down (if its not a very short length) is just plain retarded. Besides Marcus Allen, we never had a RB that was worth a shit, now we do so lets see how this plays out.

Baby Lee
07-31-2006, 05:06 PM
You got to score to win the game. We also had stellar defenses during most of the years under Marty. With DV, you could almost argue that a HS team could score on us all day with the defense we put on the field, not really but you get my drift.

Marty ball has it's positives and negatives. However running the ball on 3rd down (if its not a very short length) is just plain retarded. Besides Marcus Allen, we never had a RB that was worth a shit, now we do so lets see how this plays out.
I have an autographed 8x10 that would beg to diff . . . . wait.

CoMoChief
07-31-2006, 05:06 PM
You know, that's probably it...Edwards had planned all along to leave the offense alone and then on Friday, changed everything overnight when Roaf retired. Makes sense to me.


Tait was a RT. I think before Roaf we had Victor Riley IIRC.

cdcox
07-31-2006, 05:41 PM
A lot to comment on in this tread.

The following embody Marty Ball. Playing to protect a 3 point lead when there are more than 2 minutes left in the game. When down by less than 3, not understanding that there is a world of difference between a 35 yard and 43 yard FGA, and that it is worth taking some risks to gain extra yards when you get in FG range. Thinking that your10 point lead is insurmountable, regardless of who your opponent is. When running out the clock, failing to take risks to gain a first down out of fear of an incomplete pass stopping the clock.

Marty ball leads to disappointing playoff results The Marty-ball formula that generates 10 to 13 wins in the regular season against average competition generates a below .500 winning percentage in the playoffs. Against the better competition, the margin of error is just too thin to expect to string together 3 or 4 wins in order to win the SB. QBs are better and able to mount a last minute rally against your defense. An explosive offense evaporates your 10 point lead. You line up for a 43 yard last second field goal and miss it. One thing goes against you in the 4th quarter and you are cooked.

Who are the Marty ballers? Marty, Dungy (he inhereted an explosive offense that hides his Martiness right now), Edwards, and Cowher. Yes, Cowher. He came wisker close to Marty-balling the game away against the Colts. Manning was eating them up, got the ball back with plenty of time with good winning chances and choked, as usual. Cowher became a little too content with his lead in the second half and almost blew it.

Edwards loss in the '04 playoffs was classic Marty ball dirk digler has already covered this nicely. The key Martyism was not taking chances to gain additional yardage once they got in long FG range.

Edwards zero tolerance for turnovers is troublesome . There is risk in running the ball (fumbles). There is very little difference between a downfield interception on 3rd down and a punt on 4th down. But by risking that down field interception, there is the possible reward of a big yardage gain. Green has shown the ability since 2002 to balance risk and reward.

Conservatism can be good in the right situations Saunders definitely ticked me off more than once by going away from conservative calls that the opposing team had failed to stop. The Chiefs have been wildly successful running the ball in the red zone. When a team can't stop that, keep it going. Also running to protect a lead is great when they haven't stopped you all day. The key is to keep the chains moving. If that means mixing some passes because they are cheating too much on the run, go for it.

ChiefFan31
07-31-2006, 06:05 PM
Lots O good breakdowns in this thread..

My .02

Its all about the fine line. Take enough chances and be aggressive enough to win the game, but also run the ball more and protect the D.

I hope that is what he is going for. Not Martyball, not Al Saunders in the second half of the Philly game.