PDA

View Full Version : Herm Edwards: "We play to LOSE the game."


JohnnyV13
09-17-2006, 05:19 PM
God, I hate Herm Edwards.

He got exactly the kind of team he wanted and they suck. I think the season is over.

Pathetic.

blueballs
09-17-2006, 05:25 PM
bandwagon moron

AZORChiefFan
09-17-2006, 05:28 PM
back up QB hasnt started in 6 years. O line that needs help. In Denver and the Chiefs lose by a FG in OT. WTF were they supposed to do????

Mecca
09-17-2006, 05:30 PM
Apparently for people to be happy, we should have Huard throw 30 times and have 4 INT's, you know that's exactly what you're asking for right?

KChiefs1
09-17-2006, 05:32 PM
It was the only gameplan the Chiefs had a chance to win with....I personally wouldn't have wanted to see Huard throw the ball 40 times.

BigRock
09-17-2006, 05:32 PM
Herm sucks!!!! He cost us the game!!! Only a moron wouldn't have turned loose the great Damon Huard!!!!

Anyone who's said anything remotely resembling the above should end their life at the earliest possible opportunity.

Tuckdaddy
09-17-2006, 05:34 PM
We lost today for two reasons

1. Green didn't play

2. Way to conservative at the end.

We need a field goal and played for OT.

KChiefs1
09-17-2006, 05:39 PM
The playcalling when the Chiefs had the ball with about a minute left at midfield was way too conservative...I would have faked a pitch to LJ going right & come back with a throw to TG coming across the middle...we only needed 20yds to get in Tynes range but they ran the ball & the Donko's were playing for that...should have mixed it up there....

TrickyNicky
09-17-2006, 05:39 PM
PUt Dee Brownn in!1 HEs the best qb wehave!11!

DAMMIT HERM!1!!!131!!5

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 05:40 PM
Say what you want, but Herm's playcalling at the end of the half and the 4th cost us that game. No one can be stupid enough to dispute that.

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 05:40 PM
God, I hate Herm Edwards.

He got exactly the kind of team he wanted and they suck. I think the season is over.

Pathetic.

Yeah, best performance at Denver in 6 years, WITHOUT Trent Green.

That was all Herm's fault. :rolleyes:

Mecca
09-17-2006, 05:43 PM
Say what you want, but Herm's playcalling at the end of the half and the 4th cost us that game. No one can be stupid enough to dispute that.

It's Herms fault that Huard called a T/O like a moron at the end of the first half.........

All I know is if at the end of the game Herm had gone for it and let Huard start chucking it around the second he threw a pick this board would be littered with threads about how stupid Herm is for letting his back QB pass.

Herm looks like he's in a no win situation to me.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 05:46 PM
Yeah, best performance at Denver in 6 years, WITHOUT Trent Green.

That was all Herm's fault. :rolleyes:

I realize that you are a senior member on this board, but for god's sake, you can't defend that performance. How is that different from our offense running roughshod on their D and our D getting eviscerated? It isn't. We still played as half a football team today.

The biggest difference is that we could have played as 3/4 of a team had we actually had the stones to run a few PA passes down the field on 1st and 2nd down and varied our play calling a bit. But no, Herm's dumbass put our chances on a coinflip that we lost. That's a hell of a risk to take for such a conservative coach, one that can only be excused by his wanton idocy as a game manager.

ChiefsCountry
09-17-2006, 05:50 PM
It's Herms fault that Huard called a T/O like a moron at the end of the first half.........

All I know is if at the end of the game Herm had gone for it and let Huard start chucking it around the second he threw a pick this board would be littered with threads about how stupid Herm is for letting his back QB pass.

Herm looks like he's in a no win situation to me.

I agree.

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 05:54 PM
Say what you want, but Herm's playcalling at the end of the half and the 4th cost us that game. No one can be stupid enough to dispute that.

Herm doesn't call the plays, sorry.

Furthermore, the field goal at the end of the half was the DIRECT result of Damon Huard using our 3rd and final timeout instead of doing what he was supposed to do.

In the 2nd half at one point, Herm had to RUN ONTO THE FIELD to get a timeout because our players were just STANDING THERE.

SPchief
09-17-2006, 05:54 PM
I don't know why everybody is freaking out. We lost a game we expected to lose in overtime

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 06:00 PM
I realize that you are a senior member on this board, but for god's sake, you can't defend that performance. How is that different from our offense running roughshod on their D and our D getting eviscerated? It isn't. We still played as half a football team today.

The biggest difference is that we could have played as 3/4 of a team had we actually had the stones to run a few PA passes down the field on 1st and 2nd down and varied our play calling a bit. But no, Herm's dumbass put our chances on a coinflip that we lost. That's a hell of a risk to take for such a conservative coach, one that can only be excused by his wanton idocy as a game manager.

If it weren't for Herm's game management, the clock likely would have run out while Danta and the rest of them STOOD THERE and let time tick away. At some point, the PLAYERS have to be held responsible.

Besides, the ONLY reason this assinine conversation is taking place is because Herm's "dumb ass" put us in position to lose by 3 in overtime instead of getting EMBARRASSED 49-21.

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 06:01 PM
It's Herms fault that Huard called a T/O like a moron at the end of the first half.........

All I know is if at the end of the game Herm had gone for it and let Huard start chucking it around the second he threw a pick this board would be littered with threads about how stupid Herm is for letting his back QB pass.

Herm looks like he's in a no win situation to me.

Yep, I said this weeks ago.

Cochise
09-17-2006, 06:01 PM
I don't understand not taking a shot at the end of the first half. Other than that I think it was just a loss. We played respectably with a backup QB and the defense was excellent. It just was what it was.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 06:05 PM
God, I hate Herm Edwards.

He got exactly the kind of team he wanted and they suck. I think the season is over.

Pathetic.

So go the **** away already, you french warrior, and go take some personal growth classes...

JohnnyV13
09-17-2006, 06:13 PM
The playcalling when the Chiefs had the ball with about a minute left at midfield was way too conservative...I would have faked a pitch to LJ going right & come back with a throw to TG coming across the middle...we only needed 20yds to get in Tynes range but they ran the ball & the Donko's were playing for that...should have mixed it up there....


Exactly my point. THe basic gameplan was correct, but when it was time to try to win it, herm played way too close to the vest and predictable.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 06:14 PM
Herm doesn't call the plays, sorry.

Furthermore, the field goal at the end of the half was the DIRECT result of Damon Huard using our 3rd and final timeout instead of doing what he was supposed to do.

In the 2nd half at one point, Herm had to RUN ONTO THE FIELD to get a timeout because our players were just STANDING THERE.

You do realize that Herm is the head coach and publicly vilified our offense last week. If he wasn't the one who was in his O-Coordinator's ear to run-run-short slant all day, then who in the blue hell was? You are telling me that Solari was the one who wanted to run on third and 5 in the Red Zone for the 2nd straight week?

Get your blinders off. It's patently obvious that this guy is afraid to take the chances necessary to win. We took two "chances" offensively today, one resulted in a 37 yard completion, and the other one would have placed us inside the 10 had Tony not dropped the pass. The fact of the matter is that this guy has no clue on how to manage a game.

A killer instinct comes from the head coach and filters its way down. That's why some teams play to win, and others just tell the media that they do in order to save face.

You have a 10+ play drive on your first series of the game, and it never once goes through your head to use play action when the other team might catch on to the blatant strategy that any conscious football observer could see?

Herm put the reigns on Solari, big time, so much so that he wouldn't even fake and go down field in an obvious running situation. That isn't Solari's fault, it's the empty sweater vest mugging for the cameras during the press conference. Get a clue.

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 06:15 PM
I don't understand not taking a shot at the end of the first half. Other than that I think it was just a loss. We played respectably with a backup QB and the defense was excellent. It just was what it was.

We didn't take a shot at the end of the 1st half because the guys on the field didn't have the presence of mind to call a timeout with almost 20 seconds on the clock. And then Huard wastes our final timeout with :09 on the clock.

JohnnyV13
09-17-2006, 06:18 PM
So go the **** away already, you french warrior, and go take some personal growth classes...


