PDA

View Full Version : GRETZ: It's Broken


Flustrated
09-13-2006, 07:17 AM
http://kcchiefs.com/news/2006/09/13/gretz_its_broken/

Sad thing for us is, it always seems like one side of the ball is broken. With Marty we had great 'D', with Dick we had great 'O', it's a little too soon to know what the hell we have now, but Carl just never seems to find the right balance at the right time. I fear I will be like my gandpa as a Cub fan and never seeing a championship throughout his entire lifetime.

Deberg_1990
09-13-2006, 07:27 AM
Good read. For once, i agree with pretty much everything Gretz said in that column.

MichaelH
09-13-2006, 07:33 AM
I think with our young defense it's possible to attain balance. But not right now. The aging offense needs to be addressed but without taking away from the defense and special teams like in the past. I'm sorry to say but the years of rebuilding are approaching faster than we want. :(

jspchief
09-13-2006, 07:44 AM
Again, pay attention to how the Bengals approached the second half of Sunday’s game. They have a top 10 NFL offenses from last year, with all starters returning. They went to the half-time locker room with a 17-3 lead and could have easily come out in the second half and just started throwing the ball around and bumping up their stats for Carson Palmer and Chad Johnson.
Instead, they ran the ball on 19 of their 26 plays in the second-half. As best they could, they tried to help their defense by staying on the field and taking fewer chances. Call it conservative, but that’s a winning formula that been used in football since the game’s invention. The key word there is “winning.”

Lewis is using Martyball!!!

Perfect example of becoming conservative when the situation dictates it. I wonder why all the people around here that cry about Martyball didn't have a comment on the Bengals second half play-calling?

Baby Lee
09-13-2006, 07:57 AM
Lewis is using Martyball!!!

Perfect example of becoming conservative when the situation dictates it. I wonder why all the people around here that cry about Martyball didn't have a comment on the Bengals second half play-calling?
Sure, it's the regular season, it's worthless.
Look what he did in the playoffs, though. I mean, only Marty or a Marty clone could design a gameplan to get the franchise QB's knee demolished in the opening series.

jspchief
09-13-2006, 08:01 AM
Sure, it's the regular season, it's worthless.
Look what he did in the playoffs, though. I mean, only Marty or a Marty clone could design a gameplan to get the franchise QB's knee demolished in the opening series.That's the difference between the philosphy and the implementation of the philosophy.

People have been bitching all off-season about how Herm is going to get conservative with a lead. We just saw one ot the top offenses in the NFL get uber-conservative with pretty solid results.

My point is, there's nothing wrong with Martyball or with Herm's hinting at getting conservative with a lead. It's a solid strategy that a lot of NFL coaches use. If he does it in the post season at a time when he shouldn't, then I can see bitching about it. But until it actually happens, it's just bitching based on trying to predict the future.

DaFace
09-13-2006, 08:02 AM
Nice read. Gretz did a pretty good job of defending the current coaches by using actual FACTS to back up his points. I get tired of all the arguments against Herm that are based more on personal impressions than facts.

Chiefnj
09-13-2006, 08:27 AM
Lewis is using Martyball!!!

Perfect example of becoming conservative when the situation dictates it. I wonder why all the people around here that cry about Martyball didn't have a comment on the Bengals second half play-calling?

Martyball is a good bet when your defense is dominating the other team and you're playing against Damon "I never held a football before" Huard.

