PDA

View Full Version : Is Gonzalez to Blame?


Chief Nute
09-12-2006, 08:39 AM
I love Tony as much as the next guy, and this is pure speculation, but when Willie was out last year, didnt Tony take on more of a blocking role to protect the QB? I know Tony did a lot of bitching because he knows that he is more effective as a pass catcher........and I notice that Tony had 10 catches against the Bengals which means he wasnt doing a whole lot of pass protecting/run blocking.

Obviously our line suffered because our tackles suck, but did it also hurt that Tony (assuming......) made it clear to the new staff that he is a pass catcher and not a blocker?

ChiefsCountry
09-12-2006, 08:56 AM
Did you noticed that Tony got most of those catches on one drive late in the game with Huard as QB?

jspchief
09-12-2006, 08:56 AM
Your entire theory is based purely on speculation of what Tony demnded of his coaches. Beyond that, it's assuming that the coaches bend to Tony's will rather than make decision based on what's best for the team overall. Finally, it's putting the blame in the wrong place. Regardless of Tony Gonzalez, the Tackles failed to do their job. He can't be expected to do it for them.

Overall I'd say your premise is speculative at best, and pretty ridiculous.

King_Chief_Fan
09-12-2006, 09:02 AM
Not one of the better posts to ever hit the board.
That is crazy talk right there

TEX
09-12-2006, 09:04 AM
That thinking is the same as blaming the Chiefs offense for the teams lack of playoff success during the DV years.

Cochise
09-12-2006, 09:11 AM
This reminds me of a book I read.

Chief Nute
09-12-2006, 09:12 AM
OK, well then let me rephrase........

Since Jordan Black and Kyle Turley are incompetent pieces of shit, would the Chiefs be better served to have Tony G. play more of a blocking role to keep another quarterback's head from getting mashed in?

Especially since they went out and got another possession type receiver yesterday.

My speculation is based on the fact that it seemed that Tony G. was bitching and moaning about not getting enough looks last year......which is true, right?

Mosbonian
09-12-2006, 09:12 AM
Quite frankly, as much as Gonzo has contributed to this team, and as much as we were reminded of the fact that he is still THE BEST TE in the NFL, I'm not going to talk bad about him.

mmaddog
*******

ChiefsCountry
09-12-2006, 09:17 AM
OK, well then let me rephrase........

Since Jordan Black and Kyle Turley are incompetent pieces of shit, would the Chiefs be better served to have Tony G. play more of a blocking role to keep another quarterback's head from getting mashed in?

Especially since they went out and got another possession type receiver yesterday.

My speculation is based on the fact that it seemed that Tony G. was bitching and moaning about not getting enough looks last year......which is true, right?

The answer your looking for is Jason Dunn.

CupidStunt
09-12-2006, 09:17 AM
Not to go Mecca on everyone, but Gates is better than Gonzalez. Not by the margin that most claim, but he's more dangerous.

Raiderhader
09-12-2006, 09:32 AM
Not to go Mecca on everyone, but Gates is better than Gonzalez. Not by the margin that most claim, but he's more dangerous.



When he performs at the same level for several years, then you can make that statement.

58-4ever
09-12-2006, 09:34 AM
I don't think Tony is to blame, but I did notice that one of our best blockers (Jason Dunn) didn't see much of the field. I thought that was a bit rediculous.

CupidStunt
09-12-2006, 09:37 AM
When he performs at the same level for several years, then you can make that statement.

You don't have to out-career a guy to be better than him.

Gates is better than Gonzalez.

Would you contend that Rod "50+ sacks" Coleman is better than Shaun Rogers? Both currently play at a SIMILAR level (with the edge to Rogers, similar to Gates having the edge on Gonzalez), but Coleman has the numbers on him.

Mosbonian
09-12-2006, 09:38 AM
Not to go Mecca on everyone, but Gates is better than Gonzalez. Not by the margin that most claim, but he's more dangerous.

I respectfully disagree....Gates is younger and the Chargers go to him more than our Offense is designed to (or Trent is inclined to) go to him.

Plus....Tony G changed the whole face of the game when he came to the NFL.....Gates came along afterward and needs to do it a little linger before I put him above Tony. Yes, that might be homerism, but TG has been doing this for years and has been the best for so long, that until someone revolutionizes the position, or TG retires, he IMO is still the best.

mmaddog
*******

ck_IN
09-12-2006, 09:40 AM
<i>would the Chiefs be better served to have Tony G. play more of a blocking role</i>

That's like using a corvette to pull a boat. If you want your TE to block bring in Dunn. When Gonzo is on the field he should be in pass routes. Leave Cruz back there to block if help is needed.

cdcox
09-12-2006, 09:41 AM
The Chiefs may need to run more of a maximum protection scheme on certain pass plays. But I'd still want TG to be in the pattern because he is probably the only reciever we have that presents a legitimate mismatch in the secondary. I'll play genious for a second and suggest a base 2-TE single-back formation. On first and second down, this formation would give us good run and pass options. On passing plays, send TG and the two wideouts into the pattern leave Dunn in to block/check down and keep the back in to block. The problem is, who is the back that can pass block? Here is where it would be nice to have PH still. He could pass block and was a legitmate threat to take a dump off pass for a first down. Maybe Larry worked on his pass blocking in the offseason...

We definitely need to avoid 3rd and long, because three recievers in the pattern in obvious passing situations aren't going to cut it, especially if the pass protection is suspect.

Mosbonian
09-12-2006, 09:44 AM
You don't have to out-career a guy to be better than him. .