F*** you. I've been to more Chiefs games than you've seen in your life. That's frankly a realistic assessment. Did you see the graphic? You might play poker chasing 13% chances to hit, but players who win don't.

Obviously, if you're a player, you don't quit. And this team is likely to be tough at the end of the year because Welbourne is likely to decide that law school simply doesn't pay like 10 games in the NFL. That will help and when Green does get back. But, by that time we are likely to be in too deep a hole to do any more than frustrate us.

And...btw...i spent my childhood til my early twenties fighting in national level judo tournaments. If that makes me a french warrior, I've also won more tournmants than you have IQ points.

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 06:19 PM
You do realize that Herm is the head coach and publicly vilified our offense last week. If he wasn't the one who was in his O-Coordinator's ear to run-run-short slant all day, then who in the blue hell was? You are telling me that Solari was the one who wanted to run on third and 5 in the Red Zone for the 2nd straight week?

Get your blinders off. It's patently obvious that this guy is afraid to take the chances necessary to win. We took two "chances" offensively today, one resulted in a 37 yard completion, and the other one would have placed us inside the 10 had Tony not dropped the pass. The fact of the matter is that this guy has no clue on how to manage a game.

A killer instinct comes from the head coach and filters its way down. That's why some teams play to win, and others just tell the media that they do in order to save face.

You have a 10+ play drive on your first series of the game, and it never once goes through your head to use play action when the other team might catch on to the blatant strategy that any conscious football observer could see?

Herm put the reigns on Solari, big time, so much so that he wouldn't even fake and go down field in an obvious running situation. That isn't Solari's fault, it's the empty sweater vest mugging for the cameras during the press conference. Get a clue.

ROFL

This is why I love this place after a loss like this. I read stupid shit like this and feel better almost instantaneously.

Like I said before, you wouldn't even have the ammo to have this pathetic discussion if we'd lost 45-24 like Dicky V and Jesus Saunders always did...

Mecca
09-17-2006, 06:19 PM
Johnny is playing his "real fan" card.......

siberian khatru
09-17-2006, 06:20 PM
And then Huard wastes our final timeout with :09 on the clock.

What's the story on that? What did Huard do wrong? I thought the play was late coming in.

Honest questions.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 06:22 PM
ROFL

This is why I love this place after a loss like this. I read stupid shit like this and feel better almost instantaneously.

Like I said before, you wouldn't even have the ammo to have this pathetic discussion if we'd lost 45-24 like Dicky V and Jesus Saunders always did...

We should have won that game 20-9, dumb ass. Any semblance of offensive nuts would have gotten us looks and time on PA with seven guys blocking for Huard. I know you like to defend this buffoon, but if you are going to do so, you might take a stab at actually refuting a counterargument instead of acting like your shit doesn't stink.

Mecca
09-17-2006, 06:23 PM
Apparently posters on this board have more confidence in Huard than any coaches on the Chiefs staff do.......

runnercyclist
09-17-2006, 06:24 PM
God, I hate Herm Edwards.

He got exactly the kind of team he wanted and they suck. I think the season is over.

Pathetic.


Yes, you are.

Iowanian
09-17-2006, 06:26 PM
I too think the Chiefs played scared-conservative at the end. I think they put together a game plan that allowed the Defense to be successful, and protect Huard...who is not a good QB.

The one thing I tire of is the excuses for the QBs....Backups and rookies all across this league, in offenses the same time or less as ours, play all the time.

If Huard were capable, they'd have been throwing the ball. I don't think he can throw an out, I don't think he's got the arm for a deep seem. They don't trust him, or the Oline, and thats why they did what they did.

2 turnovers lost this game.

JohnnyV13
09-17-2006, 06:26 PM
What's the story on that? What did Huard do wrong? I thought the play was late coming in.

Honest questions.


Actually, Huard should have taken the 5 yard penalty. Five yards wouldn't hurt a close field goal attempt and wouldn't make a lot of difference for a TD shot, but it would have saved the time out so the play could be run without losing a field goal attempt.

But, its an understandable mistake. Hard to make that strategic assessment under time pressure when the usual correct play is to call the TO.

chief2000
09-17-2006, 06:28 PM
ROFL

This is why I love this place after a loss like this. I read stupid shit like this and feel better almost instantaneously.

Like I said before, you wouldn't even have the ammo to have this pathetic discussion if we'd lost 45-24 like Dicky V and Jesus Saunders always did...

I will take Vermeils offense with him having no personal power. And Herm as D coordinator.

Welcome to 8-8 football. Maybe squeak into a playoff game and lose 10-13 at home.

JUST LIKE THAT INCREDIBLE COACH MARTY SCHOTTENHEIMER.

What a fugging winner that guy was!

We should have hired a Parcells assistant. Not a Marty assistant.

Ugly Duck
09-17-2006, 06:29 PM
Say what you want, but Herm's playcalling at the end of the half and the 4th cost us that game. No one can be stupid enough to dispute that.NFL.com is:

"Kansas City (0-2) lost despite an impeccable game plan"

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20060917_KC@DEN

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 06:36 PM
NFL.com is:

"Kansas City (0-2) lost despite an impeccable game plan"

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20060917_KC@DEN

That is preposterous. I could have been Denver's D coordinator in the 2nd half and achieved the same results.

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 06:37 PM
We should have won that game 20-9, dumb ass. Any semblance of offensive nuts would have gotten us looks and time on PA with seven guys blocking for Huard. I know you like to defend this buffoon, but if you are going to do so, you might take a stab at actually refuting a counterargument instead of acting like your shit doesn't stink.

I'm not defending Herm, I'm REFUTING STUPIDITY.

We were playing AT DENVER. With a backup QB who hadn't played meaningful snaps in 5 years. With an offensive line that gave up 7 sacks the week before AT HOME.

Like I said, the scintillating brilliance in this place is almost blinding...

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 06:38 PM
I will take Vermeils offense with him having no personal power. And Herm as D coordinator.

Welcome to 8-8 football. Maybe squeak into a playoff game and lose 10-13 at home.

JUST LIKE THAT INCREDIBLE COACH MARTY SCHOTTENHEIMER.

What a fugging winner that guy was!

We should have hired a Parcells assistant. Not a Marty assistant.

ROFL

Terribilis
09-17-2006, 06:41 PM
I just dont understand how you could go through an ENTIRE game without taking more then 1 or 2 shots downfield.... utilizing a strong running game, and protecting your QB is great and all, but you do it to set up playaction and hit a home run. We never attempted to stretch them out, and frankly never let Huard (who succeeded at everything asked from him) have the oppurtunity to win. IMO we lost a golden oppurtunity to win a critical divisional game by being afraid to go for the kill shot.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 06:42 PM
F*** you. I've been to more Chiefs games than you've seen in your life. That's frankly a realistic assessment.

Yet you remain clueless. Odd...

But, by that time we are likely to be in too deep a hole to do any more than frustrate us.


If both our B/U QB and LJ quit averaging a fumble a game we have a winning record when Green comes back. That's all that's got to change.

Turnovers are killing us.

And...btw...i spent my childhood til my early twenties fighting in national level judo tournaments. If that makes me a french warrior, I've also won more tournmants than you have IQ points.

You haven't been in as many tournaments as I have IQ points.

You can be Bruce Lee's ****ing love child for all I care, it makes your opinions on the subject no less retarded...

Rausch
09-17-2006, 06:44 PM
I'm not defending Herm, I'm REFUTING STUPIDITY.

We were playing AT DENVER. With a backup QB who hadn't played meaningful snaps in 5 years. With an offensive line that gave up 7 sacks the week before AT HOME.

Like I said, the scintillating brilliance in this place is almost blinding...

I'm with you.

Let's forget the fact that Herm's new defense was just balls out ****ing uncanny. It's a night and day difference.

If we can quit turning the ball over this defense IS good enough to carry the team much like the Steelers did last year...

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 06:45 PM
I'm not defending Herm, I'm REFUTING STUPIDITY.

We were playing AT DENVER. With a backup QB who hadn't played meaningful snaps in 5 years. With an offensive line that gave up 7 sacks the week before AT HOME.

Like I said, the scintillating brilliance in this place is almost blinding...