As to the article itself, I don't know if I buy it. Yes, the offense was dominant during the Vermeil era, but I think it is a stretch to say they weren't a team. Vermeil was overly loyal to GROB. I'm supposed to believe that this coach who defended an atrocious DC time and time again and bawled when GROB resigned somehow treated him like a second class citizen and treated that side of the ball like a red headed stepchild? Normally when you have a team that is so dominant on one side of the ball some of the players will eventually turn on another and there will be comments made in interviews, etc. That never happened with the Chiefs. To me, it looks like some more excuses by the Chiefs PR machine - part of the lack of success that will follow in 2006 is Herm walking into a lockerroom where there is no "team", etc. All I read about the last 5 years was Vermeil's great ability to assemble a TEAM of high character players and now I find out there was no team.

boogblaster
09-13-2006, 08:34 AM
Carl couldn't pick thepickofthelitter if there was only one pup....Carl must get a bonus for saving money..cheap bastard.....

htismaqe
09-13-2006, 09:16 AM
That's the difference between the philosphy and the implementation of the philosophy.

People have been bitching all off-season about how Herm is going to get conservative with a lead. We just saw one ot the top offenses in the NFL get uber-conservative with pretty solid results.

My point is, there's nothing wrong with Martyball or with Herm's hinting at getting conservative with a lead. It's a solid strategy that a lot of NFL coaches use. If he does it in the post season at a time when he shouldn't, then I can see bitching about it. But until it actually happens, it's just bitching based on trying to predict the future.

Yep.

milkman
09-13-2006, 09:24 AM
That's the difference between the philosphy and the implementation of the philosophy.

People have been bitching all off-season about how Herm is going to get conservative with a lead. We just saw one ot the top offenses in the NFL get uber-conservative with pretty solid results.

My point is, there's nothing wrong with Martyball or with Herm's hinting at getting conservative with a lead. It's a solid strategy that a lot of NFL coaches use. If he does it in the post season at a time when he shouldn't, then I can see bitching about it. But until it actually happens, it's just bitching based on trying to predict the future.

I've been banging this drum for years.

People want to believe what they want to believe, and you simply can't them to see the reality.

Demonpenz
09-13-2006, 09:26 AM
That's the difference between the philosphy and the implementation of the philosophy.

People have been bitching all off-season about how Herm is going to get conservative with a lead. We just saw one ot the top offenses in the NFL get uber-conservative with pretty solid results.

My point is, there's nothing wrong with Martyball or with Herm's hinting at getting conservative with a lead. It's a solid strategy that a lot of NFL coaches use. If he does it in the post season at a time when he shouldn't, then I can see bitching about it. But until it actually happens, it's just bitching based on trying to predict the future.


Oh don't worry. I doubt he sniffs the playoffs. So running it up sam adams pee hole on 3rd and 5 will have to do.

donkhater
09-13-2006, 09:30 AM
Martyball isn't playing conservative. Martyball is playing scared. Scared to win. Scared that if something bad happens, your team can't overcome it.

As a coach if you call a game in that fashion, the players sense your lack of confidence in them, so that when something bad does happen or you fall behind, their confidence is shot and start to play panicky.

Calling nothing but running plays on the road, in the rain, with a 2+TD lead in the second half and the opposing starting QB, out isn't Martyball. It's smartball.

Grabbing a 1TD lead early in the game and sitting on it is Martyball.

DJJasonp
09-13-2006, 09:36 AM
No mention of going after a true #2 (or #3 for that matter) WR in the off-season....no mention of personnel decisions that leave no viable back-ups for multiple "on the verge of retirement" offensive lineman.....no mention of letting T-Rich go (while he signs for cheap and we still have a good deal of cap room).....and no mention of letting Todd Collins go while the braintrust coaching staff cant decide who the QB of the future should be (Huard/Printers/Croyle).

Bottom line is, the chiefs management and coaching staff (besides the Law signing) didnt do a whole lot to prepare this team for the season.

Willie's retirement didnt help - but as GM, you should be prepared for that scenario given the amount of seasons he's played (and the fact that he teetered about retiring after last season).

DaFace
09-13-2006, 09:45 AM
No mention of going after a true #2 (or #3 for that matter) WR in the off-season....no mention of personnel decisions that leave no viable back-ups for multiple "on the verge of retirement" offensive lineman.....no mention of letting T-Rich go (while he signs for cheap and we still have a good deal of cap room).....and no mention of letting Todd Collins go while the braintrust coaching staff cant decide who the QB of the future should be (Huard/Printers/Croyle).