In my book you do....there are too many 1 and 2 year wonders in this world for me to put Gates above Gonzo. I am not saying Gates is one of the best at the position right now, but when he does the above that I mentioned then we will talk.

mmaddog
*******

InChiefsHell
09-12-2006, 09:45 AM
Turley is not incompetent, just undersized. He held his own MUCH better than did Black. Black was friggin horrible the entire game. Turley has a problem with pass blocking, again because of his size. He was not the problem on Sunday. Just a part of the problem.

StcChief
09-12-2006, 09:51 AM
Gonzo does punt well, though :rolleyes:

Chief Nute
09-12-2006, 09:51 AM
Yea, I havent re-watched the game or anything, but a two-TE set may be in order. It isnt like we have such stud wide receivers that we need to keep them all on the field all the time.....

And one more thing.....to you guys that think Gates is better.......Just because you would take Gates before Gonzalez in your fantasy draft, doesnt automatically make him a better TE.

jspchief
09-12-2006, 10:40 AM
What's the point of keeping Gonzo in to pass protect when removing him from route running makes our passing game ineffective anyway?

Does anyone think Kennison and Parker are going to get open without Gonzo out there to attract safeties? Gonzo is the reason we don't need a true #1 WR. Take him out of the equation, and our WRs will be exposed for what they are...mediocre.

Chief Nute
09-12-2006, 10:43 AM
Our receivers were exposed as mediocre LONG ago.

jspchief
09-12-2006, 10:47 AM
Our receivers were exposed as mediocre LONG ago.Hence 4,000 yards passing each of the last 3 years :rolleyes:

The fact is, we had WRs that worked very well within our offense. We pay Tony Gonzalez a lot of money to take pressure off the WR position. We can afford him because he allows us to skimp at WR.

The minute we start using him as a blocking TE, our passing game is going to tank anyway. It won't matter how much time the QB has if both our receivers are double covered every play.

We can't fix the passing game by putting 9 guys in to block. We have to design plays that allow the QB to get rid of the ball quicker.

cdcox
09-12-2006, 10:55 AM
We can't fix the passing game by putting 9 guys in to block. We have to design plays that allow the QB to get rid of the ball quicker.

That too, definitely.

But pure dink-and-dunk still allows the safeties to play up in run support with zero penalties. The corners also start jumping routes. You have to go downfield (20+ yards) once in a while and that takes time. Seven in protection and 3 in patterns should give a good balance between targets and protection if you run it in a down and distance situation where the defense is not playing pure pass. Mix in some play action, and you have a real passing game.

Chief Faithful
09-12-2006, 11:46 AM
Not to go Mecca on everyone, but Gates is better than Gonzalez. Not by the margin that most claim, but he's more dangerous.

More dangerous? I would agree with more open. Gonzo is not only a pass catcher, but an accomplished blocker.

Fruit Ninja
09-12-2006, 12:05 PM
he's a lil better then gonzo right now. He's younger, he's still getting better. I dont its just a matter if he can do it consistantly.He still cant touch Gonzo yet, getitng close though. I have no problem giving him credit when he gives a few years of good consistant play.

And HELL no Tony is not to blame.

Calcountry
09-12-2006, 12:28 PM
OK, well then let me rephrase........

Since Jordan Black and Kyle Turley are incompetent pieces of shit, would the Chiefs be better served to have Tony G. play more of a blocking role to keep another quarterback's head from getting mashed in?

Especially since they went out and got another possession type receiver yesterday.

My speculation is based on the fact that it seemed that Tony G. was bitching and moaning about not getting enough looks last year......which is true, right?I don't exactly know what TG's salary is, but even I know, that you DON'T pay that kind of salary and then tell him to go be a pass blocking Tight end.

Cochise
09-12-2006, 12:33 PM
Hence 4,000 yards passing each of the last 3 years :rolleyes:

No kidding.

GAWD the collective "dumb" around here has increased by a factor of 10 this week.

Chief Nute
09-12-2006, 01:23 PM
Hey Cochise, why dont you shove it up your ass?

If you dont agree that our receivers are mediocre, then let me send you about 4 seasons worth of game tape.

Just because you throw for 4000 yards doesnt make your receivers competent, especially when about half of it comes from TE's and RB's.

Mr. Kotter
09-12-2006, 01:54 PM
Hey Cochise, why dont you shove it up your ass?

If you dont agree that our receivers are mediocre, then let me send you about 4 seasons worth of game tape.

Just because you throw for 4000 yards doesnt make your receivers competent, especially when about half of it comes from TE's and RB's.

Another fan of, "How to Make Friends and Influence People" I see....:hmmm:

Chief Nute
09-12-2006, 02:03 PM
Hey he started it! LMAO

:moon:

Valiant
09-12-2006, 03:03 PM
I love Tony as much as the next guy, and this is pure speculation, but when Willie was out last year, didnt Tony take on more of a blocking role to protect the QB? I know Tony did a lot of bitching because he knows that he is more effective as a pass catcher........and I notice that Tony had 10 catches against the Bengals which means he wasnt doing a whole lot of pass protecting/run blocking.

Obviously our line suffered because our tackles suck, but did it also hurt that Tony (assuming......) made it clear to the new staff that he is a pass catcher and not a blocker?


So Tony who is our best pass catcher is at blame because we wanted him on the line blocking???

joesomebody
09-12-2006, 03:48 PM
We have Dunn and a Full back if I recall. There are options out there besides making Tony block on 9 out of 10 plays.

InChiefsHell
09-13-2006, 08:46 AM
We will have to lean on Gonzo big time for this game, and not as a blocker. Quick passes and lots of em.