You haven't said anything other than paraphrasing the brilliance of Herm's gameplan when it's flaws were readily obvious to every Joe Schmo sitting on his couch watching the goddamned game at home. You want some scintillating brilliance, here's one: football is based in large part on deception. Had we been smart enough to use this just a few...just a FEW!!! times on first or second down, we would have ripped up big chunks of yards, giving us more scoring opportunities, and also making his original gameplan more effective. I fail to see how you can't see such a clear alternative to this shit.

grandllama
09-17-2006, 06:45 PM
Yet you remain clueless. Odd...

and you remain delusional Brad if you think that we have lost these games because of LJ or Huard.

We have lost them because of that idiot Carl hired to be the head coach. period.

New Yorker
09-17-2006, 06:48 PM
I feel for you Chiefs Fans. This is just the beginning of your misery. Herm sucks. No question there. He plays to not lose the game and always does. Your front office wanted him, and now you have him. You`ll win a game or 3, but it won`t get much better from here on out. Been through the Herm era and it isn`t what one would think. He doesn`t do anything but make "motivating" speeches to the team. Money is the big motivator to players, not Herm. He doesn`t coach the D, doesn`t coach the O, doesn`t coach the ST and doesn`t even manage the clock. He`s a puppet with deep pockets and Kansas City is filling those pockets.

Good luck with your season though. I know whats in store for KC and it will not be fun. Cheers from New Jersey.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 06:49 PM
Any one of us could have gotten that team to overtime today with the way our d played. Everyone here knows that we can't run the Coryell deep drops with Huard and our O-line, all we are asking for is just a little PA to give LJ more breathing room.

If Herm was on Celebrity Jeopardy and had 12,000 and his opponents had 7,000, he'd wager nothing, just hoping that they would screw up enough to win.

KCTitus
09-17-2006, 06:50 PM
A couple of thoughts I had about the game...first, this team didnt lay down like the previous teams did in Denver. Just embarrassing how badly the teams of yesterday just didnt bother to show up.

I would have liked to see a couple more play action passes...the ONE that they did, worked very well with Kennison being wide open. I was a bit disappointed that they stuck with the short slant type stuff and the last one to Tony was just a bad pass.

They ran no screens in the game, but did find it interesting that KC ran more bootlegs than Denver did.

I thought the OL did pretty well in the first half. Huard had time. When Denver figured out the 3 page offensive playbook, they started to get pressure.

JohnnyV13
09-17-2006, 06:51 PM
I'm not defending Herm, I'm REFUTING STUPIDITY.

We were playing AT DENVER. With a backup QB who hadn't played meaningful snaps in 5 years. With an offensive line that gave up 7 sacks the week before AT HOME.

Like I said, the scintillating brilliance in this place is almost blinding...


What is stupid about being pessimistic about even making the playoffs when the historical odds for an 0-2 team are 13%?

Yeah, and I know all about the year Dallas started 0-2 and won the super bowl and the year SD lost their first four games and ended up winning the AFC west (1992).

Today we had a winnable game, but herm played it poorly at key strategic moments. Its hardly like i'm going to stop watching and hoping....but the likely end result of this season is we will be very tough at the end as our O line issues improve and Green gets back, just tough enough to frustrate the fans who have watched us squander our offensive firepower while failing to build the defense.

JohnnyV13
09-17-2006, 07:33 PM
bandwagon moron


I went to every chiefs home game from 1978 until 2001 (except for 4 years of college), until i moved to Arizona (And I have NFL sunday ticket).

Note the date (1978). In that time until 1990, the chiefs only played in ONE playoff game.

Try rubbing two of your three brain cells together, maybe you'll get a clue.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 07:39 PM
and you remain delusional Brad if you think that we have lost these games because of LJ or Huard.


Absolutely not.

We did lose them due to turnovers, it just happens that those two are responsible for most of the turnovers.

LJ should know better. In the red zone you MUST cover the ball with both hands in a crowd.

LJ's ability is why we were in this game. But turnovers add up and once you hit 2 or 3 your odds of winning are not very good, on the road on top of it.

There were 4 or 5 huge mistakes made this game and no 1 mistake lost it, we lost because we made 5 huge mistakes. It doesn't matter who made them...

Rausch
09-17-2006, 07:40 PM
Any one of us could have gotten that team to overtime today with the way our d played.

Lunacy...

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 08:16 PM
What is stupid about being pessimistic about even making the playoffs when the historical odds for an 0-2 team are 13%?

Yeah, and I know all about the year Dallas started 0-2 and won the super bowl and the year SD lost their first four games and ended up winning the AFC west (1992).

Today we had a winnable game, but herm played it poorly at key strategic moments. Its hardly like i'm going to stop watching and hoping....but the likely end result of this season is we will be very tough at the end as our O line issues improve and Green gets back, just tough enough to frustrate the fans who have watched us squander our offensive firepower while failing to build the defense.

What the **** do you want?

Under the last coach, we qualified for the playoffs ONCE in FIVE ****ING YEARS.

Denver played in the AFC Championship last year. We just took them to OVERTIME instead of getting our DOORS BLOWN OFF.

As much as I'd love to cut to the front of the line, this franchise is SORRY. We need to walk before we can run.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 08:26 PM
What the **** do you want?

Under the last coach, we qualified for the playoffs ONCE in FIVE ****ING YEARS.

Denver played in the AFC Championship last year. We just took them to OVERTIME instead of getting our DOORS BLOWN OFF.

As much as I'd love to cut to the front of the line, this franchise is SORRY. We need to walk before we can run.

Oh my god. We still lost, and the reason why we lost was because our coach was too scared to let us win. Not only that, but we lost to a team that had a mental cripple starting at Quarterback. That team is a shell of its former self.

He's not the one "coaching them up". That D would be just as good if Vermeil were here with the same players and Gunther at D-coordinator.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/f/ff/Kool-AidMan.jpg

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 08:32 PM
Oh my god. We still lost, and the reason why we lost was because our coach was too scared to let us win. Not only that, but we lost to a team that had a mental cripple starting at Quarterback. That team is a shell of its former self.

He's not the one "coaching them up". That D would be just as good if Vermeil were here with the same players and Gunther at D-coordinator.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/f/ff/Kool-AidMan.jpg

Keep playing the Apologist card until you can get it to stick. It's pathetic and sad, but hey, if you think it works, keep going to the well.

As for Vermeil, **** him. We have 4 new starters on defense - Law, Hali, Reed, and Edwards. Law would have been here. I'll give you Hali, even though I think I'm being very generous in assuming Vermeil would have drafted him. Reed and Edwards came here BECAUSE OF HERM.

If you want to fool yourself into thinking Vermeil would have marched this team in here today and gave up 9 points, be my guest.

I've made my feelings very clear about Herm. If you want to slap the Kool-Aid label on me, so be it. Anybody that's bothered to read what I've said about Herm would know that's absurd. Still, there's no need for me to defend him. His detractors have done quite a good enough job on their own making fools of themselves today.

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 08:33 PM
And by the way, that "mental cripple" did just fine against us last year at Denver...

Tribal Warfare
09-17-2006, 09:02 PM
Herm put the reigns on Solari, big time, so much so that he wouldn't even fake and go down field in an obvious running situation. That isn't Solari's fault, it's the empty sweater vest mugging for the cameras during the press conference. Get a clue.


He had to Huard isn't a QB that will win the game on his own. conservative playcalling was necessary, because of Huard and the cohesion of the O-line. If he puts the reigns on Green then I'll be pissed, but that remains to be seen so reserve my judgement with that aspect.

JohnnyV13
09-17-2006, 09:26 PM
You can be Bruce Lee's ****ing love child for all I care, it makes your opinions on the subject no less retarded...


I guess that only puts me 50,889 behind you.

Toad
09-17-2006, 09:52 PM
At the half, you could feel that this game would be won by the team that minimized mistakes. Denver obviously wont he T/O battle. I believe Nantz said that Denver did not have a penalty the whole game.

This loss was less a function of the play calling than it was minimizing error. We did not.

Plus, I believe it's fair to give the Donks some credit for eliminating penalties.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 09:55 PM
I guess that only puts me 50,889 behind you.