Bottom line is, the chiefs management and coaching staff (besides the Law signing) didnt do a whole lot to prepare this team for the season.

Willie's retirement didnt help - but as GM, you should be prepared for that scenario given the amount of seasons he's played (and the fact that he teetered about retiring after last season).

Although I agree that those are all areas that would be nice to improve, the fact is that you have to have priorities. Would you argue that we needed a new WR more than a CB (Law)? Would you argue that we needed OL help more than improvment on the DL (keeping in mind that we thought Roaf would be here)? Would you argue that we should spend more on Todd Collins than our current three backups combined?

It would be nice to fix every position that has a need. However, the reality is that there is only so much money to go around. That's the whole reason for the salary cap.

For the record, I wholeheartedly agree that letting T-Rich go was idiotic.

Fish
09-13-2006, 09:49 AM
Bottom line is, the chiefs management and coaching staff (besides the Law signing) didnt do a whole lot to prepare this team for the season.

Willie's retirement didnt help - but as GM, you should be prepared for that scenario given the amount of seasons he's played (and the fact that he teetered about retiring after last season).

What?

We traded for 2 new DLinemen, who are now our starters. We drafted a good young DE, who is also a new starter. We got Lenny Walls, a very good backup CB. We've groomed a couple young LBs into potential starters. We drafted 2 rookie safeties who could be starting very soon. We got an excellent backup RB. We traded for a backup tackle before Roaf announced retirement, who is now starting as our best tackle. We've now signed another WR, who was a first day pick.

I could go on.... point is the Chiefs had a pretty good offseason. 4 new starters already on defense(which was our biggest need the last 5 yrs), and a couple more that could be starting soon. They couldn't forsee the things that have happened. To say they didn't do a whole lot to prepare this team is silly.

htismaqe
09-13-2006, 09:52 AM
Martyball isn't playing conservative. Martyball is playing scared. Scared to win. Scared that if something bad happens, your team can't overcome it.

As a coach if you call a game in that fashion, the players sense your lack of confidence in them, so that when something bad does happen or you fall behind, their confidence is shot and start to play panicky.

Calling nothing but running plays on the road, in the rain, with a 2+TD lead in the second half and the opposing starting QB, out isn't Martyball. It's smartball.

Grabbing a 1TD lead early in the game and sitting on it is Martyball.

Most of us know this already.

Unfortunately, it seems you could post this same post over and over and some people here would never get it.

milkman
09-13-2006, 09:52 AM
What?

We traded for 2 new DLinemen, who are now our starters. We drafted a good young DE, who is also a new starter. We got Lenny Walls, a very good backup CB. We've groomed a couple young LBs into potential starters. We drafted 2 rookie safeties who could be starting very soon. We got an excellent backup RB. We traded for a backup tackle before Roaf announced retirement, who is now starting as our best tackle. We've now signed another WR, who was a first day pick.

I could go on.... point is the Chiefs had a pretty good offseason. They couldn't forsee the things that have happened. To say they didn't do a whole lot to prepare this team is silly.

To keep the record straight, Reed and Edwards were free agent signees.

DJJasonp
09-13-2006, 10:00 AM
What?

We traded for 2 new DLinemen, who are now our starters. We drafted a good young DE, who is also a new starter. We got Lenny Walls, a very good backup CB. We've groomed a couple young LBs into potential starters. We drafted 2 rookie safeties who could be starting very soon. We got an excellent backup RB. We traded for a backup tackle before Roaf announced retirement, who is now starting as our best tackle. We've now signed another WR, who was a first day pick.

I could go on.... point is the Chiefs had a pretty good offseason. 4 new starters already on defense(which was our biggest need the last 5 yrs), and a couple more that could be starting soon. They couldn't forsee the things that have happened. To say they didn't do a whole lot to prepare this team is silly.

