PDA

View Full Version : From the Chiefs site.........help me understand Herm' comment..


King_Chief_Fan
08-28-2006, 10:24 AM
Q&A with HERM EDWARDS - 8/27

Aug 27, 2006, 11:04:16 AM


TRAINING CAMP
HERM EDWARDS: “We’re learning and I’m learning about this football team. There are some things that still have to be changed in my estimation to make us a more sound football team. I give a lot of credit to the coaches and players this week because they were going through a lot of anxiety in the fact that we were 0-2 (in the pre-season).
“I think some people were panicking. You’ll find out a lot about me. I don’t panic. I came here with a plan and I believe in what we’re doing and we’ll do it as I see fit. I’m not going to panic and the players or coaches didn’t panic.
“We’re trying to evaluate football players our first two games. We did a pretty good job of evaluating guys and that’s what you’re supposed to do in the pre-season the last time I checked. You’re supposed to evaluate all your players. We did that.
“We’re still not there and we have a long way to go. We have another week of preparation and then the season starts the following week.
“It was good for these guys to get a win; the crowd was great; the energy was great. But the problem is we lost two on the road. If you don’t win football games on the road you’re not going to be a playoff team and we’ve got to understand that. We have a whole different mindset when we walk in this ballpark and that’s great but the problem is we play eight of them on the road. We’re going to have to get that corrected.”
Q: What did you think of Brodie Croyle’s performance vs. St. Louis?
EDWARDS: “I thought he did some good things. I thought he got spooked a little bit out of the pocket. When those guys come after you they come after you now; they brought a lot of pressure. But I thought for the most part he kept his poise. I think he’s going to be a good quarterback. First time he played in a game. He hasn’t played a lot. He made some throws. He made a nice throw on the boundary over there to Webb who stepped out of bounds. That was a big-time throw. That was a good decision.”
Q: Is he your number two QB?
EDWARDS: “Our number two guy is Damon Huard.”
Q: Why didn’t he play?
EDWARDS: “Because I wanted to put Brodie in there with the first line. I wanted to see him move the ball. It was important.”
Q: What did you think of the play of Tamba Hali?
EDWARDS: “Obviously he did what we thought he could do: he put pressure on the quarterback. That was good to see because we have to rush with four guys and get to the quarterback. You want to be able to do that; you don’t want to have to blitz all the time to get to the quarterback. I thought we put pressure on the quarterback and covered them pretty well. It’s a pretty good offense, now they didn’t have their two receivers in there, but their quarterback’s a pretty good player. They’ve been a very high potent offense and we held them to three points the first half. That’s pretty good ball.”
Q: You have Hali playing all over the place. Why?
EDWARDS: “Well, eventually he might move around and get a sack. That’s a package we put him in because he’s an athletic guy and we’re trying to get him in some one-on-one match-ups and win. He’s relentless and I thought the whole front four played pretty well.
“I thought we did a good job of stopping the run and (Jackson’s) a heck of a running back. We went into this game knowing that we had to stop this guy from running and make ‘em pass and put pressure on the quarterback and we did.”
Q: How about your offense?
EDWARDS: “We finally saw this vaunted offense that I inherited. For two weeks I didn’t see it. It never got out of the garage. Obviously, it got out this week and I thought that Mike (Solari) did a good job. The first drive was a good drive —13 or 14 plays — ate up a lot of clock and left only seven minutes in the first quarter. They did a good job of moving the ball. It was all started with the run game against seven man fronts and we ran the ball well. Then they started blitzing us and bringing some pressure and it gave us a free release outside and we started throwing it.
“We weren’t smart in certain situations and that’s what I’m bothered about. What I’m bothered about is they talked me into it. We were doing some things that are un- characteristic of me and that I wouldn’t have done. I don’t have to worry about it any more. I got it off my chest and I’m fine now.”
Q: Can you talk about Bernard Pollard?
EDWARDS: “He did some good things and he probably did some bad things. He’s a force and when he hits people you can hear it on the sideline. He’s going to get better and he’s a rookie. We had a pretty good draft and we drafted some players that can help us on defense, and maybe even a few on offense as the season goes on. He’s one of the young players that’s a tough guy, a good tackler, and he makes some plays on the ball. That’s what he did in college.”
Q: Larry Johnson looked pretty motivated against St. Louis?
EDWARDS: “Yeah, well this is probably his last until opening day. I don’t see him playing (Thursday). He’s done. He’s not going to run the ball (vs. New Orleans.) I wanted to get him and our offensive going and they did. The line did a great job without Will Shields. You’ve got to be able to run the ball and if you do it opens up the offense. We went into the game thinking we had to run the ball and we knew they were going to put eight guys in-the-box at times.”

any clue to what he is thinking/talking about in the bolded section?