Great retort.

Post count is the last volley in the battle of a lost argument.

Ugly Duck
09-17-2006, 09:57 PM
Plus, I believe it's fair to give the Donks some credit for eliminating penalties.

Its fair to give credit where credit is due.... certainly you will also tip your hat to the Zebras for their assistance in eliminating Donkey penalties....

Rausch
09-17-2006, 09:59 PM
Its fair to give credit where credit is due.... certainly you will also tip your hat to the Zebras for their assistance in eliminating Donkey penalties....

After we eliminate the obvious penalties I might.

That might be a while though...

Toad
09-17-2006, 10:04 PM
Its fair to give credit where credit is due.... certainly you will also tip your hat to the Zebras for their assistance in eliminating Donkey penalties....

I, for one, am not a conspiracy theorist.

Instead, I would like to tell LJ and Huard to squeeze the damn ball.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 10:12 PM
I, for one, am not a conspiracy theorist.

Instead, I would like to tell LJ and Huard to squeeze the damn ball.

And then we start winning games.

Thank you...

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 10:28 PM
Keep playing the Apologist card until you can get it to stick. It's pathetic and sad, but hey, if you think it works, keep going to the well.

As for Vermeil, **** him. We have 4 new starters on defense - Law, Hali, Reed, and Edwards. Law would have been here. I'll give you Hali, even though I think I'm being very generous in assuming Vermeil would have drafted him. Reed and Edwards came here BECAUSE OF HERM.

If you want to fool yourself into thinking Vermeil would have marched this team in here today and gave up 9 points, be my guest.

I've made my feelings very clear about Herm. If you want to slap the Kool-Aid label on me, so be it. Anybody that's bothered to read what I've said about Herm would know that's absurd. Still, there's no need for me to defend him. His detractors have done quite a good enough job on their own making fools of themselves today.

Vermeil may have given up 13, but this team would have scored 20. It's not hard to play it close to the vest and lose by a couple of points, any idiot knows that. If you take risks you might very well lose by more points, but you just might win too.

Herm is the kind of guy who would fold pocket aces before the flop because two people went all-in before him and he didn't want to risk getting out drawn. You don't win in anything playing not to lose.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 10:29 PM
I forgot how many probowls Reed and Edwards have gone to, it's more than -1 right?

Rausch
09-17-2006, 10:30 PM
Vermeil may have given up 13, but this team would have scored 20.

He never came within 20 of Denver in Denver.

'Nuff said...

Claynus
09-17-2006, 10:30 PM
Vermeil lost by 10 in 2004, but who cares.

**** Vermeil.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 10:32 PM
Vermeil lost by 10 in 2004, but who cares.

**** Vermeil.

And that's the climax of my argument...

boogblaster
09-17-2006, 10:40 PM
Herm is old-school..Def..Def..Def..ball-control..but the OC calls the plays..LJ up the middle isnt the way to win games..what happened to all our shifting..did Al take that part of the playbook with him..we played one of the best games in Denver in years..even with the time-control error and the pissy calls at the end.....

chiefsfan1963
09-17-2006, 10:42 PM
Herm is old-school..Def..Def..Def..ball-control..but the OC calls the plays..LJ up the middle isnt the way to win games..what happened to all our shifting..did Al take that part of the playbook with him..we played one of the best games in Denver in years..even with the time-control error and the pissy calls at the end.....

AS is no longer our OC.

ChiefsCountry
09-17-2006, 10:44 PM
Actually we did alot of that shifting, it doesnt really matter too much still the same play.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 10:45 PM
Vermeil lost by 10 in 2004, but who cares.

**** Vermeil.

Will you still be so willing to curse him after the current jackass goes 12-20 the next two years?

And FTR, I was not an advocate of Vermeil staying another year (to clear up the revisionist history), but I would much rather have DV than this piece of shit. We'll never win with Herm, it doesn't matter what kind of personnel we assemble.

ChiefsCountry
09-17-2006, 10:46 PM
Will you still be so willing to curse him after the current jackass goes 12-20 the next two years?

The current jackass had more playoff berths and wins that Dick in the same time frame with a less talented team.

Claynus
09-17-2006, 10:47 PM
That's not going to happen. There is far too much talent on this team for us to go 6-10 two years in a row. We had an unfortunate opener but today's game was very, very encouraging. People are completely ignoring the fact that we just faced two of the AFC's elite from last season. It's not like we're getting beat by mediocre football teams. We're going to kill the 49ers.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 10:51 PM
The current jackass had more playoff berths and wins that Dick in the same time frame with a less talented team.

He had a HOF-caliber running back, pro bowl offensive linemen, and all-world d-end, players like Vilma in his linebacking corps He played in a much weaker division with more bottom feeders and beat Marty and Tony Dungy coached teams...Vermeil lost to Dungy's team, but we all know that our 2003 team fell apart at the midway point, and if not for a horribly botched PI call on Tony we would have won that game anyway.

ChiefsCountry
09-17-2006, 10:53 PM
He had a HOF-caliber running back, pro bowl offensive linemen, and all-world d-end, players like Vilma in his linebacking corps He played in a much weaker division with more bottom feeders and beat Marty and Tony Dungy coached teams...Vermeil lost to Dungy's team, but we all know that our 2003 team fell apart at the midway point, and if not for a horribly botched PI call on Tony we would have won that game anyway.

Like Dungy is a big improvement, his three playoff wins are over Denver and us.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 10:53 PM
That's not going to happen. There is far too much talent on this team for us to go 6-10 two years in a row. We had an unfortunate opener but today's game was very, very encouraging. People are completely ignoring the fact that we just faced two of the AFC's elite from last season. It's not like we're getting beat by mediocre football teams. We're going to kill the 49ers.

We have no offensive line and could have stepped on our opponent's throat early the last two games and failed to do it. We will beat SF, but I guarantee we will drop two-three games this year against teams we should just annihilate.

ChiefsCountry
09-17-2006, 10:56 PM
He had a HOF-caliber running back, pro bowl offensive linemen, and all-world d-end, players like Vilma in his linebacking corps He played in a much weaker division with more bottom feeders and beat Marty and Tony Dungy coached teams...Vermeil lost to Dungy's team, but we all know that our 2003 team fell apart at the midway point, and if not for a horribly botched PI call on Tony we would have won that game anyway.

New England was in that divison, Miami was good during that time frame. Not much different from the AFC West.

Claynus
09-17-2006, 10:57 PM
We have no offensive line

This is just comical. How did LJ get 130 yards today?

You are full of doubletalk. You want us to step on their throat by going downfield with the ball, but how are we supposed to do that if we have no offensive line? Huard can't stiff-arm the pass rushers while he wants for guys to get open down the field.

JohnnyV13
09-17-2006, 10:57 PM
Great retort.

Post count is the last volley in the battle of a lost argument.


Hello, I suppose you're not clever enough to catch what I meant. I am only 50, 889 "retarted" opinions behind you. ROTFLMAO. That's just too perfect. You're a genious.

But, I suppose you must coddle your pathetic ego by proclaiming hollow victories in internet arguments.

P.S. I suppose you didn't catch the fact you misspelled retarded.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 10:58 PM
Like Dungy is a big improvement, his three playoff wins are over Denver and us.

I'm saying that Edwards' playoff wins are over terrible coaches. Vermeil has won a Super Bowl and been to another. Say what you want about the guy, he's a much better coach than Edwards would ever be.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 10:59 PM
This is just comical. How did LJ get 130 yards today?

You are full of doubletalk. You want us to step on their throat by going downfield with the ball, but how are we supposed to do that if we have no offensive line? Huard can't stiff-arm the pass rushers while he wants for guys to get open down the field.

Have you ever heard of play action passing, which stifles a pass rush and would actually allow us to go downfield while minimizing the stress on our tackles? How are you people so dense that you can't comprehend this? Look at LJ's YAC(contact). He did a lot of that on just guts and strength. He didn't have a lot of holes to run through today.

Claynus
09-17-2006, 11:05 PM
Again....look at the offense last year in Denver vs the offense this year in Denver. Huge, huge difference, I know.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 11:06 PM
Hello, I suppose you're not clever enough to catch what I meant. I am only 50, 889 retarted opinions behind you.