Maybe it's too soon to tell, but the 2 new DLineman didnt look much better than dalton/simms, etc.

I understand cap implications so I know you cant fix everything in one off-season (and I think our draft may turn out great a few years down the road).

I just think we could have made better decisions about our QB and OL and especially T-Rich. (and the recent signing of Gardner, in my opinion, is probably better than Parker will be).

Again, Carl and company didnt know about Willie....but you cant run a franchise thinking our OL was going to be together forever. putting a 265-285lb Turley at left tackle is not an answer. Wait until we play some teams with a real pass rush (Merriman, etc.).....it will be even more ugly.

I wouldnt change the Law signing (although if I keep seeing him playing 10-14 yds off the line of scrimmage - I'll change my mind on that), but I think even a draft-pick trade for an OLineman would have been prudent.

donkhater
09-13-2006, 10:07 AM
Most of us know this already.

Unfortunately, it seems you could post this same post over and over and some people here would never get it.
I know some people get it.

All this 'Herm's a conservative coach' stuff is only validated by the 3rd and 5 call in the redzone. Other than that, I thought he was overly hazardous. Especially since it was evident early on that Black was going to struggle.

LJ had what, one carry in the second quarter? Gonzo didn't really get looked at heavily until Green was knocked out. The WR's are OK for this team, but only as secondary targets. Once the other team respects LJ and Gonzo, then the big plays will open up.

Now going on the road with butterfingers as your QB, this should be the strategy, lest he's forced to play Croyle or Printers.

htismaqe
09-13-2006, 10:14 AM
Maybe it's too soon to tell, but the 2 new DLineman didnt look much better than dalton/simms, etc.

I understand cap implications so I know you cant fix everything in one off-season (and I think our draft may turn out great a few years down the road).

I just think we could have made better decisions about our QB and OL and especially T-Rich. (and the recent signing of Gardner, in my opinion, is probably better than Parker will be).

Again, Carl and company didnt know about Willie....but you cant run a franchise thinking our OL was going to be together forever. putting a 265-285lb Turley at left tackle is not an answer. Wait until we play some teams with a real pass rush (Merriman, etc.).....it will be even more ugly.

I wouldnt change the Law signing (although if I keep seeing him playing 10-14 yds off the line of scrimmage - I'll change my mind on that), but I think even a draft-pick trade for an OLineman would have been prudent.

I'm not sure what game you were watching but one of the new DT's is SIGNIFICANTLY better than Sims and Dalton.

Fish
09-13-2006, 10:15 AM
Maybe it's too soon to tell, but the 2 new DLineman didnt look much better than dalton/simms, etc.

I disagree(partially). Reed is becoming a pretty good upgrade. Edwards hasn't done a whole lot except plug the line, but he's doing that adequately. IMO, they're better than what we saw last year. Not great, but an improvement...

Again, Carl and company didnt know about Willie....but you cant run a franchise thinking our OL was going to be together forever. putting a 265-285lb Turley at left tackle is not an answer. Wait until we play some teams with a real pass rush (Merriman, etc.).....it will be even more ugly.

No... Turley isn't Roaf. But by the time Roaf and Welbourne announced they were retiring, the market for tackles was non-existent. And at draft time we didn't know they would retire, and had more pressing concerns on D. We would have hoped that one of the young kids would step up and start playing well, but that hasn't happened.

Woodrow Call
09-13-2006, 10:22 AM
I'm not sure what game you were watching but one of the new DT's is SIGNIFICANTLY better than Sims and Dalton.

Yep. They did a decent job of getting in Palmer's face and clogging the middle on runs. Reed is the best DT the Chiefs have had in years.

Skip Towne
09-13-2006, 11:45 AM
Yep. They did a decent job of getting in Palmer's face and clogging the middle on runs. Reed is the best DT the Chiefs have had in years.
They actually looked good in the first quarter. I commented on it in the game thread.