4th and Long
08-28-2006, 10:26 AM
You really don't understand that?

jspchief
08-28-2006, 10:27 AM
He's talking about that drive before the end of the half. The where Webb got the PI call. He was pissed that they were passing instead of running to keep it in FG range.

keg in kc
08-28-2006, 10:28 AM
He was upset about the sack that lead to the 50-yard field goal right before halftime. He thought we were too aggressive and went the wrong way. We were in range for a 35-ish yard field goal and ended up doing it from 50, and he said something (IIRC) along the lines of how he'd have been a lot more upset about scoring zero points in that situation than he would be over scoring 3 instead of 7.

That was abridged from his press conference...

CoMoChief
08-28-2006, 10:31 AM
He's talking about that drive before the end of the half. The where Webb got the PI call. He was pissed that they were passing instead of running to keep it in FG range.


I still dont get settling for 3pts when you can go for a chance to get 6 pts. Then if it doesnt work out the way you want it to, then you settle for a FG.

We are more than able to go for the TD with our #1 starters, not so sure about the subs though. If it was a real game that actually counted, I would have gone for the TD. But it was probably a good idea to run it with the younger guys. It all depends on what personell you have out there.

Mr. Laz
08-28-2006, 10:32 AM
any clue to what he is thinking/talking about in the bolded section?

Run the ball
Run the ball
Run the ball

Count Zarth
08-28-2006, 10:35 AM
There was very little chance of getting six in that situation. I agree with Herm.

htismaqe
08-28-2006, 10:38 AM
He's not really trying to understand what was said.

He's trying to draw out the "Martyball is back!" crowd.

jspchief
08-28-2006, 10:39 AM
I still dont get settling for 3pts when you can go for a chance to get 6 pts. Then if it doesnt work out the way you want it to, then you settle for a FG. That drive was a perfect example of why going for the TD is dangerous. A sack (or in this case a PI call on the WR) turns a gimmie 35 yarder into a nail-biter 50 yarder.

I think there's a time and place to do both. This was a game where we were moving the ball well, and playing good defense. IMO it would have made more sense to be a bit more conservative.

However, being pre-season and an audition for your rookie QB, I think it was a good time to be aggressive. The problem was that while Webb was single covered, the CB had position on him all the way. Croyle probably shouldn't have thrown it, even though I think a better WR might have had a chance to go up and get it for a TD.

King_Chief_Fan
08-28-2006, 10:40 AM
He was upset about the sack that lead to the 50-yard field goal right before halftime. He thought we were too aggressive and went the wrong way. We were in range for a 35-ish yard field goal and ended up doing it from 50, and he said something (IIRC) along the lines of how he'd have been a lot more upset about scoring zero points in that situation than he would be over scoring 3 instead of 7.

That was abridged from his press conference...

thanks Keg.... I don't see any Chiefs press conferences in St. Louis.

I saw several when DV was still coach though. They never could get over losing him to KC.

King_Chief_Fan
08-28-2006, 10:41 AM
He's not really trying to understand what was said.

He's trying to draw out the "Martyball is back!" crowd.

That better be a tongue in cheek comment and it is you trying to flush out that crowd not me.

htismaqe
08-28-2006, 10:55 AM
That better be a tongue in cheek comment and it is you trying to flush out that crowd not me.

Yes, it was dripping with sarcasm. Sorry.

Chief Chief
08-28-2006, 11:03 AM
DUMB questions: "Is he (Brody Croyle) your number two QB?" and "Why didn't he (Damon Huard) play?"

Coach Edwards already addressed those issues well before the game even started!!

ncognito
08-28-2006, 11:28 AM
In this particular situation, playing safe for a decent range FG is NOT martyball. We took over after a TO with 24 seconds on the 27 yard line, already with the lead. Our defense basically gave us an easy shot for a cheap FG to close the half, and you should gladly take it.

What I'm pleased about this is Solari still not being the Yes man, and taking his shot. This is very encouraging to me anyway. Other situations I still want our offense to have some balls and go for the kill, so I'm glad to see Solari didn't show the 3 runs and kick mentality.

cdcox
08-28-2006, 11:44 AM
As I stated this weekend, bad things can happen on running plays too. You could have a holding penalty or a fumble. Football is all about balancing risks.