But, I suppose you must coddle your pathetic ego by proclaiming hollow victories in internet arguments.

Yeah, I got that. The fact I've discussed football and whatever on here should be proof positive I have no idea about the game.

You made the decision to bring in post count.

And you can judge my worth however you choose, but yes, I do enjoy pointing out idiocy in loudmouthed goobers eager to learn us all in the finer points of NFL excellence...

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 11:14 PM
Again....look at the offense last year in Denver vs the offense this year in Denver. Huge, huge difference, I know.

Jordan Black was our starting LT in that game and Trevor Pryce was their rush end....it's not even close. Their D was much better last year. Denver also played their best game of the year in that game...but let's just ignore the obvious facts

Woodrow Call
09-17-2006, 11:26 PM
Bitch about Herm all you want. He will have far more success than DV by the time its all said and done which is not that hard to believe since the DV era made the Marty era look like Lombardi's Packers.

Herm had this team playing with more heart and pride than I have seen the Chiefs play with in 8 or 9 years. Herm has given the Chiefs their nuts back and I am enjoying the ride.

It might not be as pretty but this is the type of hard-nosed football that gets teams to the playoffs and a chance to win the Super Bowl.

Claynus
09-17-2006, 11:27 PM
Jordan Black was our starting LT in that game and Trevor Pryce was their rush end....it's not even close. Their D was much better last year. Denver also played their best game of the year in that game...but let's just ignore the obvious facts

ROFL

Denver's defense hasn't allowed a single touchdown in two games this year.

Last year they gave up 3 or 4 in the first two games. I don't care to go look it up.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 11:29 PM
Herm has given the Chiefs their nuts back and I am enjoying the ride.


Egg-mother****ing-ZACTLY!

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 11:33 PM
ROFL

Denver's defense hasn't allowed a single touchdown in two games this year.

Last year they gave up 3 or 4 in the first two games. I don't care to go look it up.

They haven't allowed a touchdown against a Rams team that scored 13 against the friggin 49ers. They haven't allowed a touchdown against a chiefs team that treated Play action passing and unpredictable play calling as though it were the plague.

Your argument is just another iteration of some fool on the Chargers board saying they are super bowl bound because they beat two of the five worst teams in the league by large margins.

Our offensive gameplan was atrocious when it mattered the most, and the Rams have played like 7 kinds of dog shit on offense through two games, yet Denver's defense is now the 2000 Ravens on All-Madden level...

Cochise
09-17-2006, 11:35 PM
We haven't had a game yet with Green where we had these tackle problems sorted out. It's Herm's job to work around those factors, but as far as scoring points goes, Herm and Solari haven't had many bullets in their gun these first two weeks.

greg63
09-17-2006, 11:36 PM
Bitch about Herm all you want. He will have far more success than DV by the time its all said and done which is not that hard to believe since the DV era made the Marty era look like Lombardi's Packers.

Herm had this team playing with more heart and pride than I have seen the Chiefs play with in 8 or 9 years. Herm has given the Chiefs their nuts back and I am enjoying the ride.

It might not be as pretty but this is the type of hard-nosed football that gets teams to the playoffs and a chance to win the Super Bowl.
...And a 0-2 start is just the ticket to get us there. Don't get me wrong we faired no better under DV, but I am not sold on Herm either. FWIW

Nzoner
09-17-2006, 11:37 PM
Egg-mother****ing-ZACTLY!

Oh for fock sake c'mon you guys,you're going to sit there and tell me you weren't enjoying the ride when DV and the Chiefs were in the midst of a 9-0 run.

Sorry but it's the same shit,different year,we have a defense we can't get the offense,we have the offense we can't get the defense,it's been the focking story of this franchise for years.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 11:38 PM
Egg-mother****ing-ZACTLY!

Why don't you guys just come out and say it, you want the Marty Chiefs back, for all their defensive glory and offensive ineptitude. They have their nuts back...there is nothing nuttier than a toss sweep on third and five when you have run 10 of 12 times on the first drive. That right there is stones....f*ck.

greg63
09-17-2006, 11:38 PM
Oh for fock sake c'mon you guys,you're going to sit there and tell me you weren't enjoying the ride when DV and the Chiefs were in the midst of a 9-0 run.

Sorry but it's the same shit,different year,we have a defense we can't get the offense,we have the offense we can't get the defense,it's been the focking story of this franchise for years.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Yep!

SPchief
09-17-2006, 11:41 PM
Why don't you guys just come out and say it, you want the Marty Chiefs back, for all their defensive glory and offensive ineptitude. They have their nuts back...there is nothing nuttier than a toss sweep on third and five when you have run 10 of 12 times on the first drive. That right there is stones....f*ck.


Marty made it to the playoffs on more than one occasion.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 11:42 PM
Why don't you guys just come out and say it, you want the Marty Chiefs back, for all their defensive glory and offensive ineptitude.


No, I want a ****ing football team.

Much like the Steelers of the last 10 years, the Panthers of the last 5, or the Ravens of he last 8.

A MAN'S TEAM.

If you love 40 pts a game good for you, string that up and around the baby Jesus on Christmas day.

But it don't win championchips and it's not my flavor.

Plain and simple, I love smashmouth.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 11:44 PM
Marty made it to the playoffs on more than one occasion.

The man is 0-4 in AFC Championship games, and 5-14 overall, and you morons act like he's Bill Walsh. This is unreal.

JohnnyV13
09-17-2006, 11:49 PM
.

Plain and simple, I love smashmouth.


Actually, I can see that. I admit, in the stadium, its more fun to cheer on a smashmouth team because the fans can intimidate the other team and participate in the game at a level that you can't with an offensive team.

That being said, I don't think smashmouth is incompatible with an offense that "goes for the throat" at the game's critical junctures.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2006, 11:50 PM
No, I want a ****ing football team.

Much like the Steelers of the last 10 years, the Panthers of the last 5, or the Ravens of he last 8.

A MAN'S TEAM.

If you love 40 pts a game good for you, string that up and around the baby Jesus on Christmas day.

But it don't win championchips and it's not my flavor.

Plain and simple, I love smashmouth.

Then you are on the right ship that is headed the wrong place. I love that the act of football is somehow more noble if you run 50 times and score 10 points and still lose than if you actually field a balanced team that can stretch a defense .

Smashmouth football is a ticket straight to a first round playoff exit.

Look at the last 25 years in this league:

West Coast/ Coryell Teams have better playoff records than do Smashmouth teams

The 49ers, Raiders, Broncos, Redskins, Patriots, and Cowboys all used either the Coryell or the West Coast offense and won MULTIPLE super bowls with it.

The Steelers, Ravens, Bears, and Giants won with a Smashmouth approach. Those are five super bowls.

The niners won 5 by themselves, the Cowboys 3, the Redskins 3, the Broncos 2....

Smashmouth is fool's gold.

Nzoner
09-18-2006, 12:00 AM
No, I want a ****ing football team.

Much like the Steelers of the last 10 years, the Panthers of the last 5, or the Ravens of he last 8.

A MAN'S TEAM.

If you love 40 pts a game good for you, string that up and around the baby Jesus on Christmas day.

But it don't win championchips and it's not my flavor.

Plain and simple, I love smashmouth.

Dude I love great defense and smashmouth football too but those very Steelers that you mention only had 4 games last year they scored under 20 points.They also had 4 games over 30 and one over 40.

All in all they averaged a little over 3 td's per game in the regular season.

ChiefsCountry
09-18-2006, 12:02 AM
Its a Jeff City thing, its all they know. :)

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-18-2006, 12:07 AM
I'm still waiting for one of the Smashmouth acolytes to try and tear down post 97...

Woodrow Call
09-18-2006, 12:15 AM
...And a 0-2 start is just the ticket to get us there. Don't get me wrong we faired no better under DV, but I am not sold on Herm either. FWIW

I understand that and I have no problem with a wait a see approach with Herm. This years team still has a chance. Enough pieces are left to make a run; hopefully Herm can get it done. Either way I think the Chiefs are headed in right direction.

Holtus made a good point in the post game wrap that this a transition year. He said basically that Herm was trying to turn this team into a smashmouth, punch you in the face team instead a team that wants to get into a "pillow fight." It is going to take some time. Roaf and Welbourne are already gone, guys like Shields, Wiegman, Kennison, and Green could be gone next year so it might be year 3 before we see Herm's team complete just like it was DV's 3rd year.

A little more patience is all I ask.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-18-2006, 12:22 AM
I understand that and I have no problem with a wait a see approach with Herm. This years team still has a chance. Enough pieces are left to make a run; hopefully Herm can get it done. Either way I think the Chiefs are headed in right direction.

Holtus made a good point in the post game wrap that this a transition year. He said basically that Herm was trying to turn this team into a smashmouth, punch you in the face team instead a team that wants to get into a "pillow fight." It is going to take some time. Roaf and Welbourne are already gone, guys like Shields, Wiegman, Kennison, and Green could be gone next year so it might be year 3 before we see Herm's team complete just like it was DV's 3rd year.

A little more patience is all I ask.

I don't understand the point of patience when you're gameplan is flawed from the get go. There is no logical reason why anyone would advocate a smashmouth football style when it has been consistently proven that teams that run West Coast and Air Coryell offenses are more likely to win the Super Bowl.

From XV-XL there have been 5 Smashmouth teams that have won the Superbowl. 18 have run either a west coast or Air Coryell offense, and the other two ran the crazy ass vertical Raiders O'.

And yet with the rules changing in the NFL to allow for more passing yardage and a more open game, our coach wants us to clamp down and play smashmouth football.

Why am I reminded of Polish Cavalry charges into waves of Panzers??

greg63
09-18-2006, 12:33 AM
I understand that and I have no problem with a wait a see approach with Herm. This years team still has a chance. Enough pieces are left to make a run; hopefully Herm can get it done. Either way I think the Chiefs are headed in right direction.

Holtus made a good point in the post game wrap that this a transition year. He said basically that Herm was trying to turn this team into a smashmouth, punch you in the face team instead a team that wants to get into a "pillow fight." It is going to take some time. Roaf and Welbourne are already gone, guys like Shields, Wiegman, Kennison, and Green could be gone next year so it might be year 3 before we see Herm's team complete just like it was DV's 3rd year.

A little more patience is all I ask.

Fair enough, we will wait and see...we have no choice in the matter. :)

Woodrow Call
09-18-2006, 12:42 AM
I don't understand the point of patience when you're gameplan is flawed from the get go. There is no logical reason why anyone would advocate a smashmouth football style when it has been consistently proven that teams that run West Coast and Air Coryell offenses are more likely to win the Super Bowl.

From XV-XL there have been 5 Smashmouth teams that have won the Superbowl. 18 have run either a west coast or Air Coryell offense, and the other two ran the crazy ass vertical Raiders O'.

And yet with the rules changing in the NFL to allow for more passing yardage and a more open game, our coach wants us to clamp down and play smashmouth football.

Why am I reminded of Polish Cavalry charges into waves of Panzers??

The Chiefs are still running the same system they have ran for the past 5 years. They have modified it to fit the players they have which is the smart thing to do. You can't go out there with 2 new tackles and a backup QB and expect to look like the offenses of the past couple of years. If you look at the games without Roaf last year the Chiefs had the same problems they are having now and that was with Green.

You can argue that the Chiefs were too conservative today and I can understand that. IMO it was the smart thing to do considering the circumstances . When and if Green comes back I expect to see the offense opened back up, if not I will be just as pissed as you are.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-18-2006, 12:52 AM
The Chiefs are still running the same system they have ran for the past 5 years. They have modified it to fit the players they have which is the smart thing to do. You can't go out there with 2 new tackles and a backup QB and expect to look like the offenses of the past couple of years. If you look at the games without Roaf last year the Chiefs had the same problems they are having now and that was with Green.

You can argue that the Chiefs were too conservative today and I can understand that. IMO it was the smart thing to do considering the circumstances . When and if Green comes back I expect to see the offense opened back up, if not I will be just as pissed as you are.

I realize the need to modify the system in light of injuries, however, as it has been said on this board and on KCFX, Herm wants to turn this into a smashmouth team, which is a collossal mistake. He's cutting off our nose to spite our face.

greg63
09-18-2006, 01:00 AM
The Chiefs are still running the same system they have ran for the past 5 years. They have modified it to fit the players they have which is the smart thing to do. You can't go out there with 2 new tackles and a backup QB and expect to look like the offenses of the past couple of years. If you look at the games without Roaf last year the Chiefs had the same problems they are having now and that was with Green.

You can argue that the Chiefs were too conservative today and I can understand that. IMO it was the smart thing to do considering the circumstances . When and if Green comes back I expect to see the offense opened back up, if not I will be just as pissed as you are.

My concern is that "if" will be the case.

Hound333
09-18-2006, 05:47 AM
Ok so I am upset with the loss. (More so because my Dad grew up in Denver and has bragging rights over me for a while now)

I do like that our defense is good again. I would much rather have a good defense than a good offense. I do wish we would go down the field a bit more. Not all the time because we don't have the personal for that but we can't play like we did this week and expect to win many games.

I know people like to look at this and feel that we played good so its ok. The question I have is this. Did we play bad on defense because Denver is that good or are we that bad and made them look good. I mean common, Denver lost to a team that just lost to San Fran.

the Talking Can
09-18-2006, 05:58 AM
Dude I love great defense and smashmouth football too but those very Steelers that you mention only had 4 games last year they scored under 20 points.They also had 4 games over 30 and one over 40.

All in all they averaged a little over 3 td's per game in the regular season.

shhh!

you'll blow Cowher's cover and ruin the taste of moral victories for Chiefs fans....

Wile_E_Coyote
09-18-2006, 06:37 AM
Ok so I am upset with the loss. (More so because my Dad grew up in Denver and has bragging rights over me for a while now)

I do like that our defense is good again. I would much rather have a good defense than a good offense. I do wish we would go down the field a bit more. Not all the time because we don't have the personal for that but we can't play like we did this week and expect to win many games.

I know people like to look at this and feel that we played good so its ok. The question I have is this. Did we play bad on defense because Denver is that good or are we that bad and made them look good. I mean common, Denver lost to a team that just lost to San Fran.

Why did the 10-6 Chiefs just sqeek by the 2 games against the lowly Raiders last year. Division foes play each other tougher, they now each other better

Gaz
09-18-2006, 06:50 AM
“Fireherm.com” is way premature. However, yesterday’s game was everything I wanted and feared when Edwards was hired.

A tough Defense that smashed The Enemy in the mouth.
A timid Offense that played not to lose.

Pure, unadulterated Martyball. Play for the Field Goal. Play not to lose. Play scared. Go to overtime.

I read a lot of folks blaming Johnson or Huard or Solari for the loss. It was Edwards and the return of Martyball.

We are cursed.

xoxo~
Gaz
Got his Defense back, but seems to have misplaced his Offense.

greg63
09-18-2006, 06:55 AM
“Fireherm.com” is way premature. However, yesterday’s game was everything I wanted and feared when Edwards was hired.

A tough Defense that smashed The Enemy in the mouth.
A timid Offense that played not to lose.

Pure, unadulterated Martyball. Play for the Field Goal. Play not to lose. Play scared. Go to overtime.

I read a lot of folks blaming Johnson or Huard or Solari for the loss. It was Edwards and the return of Martyball.

We are cursed.

xoxo~
Gaz
Got his Defense back, but seems to have misplaced his Offense.



...Unfortunately.

Gaz
09-18-2006, 07:13 AM
It is possible that yesterday’s massive dose of Martyball was an artifact of extenuating circumstances.

The QB who ran the Offense since its installation in Kansas City was out, replaced by a career backup who had not started for several years.

The Offensive Line was in disarray. We could not count on our QB having time to throw or for our RB to have a hole through which to hurl himself.

Therefore, I am not yet ready to sign up at fireherm.com. He SAYS he plays to win. I did not see any evidence of that yesterday, but as I said: extenuating circumstances.