Assume the following:

The risk of an interception, in which case you don't score any points, is 3%
The odds of making the FG at your current field position are 85%.
The odds of making the FG after a sack or bad penalty drop to 30%.

We still have two unknows, the odds that a given play will score a TD and the odds that we will suffer a sack or bad penalty that drops our FG chances to 30%. These are harder to estimate, but I did calculate the following:

If the chances of scoring a TD are 5%, then we can tolerate an 8% chance of a sack or penalty.

If the chances of scoring a TD are 10%, then we can tolerate a 22% chance of a sack or penalty.

If the chances of scoring a TD are 15%, then we can tolerate a 35% chance of a sack or penalty.

If the chances of scoring a TD are 20%, then we can tolerate a 49% chance of a sack or penalty.

These are the break even points. But lets say we had a play that had a 15% chance of scoring a TD with only a 10% chance of a sack or penalty. On average, your are going to net 0.43 points by taking the risk. Surely they had a play like that in their play book?

Herm's mentality is the exact definition of playing not to lose.

It's been my pleasure to come out of the woodwork for this post.

Dave Lane
08-28-2006, 12:11 PM
If he hasn't got the balls to call a pass play that could result in a TD instead of a POSSIBLE FG attempt then he doesn't deserve to coach in the NFL in my opinion.

Dave

BigRock
08-28-2006, 12:25 PM
Another thing Herm couldn't have been happy with was that the 2 incomplete passes stopped the clock right at the end of the half. They got the ball with 24 seconds left, ran 3 plays and kicked a FG, and there was still time for the Rams to get the ball back. It didn't end up being a big deal in this situation, but the same thing happening with a minute or two left wouldn't go over too well.

RockChalk
08-28-2006, 01:58 PM
That drive was a perfect example of why going for the TD is dangerous. A sack (or in this case a PI call on the WR) turns a gimmie 35 yarder into a nail-biter 50 yarder.

With Tynes, a 35 yarder is as much a nail-biter as a 50 yard fg. I actually have more confidence in him making the 50 yarder than I do the 35. The kick on the 50 yarder would have cleared 60 yards easily.

keg in kc
08-28-2006, 02:01 PM
With Tynes, a 35 yarder is as much a nail-biter as a 50 yard fg. I actually have more confidence in him making the 50 yarder than I do the 35. The kick on the 50 yarder would have cleared 60 yards easily.Yeah, it's not like he's 19-21 in his career from 30-39 yards.

Oh. Wait.

RockChalk
08-28-2006, 02:12 PM
Yeah, it's not like he's 19-21 in his career from 30-39 yards.

Oh. Wait.

Regardless of statistics, I still feel nervous whenever he is kicking a field goal. I feel just as nervous at 35 yards, as I do at 50 yards.

Sorry. For. Having. My. Own. Opinion.

Cormac
08-28-2006, 02:20 PM
As I stated this weekend, bad things can happen on running plays too. You could have a holding penalty or a fumble. Football is all about balancing risks.

Assume the following:

The risk of an interception, in which case you don't score any points, is 3%
The odds of making the FG at your current field position are 85%.
The odds of making the FG after a sack or bad penalty drop to 30%.

We still have two unknows, the odds that a given play will score a TD and the odds that we will suffer a sack or bad penalty that drops our FG chances to 30%. These are harder to estimate, but I did calculate the following:

If the chances of scoring a TD are 5%, then we can tolerate an 8% chance of a sack or penalty.

If the chances of scoring a TD are 10%, then we can tolerate a 22% chance of a sack or penalty.

If the chances of scoring a TD are 15%, then we can tolerate a 35% chance of a sack or penalty.

If the chances of scoring a TD are 20%, then we can tolerate a 49% chance of a sack or penalty.

These are the break even points. But lets say we had a play that had a 15% chance of scoring a TD with only a 10% chance of a sack or penalty. On average, your are going to net 0.43 points by taking the risk. Surely they had a play like that in their play book?

Herm's mentality is the exact definition of playing not to lose.

It's been my pleasure to come out of the woodwork for this post.

:clap:

Bravo, Sir.

Chief Chief
08-28-2006, 02:58 PM
Does anyone remember the complete situation? Clock time? Time outs available?

And just how would Coach Edwards have played it? Would he have tried a safe pass (i.e., screen pass) to try to cut the distance to a TD in half, then try a couple of passes in the end zone? Or would he have just run the ball to 'relatively ensure' no loss of ground/possession and go for the 'SURE' field goal?

keg in kc
08-28-2006, 03:01 PM
Regardless of statistics, I still feel nervous whenever he is kicking a field goal. I feel just as nervous at 35 yards, as I do at 50 yards. What I was referring to was your statement that "I actually have more confidence in him making the 50 yarder than I do the 35".