There are reasons for optimism:
• Sampson is a nice upgrade over Black.
• Turley should continue to improve as he gets his football legs back and bulks up.
• Trent Green should return in a couple of weeks [not to take anything away from Huard, who played a great game].

The extenuating circumstances will eventually drop away [and new extenuating circumstances will no doubt arise]. At that point, I hope to see Martyball banished again.

xoxo~
Gaz
Still giving Edwards the benefit of the doubt [for now].

jspchief
09-18-2006, 07:21 AM
My complaints about the play-calling are mostly aimed at late in the game. What had worked in the first half wasn't working as well in the second half.
By the time the 4th quarter arrived, it looked pretty certain that one more score would win the game for us. Denver's defense had adjusted to our gameplan... we needed to respond by adjusting our gameplan.

I don't agree with the plan to sit back and hope for OT on the road against a tough division foe. At some point late in the game, we needed to get more aggressive offensively, and we didn't. My guess is the blame lands on a combination of overly conservative coaching, and a QB that's incapable of throwing the ball beyond 8 yards.

All that being said, there's a lot to be excited about. The defense looks to be much improved. Larry Johnson went out and got it done even when the entire NFL knew he was going to be the focal point. The QB in that game won't be the QB all season.

I'm still taking a wait and see approach. If we had called that same game with Green in, I'd be leading the lynch mob. But so far we've yet to have a game where everything is in place. I see plenty of reason for optimism.

Gaz
09-18-2006, 07:26 AM
... and a QB that's incapable of throwing the ball beyond 8 yards...

I was with you up to this point, then you lost me.

Huard played a very good game. He did not have time to make many throws, but the ones he did were well done. The incompletion to Gonzalez was a great throw. We are used to Gonzo pulling in the tough catches, but he just couldn’t hold that one.

I do not understand the criticism of Huard. He should not have caught the rejected pass, but I am not willing to blame him for that. In the heat of the moment, how many guys would have the presence of mind to bat the darned thing down?

xoxo~
Gaz
Was very impressed with Huard yesterday.

jspchief
09-18-2006, 07:31 AM
I was with you up to this point, then you lost me.

Huard played a very good game. He did not have time to make many throws, but the ones he did were well done. The incompletion to Gonzalez was a great throw. We are used to Gonzo pulling in the tough catches, but he just couldn’t hold that one.

I do not understand the criticism of Huard. He should not have caught the rejected pass, but I am not willing to blame him for that. In the heat of the moment, how many guys would have the presence of mind to bat the darned thing down?

xoxo~
Gaz
Was very impressed with Huard yesterday.
Our offense was ineffective yesterday. I don't care what Huard's completion percentage was. He completed a bunch of dump-off passes. We held the opponent to 6 points and lost. Regardless of the stat line, we were incapable of moving the ball enough to win the game. You'll never convince me that the play-calling, had nothing to do with adapting the play-calling to cover Huard's shortcomings.

wolfpack0735
09-18-2006, 07:34 AM
With martyball a team doesn`t have to have a QB in the top 5. his 2 to 3 step drops and handing the ball off, a rookie could have done. A OC,head coach or even a backup QB should realize one can only throw so many 5 yard passes. Let Croyle play and get his feet wet till Green comes back.

Gaz
09-18-2006, 07:37 AM
...You'll never convince me that the play-calling, had nothing to do with adapting the play-calling to cover Huard's shortcomings.

Fair enough.

xoxo~
Gaz
Agreeing to disagree.

htismaqe
09-18-2006, 07:52 AM
Vermeil may have given up 13, but this team would have scored 20. It's not hard to play it close to the vest and lose by a couple of points, any idiot knows that. If you take risks you might very well lose by more points, but you just might win too.

Herm is the kind of guy who would fold pocket aces before the flop because two people went all-in before him and he didn't want to risk getting out drawn. You don't win in anything playing not to lose.

They went into Invesco last year without Willie Roaf, but WITH Trent Green, and didn't score 20.

Your argument is on life support, want to pull the plug now and cut your losses?

htismaqe
09-18-2006, 07:53 AM
I forgot how many probowls Reed and Edwards have gone to, it's more than -1 right?

What does that have to do with anything?

Reed and Edwards were the starting DT's for the best Chiefs defense to play at Invesco since the LAST DECADE.

And neither would be here without Herm.

You're flatlining...CLEAR!

Chief Chief
09-18-2006, 08:00 AM
Say what you want, but Herm's playcalling at the end of the half and the 4th cost us that game. No one can be stupid enough to dispute that.

EXACTLY RIGHT!! We wasted a time-out with less than a minute to play and the ball on the 10-yard line in the first half due to an unexplained, unjustifiable delay in sending the play in, which forced us to kick a field goal with 9 seconds left. And we let the clock run with the ball between the 40's and a first down instead of calling a time-out or at least grounding the ball to save some time.

htismaqe
09-18-2006, 08:17 AM
EXACTLY RIGHT!! We wasted a time-out with less than a minute to play and the ball on the 10-yard line in the first half due to an unexplained, unjustifiable delay in sending the play in, which forced us to kick a field goal with 9 seconds left. And we let the clock run with the ball between the 40's and a first down instead of calling a time-out or at least grounding the ball to save some time.

The play was called. Huard called the timeout because he was confused. That was NOT the coaches' fault.

And as far as not calling a timeout or grounding the ball, it's pretty pathetic to blame the head coach when he had to RUN ONTO THE FIELD to call a timeout because his players stood around like idots...

Inspector
09-18-2006, 09:57 AM
I'll just agree with Johhny here.

I'm scared of getting judo chopped.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-18-2006, 10:49 AM
What does that have to do with anything?

Reed and Edwards were the starting DT's for the best Chiefs defense to play at Invesco since the LAST DECADE.

And neither would be here without Herm.

You're flatlining...CLEAR!

It has everything to do with it. Those guys are just average space fillers that you could get anywhere. They are a dime a dozen, and you act like they are Marcus Stroud or Albert Haynesworth. Well guess what, if Vermeil wasn't here, we would never have gotten Trent Grent or Eddie Kennison. So f*cking what. You are still completely ignoring the elephant in the room here, and that is that our stupid game management, timid playcalling, and horrendous lack of adjustments cost us that game. That falls on the shoulders of the head coach, who should know that we are going to have to make adjustments at half time. This was a criticism of him prior to coming to KC, and it has held true through the first two weeks. The guy doesn't know how to make adjustments in the process of a game, and you can't be a winning team by doing that.

Calcountry
09-18-2006, 10:59 AM
Yep, I said this weeks ago.Despite the loss, I felt like the team did the best it could given the lack of depth at QB and tackles.

Gameplan was excellent, and we shut the bootleggers out the first half, and shut them out of our endzone for the entire 4+ quarters.


We just might play our way out of a draft pick after all.

Calcountry
09-18-2006, 11:13 AM
Hello, I suppose you're not clever enough to catch what I meant. I am only 50, 889 "retarted" opinions behind you. ROTFLMAO. That's just too perfect. You're a genious.

But, I suppose you must coddle your pathetic ego by proclaiming hollow victories in internet arguments.

P.S. I suppose you didn't catch the fact you misspelled retarded.ROFL LOL

htismaqe
09-18-2006, 11:32 AM
It has everything to do with it. Those guys are just average space fillers that you could get anywhere. They are a dime a dozen, and you act like they are Marcus Stroud or Albert Haynesworth. Well guess what, if Vermeil wasn't here, we would never have gotten Trent Grent or Eddie Kennison. So f*cking what. You are still completely ignoring the elephant in the room here, and that is that our stupid game management, timid playcalling, and horrendous lack of adjustments cost us that game. That falls on the shoulders of the head coach, who should know that we are going to have to make adjustments at half time. This was a criticism of him prior to coming to KC, and it has held true through the first two weeks. The guy doesn't know how to make adjustments in the process of a game, and you can't be a winning team by doing that.

No, I most certainly am not ignoring anything.

You want your cake and you want to eat it too.

It doesn't work that way.

This is Herm. No matter how much you bitch about it, this is what we're going to get. We lose 9-6 and everybody is pissed we were too conservative. Without Herm, we might have scored more points. But without Herm it's also true that we might have given up more points. You can't blame him on one hand and not give him credit with the other.