'cause, well...that's nuts. The guy's missed a total of 2 field goals (in 35 tries) in two years inside of 40 yards. He's 11 of 21 from 40+.

You may rather he kick it from 50 yards. I sure as hell don't. Not him or any other kicker in the history of kickers.

keg in kc
08-28-2006, 03:06 PM
If he hasn't got the balls to call a pass play that could result in a TD instead of a POSSIBLE FG attempt then he doesn't deserve to coach in the NFL in my opinion. This is what I don't get.

Whether we run the ball or pass the ball, isn't the result we're looking for exactly the same? I don't think we hand the ball to LJ and say "okay Larry, you only run it 3 yards". Running plays turn into touchdowns too, especially with this stretch/draw/misdirection oriented run offense. Even if Herm does run the ball more, it's still not going to be 3 yards and a cloud of dust, because our running game is designed for misdirection and attack just as much as the passing game.

That's why we're so dangerous. What we have to watch is that we don't become predictable.

jidar
08-28-2006, 04:07 PM
Running plays turn into touchdowns too, especially with this stretch/draw/misdirection oriented run offense. Even if Herm does run the ball more, it's still not going to be 3 yards and a cloud of dust, because our running game is designed for misdirection and attack just as much as the passing game.

That's why we're so dangerous. What we have to watch is that we don't become predictable.


That's the problem. Herm seems to have this mindset that you "always" run in such and such situation. That doesn't work because if you follow that formula then teams know what you're going to do. The only reason our misdirection works is because we don't always follow the book. Sometimes this will get you screwed, but the idea behind it is that it returns dividends by way of big plays when it works, and helps to keep the defense guessing even on the plays where we play it safe.

This is why I've always been down on the people on this board who bitched about Saunders play calling. The stats show that this style of play was correct, because we had far more big plays than big failures, and consequently have been an elite offense for several years. Now if we would have just done well on defense...

So in summary, yes, our running game is awesome and gets us tons of yards, but our running game is awesome because we're so unpredictable and don't always run or pass in the so-called obvious situations. If we change that mentality and we become predictable, the fall-off in production once teams have figured us out will cost us more than it gains us.

DTLB58
08-28-2006, 05:32 PM
This is why I've always been down on the people on this board who bitched about Saunders play calling. The stats show that this style of play was correct, because we had far more big plays than big failures, and consequently have been an elite offense for several years. Now if we would have just done well on defense...

So in summary, yes, our running game is awesome and gets us tons of yards, but our running game is awesome because we're so unpredictable and don't always run or pass in the so-called obvious situations. If we change that mentality and we become predictable, the fall-off in production once teams have figured us out will cost us more than it gains us.[/QUOTE]

:clap: :clap:

I have been thinking the same thing all off-season.

BigRock
08-28-2006, 05:33 PM
In Herm's press conference today, he said he was talking about the 2nd down play at the end of the 1st half. They'd already taken a shot at the end zone on first down, but it didn't work. He wouldn't have tried it again on second down, and getting a penalty on the play only made it worse. He'd have run it, kicked the easy FG, and ended the half.

But he also pointed out that it was the young guys in there, and it'd be a different situation with Trent in the game.

Calcountry
08-28-2006, 05:45 PM
That drive was a perfect example of why going for the TD is dangerous. A sack (or in this case a PI call on the WR) turns a gimmie 35 yarder into a nail-biter 50 yarder.

I think there's a time and place to do both. This was a game where we were moving the ball well, and playing good defense. IMO it would have made more sense to be a bit more conservative.

However, being pre-season and an audition for your rookie QB, I think it was a good time to be aggressive. The problem was that while Webb was single covered, the CB had position on him all the way. Croyle probably shouldn't have thrown it, even though I think a better WR might have had a chance to go up and get it for a TD.At least we can "evaluate" our kicker better by them going for it, now can't we. "The last time I checked, that is what you are suppose to do in the preseason, evaluate players."

He is full of inconsistencies in his statements.

I get him though, things ARE going to be different come season time.

jjjayb
08-28-2006, 09:54 PM
As I stated this weekend, bad things can happen on running plays too. You could have a holding penalty or a fumble. Football is all about balancing risks.

Assume the following:

The risk of an interception, in which case you don't score any points, is 3%
The odds of making the FG at your current field position are 85%.
The odds of making the FG after a sack or bad penalty drop to 30%.

We still have two unknows, the odds that a given play will score a TD and the odds that we will suffer a sack or bad penalty that drops our FG chances to 30%. These are harder to estimate, but I did calculate the following:

If the chances of scoring a TD are 5%, then we can tolerate an 8% chance of a sack or penalty.

If the chances of scoring a TD are 10%, then we can tolerate a 22% chance of a sack or penalty.

If the chances of scoring a TD are 15%, then we can tolerate a 35% chance of a sack or penalty.

If the chances of scoring a TD are 20%, then we can tolerate a 49% chance of a sack or penalty.

These are the break even points. But lets say we had a play that had a 15% chance of scoring a TD with only a 10% chance of a sack or penalty. On average, your are going to net 0.43 points by taking the risk. Surely they had a play like that in their play book?

Herm's mentality is the exact definition of playing not to lose.

It's been my pleasure to come out of the woodwork for this post.

Is that you Dick Vermeil? :D

Halfcan
08-28-2006, 10:33 PM
The crowd was great??? It was half empty by half time-is he stoned??

DaWolf
08-29-2006, 12:25 AM
Regarding Herm's comment, I can think of two games right off the top of my head, OK three, that would have turned out different if we had been using Herm's logic regarding passing vs running in that situation a the time:

A) Dallas last year near end of half, where Green gets hit by Fujita and Dallas goes the other way before the half. 14 point swing.

B) Texans game where Trent throws the INT and it goes the other way, thus turning that game around. I think that was 2 years ago.

C) Eagles game where we are in control and decide to go 5 wide spread again, and Green throws an INT and that game turns completely around.

I think Herm is trying to say play the percentages and when you have an opponent down, stomp on them with the run, don't give em a chance to make a huge play by forcing a pass...

cdcox
08-29-2006, 07:58 AM
Regarding Herm's comment, I can think of two games right off the top of my head, OK three, that would have turned out different if we had been using Herm's logic regarding passing vs running in that situation a the time:

A) Dallas last year near end of half, where Green gets hit by Fujita and Dallas goes the other way before the half. 14 point swing.

B) Texans game where Trent throws the INT and it goes the other way, thus turning that game around. I think that was 2 years ago.

C) Eagles game where we are in control and decide to go 5 wide spread again, and Green throws an INT and that game turns completely around.

I think Herm is trying to say play the percentages and when you have an opponent down, stomp on them with the run, don't give em a chance to make a huge play by forcing a pass...


Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. You are comparing apples and bannanas here.

The situation Saturday called for passing because it was first and 10 on the 27 with 26 seconds left. Not sure about the timeout situation. Running the ball was not likely to score a TD or markedly increase the odds of making the FG. It's not going to generate more points.

In the Dallas game, there was 1:21 left with a first and goal at the 9 yrd line with one time out remaining. Dallas had not stopped the run all day. There was plenty of time to run. I agree the situation called for some running plays because they maximize the odds of scoring vs. the risk of a turnover. I'm not saying never pass in this situation, but I guarantee you I wouldn't pass on frist AND second down.

Again in the Texans game in 2004 it was 2nd and 2 on the Houston 2, early in the 3rd quarter. Completely different situation. I would have ran it here. But if you want to argue for ALWAYS running it in this situation, you have to erase not only this interception, but every TD we scored by throwing a pass inside the 5. We might have scored on some of those by running, but certainly not all.

We lost the Phili game so many times it makes me sick.

You can't decide whether running or passing in a given situation is good by a single outcome. You are going to get some good and some bad. You have to balance your decisions to maximize the differential between the good and the bad. By his comments, Herm seems to want to make his decisions on the basis of eliminating the bad. That does not maximize the potential of your team, not to mention being impossible.

stevieray
08-29-2006, 08:10 AM
By his comments, Herm seems to want to make his decisions on the basis of eliminating the bad. That does not maximize the potential of your team, not to mention being impossible.

sounds like the marty mantra of playing not to lose.

mrbiggz
08-29-2006, 09:23 AM
The deep ball play calling itself in that situation sucked. They should have moved the ball with short 10-15 yard completions to put more pressure on the defense to come up with a stop. With I believe the two timeouts they could have scored realistically.

Dave Lane
08-29-2006, 03:12 PM
If I owned the team and he made those comments I'd have fired him on the spot. Mid-game if need be. If with 1:52 on the clock and the ball on the 20 something yard line you aren't going to try for a TD then IMO you are fired.

Dave