Then again, we could have avoided this conversation altogether had we gotten embarrassed on national TV in typical Vermeil fashion...

htismaqe
09-18-2006, 11:33 AM
As for Reed and Edwards being space fillers.

9 points.

At Invesco.

Pretty good for space fillers. Too bad they're not Warren Sapp.

Chief Faithful
09-18-2006, 11:49 AM
Does anyone else remember Denvers 'morale' victory in their loss to KC in KC three years ago? The fans watched their team lose a game only to proclaim the Donks were the better team.

I like what Herm is doing. The offense will get better as Solari learns how to call a game and when the players start getting in sync. This team will start hitting on all cylinders soon after Trent Greens return.

Remember, in DV's first season it was game 4 before we started to see the offense come together.

Chief Faithful
09-18-2006, 12:34 PM
It is possible that yesterday’s massive dose of Martyball was an artifact of extenuating circumstances.

The QB who ran the Offense since its installation in Kansas City was out, replaced by a career backup who had not started for several years.

The Offensive Line was in disarray. We could not count on our QB having time to throw or for our RB to have a hole through which to hurl himself.

Therefore, I am not yet ready to sign up at fireherm.com. He SAYS he plays to win. I did not see any evidence of that yesterday, but as I said: extenuating circumstances.

There are reasons for optimism:
• Sampson is a nice upgrade over Black.
• Turley should continue to improve as he gets his football legs back and bulks up.
• Trent Green should return in a couple of weeks [not to take anything away from Huard, who played a great game].

The extenuating circumstances will eventually drop away [and new extenuating circumstances will no doubt arise]. At that point, I hope to see Martyball banished again.

xoxo~
Gaz
Still giving Edwards the benefit of the doubt [for now].


I would like to add one more, Solari is a new offensive coordinator. He has great promise, but OC's grow into the job they don't start off experienced.

I really like the direction the team is going.

old_geezer
09-18-2006, 12:58 PM
The play was called. Huard called the timeout because he was confused. That was NOT the coaches' fault.

And as far as not calling a timeout or grounding the ball, it's pretty pathetic to blame the head coach when he had to RUN ONTO THE FIELD to call a timeout because his players stood around like idots...


I mentioned this on another thread, but it fits here too. Direct quote from Huard taken from this morning's Kansas City Star newspaper; " We weren't lined up right. It just wasn't right. I didn't want to have a bad play and get no points at all". Sounds to me like they either had the wrong personnel in for the play called, or they just lined up wrong. Since they were still heading for the line of scrimmage, Huard probably noticed they had the wrong people in for the play called.

htismaqe
09-18-2006, 01:00 PM
Remember, in DV's first season it was game 4 before we started to see the offense come together.

DV was 6-10 in his first season.

If Herm goes 6-10, there will be gunfire at 1 Arrowhead.

See, DV gets a free pass on shit like this...

htismaqe
09-18-2006, 01:00 PM
I mentioned this on another thread, but it fits here too. Direct quote from Huard taken from this morning's Kansas City Star newspaper; " We weren't lined up right. It just wasn't right. I didn't want to have a bad play and get no points at all". Sounds to me like they either had the wrong personnel in for the play called, or they just lined up wrong. Since they were still heading for the line of scrimmage, Huard probably noticed they had the wrong people in for the play called.

Being "lined up right" is the PLAYERS' responsibility.

old_geezer
09-18-2006, 01:04 PM
Being "lined up right" is the PLAYERS' responsibility.


I wasn't trying to place blame - just give a valid reason for the time out that was called. I agree that it is the player's responsibility to be lined up right. However, if I remember correctly, they weren't lined up yet so I am more in belief that the wrong personnel were in the game for the play called. JMO

chiefsfan1963
09-18-2006, 01:11 PM
DV was 6-10 in his first season.

If Herm goes 6-10, there will be gunfire at 1 Arrowhead.

See, DV gets a free pass on shit like this...

DV had a shell of a team that HERM was given his 1st year. DV left a great foundation for any 1st year HC. :shake:

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-18-2006, 01:12 PM
DV was 6-10 in his first season.

If Herm goes 6-10, there will be gunfire at 1 Arrowhead.

See, DV gets a free pass on shit like this...

Absolutely ridiculous. Vermeil implemented an entirely new system his first year here. Herm is supposed to get an experienced team over the top, that's why he wasn't going to change a thing on offense, in his own words. We had no wide receivers and a rapidly deteriorating defense, along with suspect pass protection. This team is better at nearly every position than was the 2001 team.

ChiefsCountry
09-18-2006, 01:18 PM
Absolutely ridiculous. Vermeil implemented an entirely new system his first year here. Herm is supposed to get an experienced team over the top, that's why he wasn't going to change a thing on offense, in his own words. We had no wide receivers and a rapidly deteriorating defense, along with suspect pass protection. This team is better at nearly every position than was the 2001 team.

The offense changed not so much bc of Herm but bc of the players on it. I guarantee if Roaf and Green were out there our offense would look alot different, probally alot similar to DV's.

HC_Chief
09-18-2006, 01:20 PM
Absolutely ridiculous. Vermeil implemented an entirely new system his first year here. Herm is supposed to get an experienced team over the top, that's why he wasn't going to change a thing on offense, in his own words. We had no wide receivers and a rapidly deteriorating defense, along with suspect pass protection. This team is better at nearly every position than was the 2001 team.

And this team has a "rapidly deteriorating OFFENSE".

In case you haven't noticed: Willie Roaf retired. John Welborn "retired" (druggie idiot).

We have one #2 WR (Kennison).

Our QB got knocked the F*ck out in game 1.

At the end of this season we are going to need A LOT more players than we needed to start 2002. In no order: 1 OG, 2 OT, 1 OC, 2 DT, 2 CB, 3 WR, 1 QB.

Prepare for MASSIVE turnover on the roster.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-18-2006, 01:29 PM
And this team has a "rapidly deteriorating OFFENSE".

In case you haven't noticed: Willie Roaf retired. John Welborn "retired" (druggie idiot).

We have one #2 WR (Kennison).

Our QB got knocked the F*ck out in game 1.

At the end of this season we are going to need A LOT more players than we needed to start 2002. In no order: 1 OG, 2 OT, 1 OC, 2 DT, 2 CB, 3 WR, 1 QB.

Prepare for MASSIVE turnover on the roster.

Herm has players.

He still goes to battle with four Pro Bowl offensive players even with this "patchwork" unit. He inherited an ascending defense. Vermeil inherited two halves of a football team in utter shambles. He turned a pathetic offense into one of the 5-10 best in NFL history. Granted, he did poorly developing the defense, but it was a hell of a lot better when he left than when he got here.

Eddie Kennison is a solid NFL receiver, a lot of people dog on him, but he's been more productive than any other receiver in this division aside from Rod Smith over the last 4 years (as Moss has only been here for 18 games).

Explain to me why you think that we will need two cornerbacks? Law has plenty of miles left on him, and Surtain is only 30. Walls has played quite well this year, and we have drafted two corners with tools and have a head coach who is supposed to be adept at grooming DBs. We will need one WR going into next year, as Kennison is long in the tooth and Parker is a true #3, but it doesn't have to be a clear #1 type. We need 1 left tackle, and one DT. If Wellbourne comes back (highly plausible), we won't even need a guard, as it is his natural position. WE don't need a QB, as we have a Pro Bowl vet and a QBOTF already entrenched. We may need a #3 next year...OH NO!!

That's not many holes for an NFL team to fill.

At the end of Vermeil's first year we still needed a left tackle, a viable WR, a backup HB, all three linebacking positions, all four positions along the DL, and both CB positions. Now *that* is having holes to fill....and that's why Herm should get no slack for the inevitable 6-10 finish this team is going to have.

Woodrow Call
09-18-2006, 01:32 PM
And this team has a "rapidly deteriorating OFFENSE".

In case you haven't noticed: Willie Roaf retired. John Welborn "retired" (druggie idiot).

We have one #2 WR (Kennison).

Our QB got knocked the F*ck out in game 1.

At the end of this season we are going to need A LOT more players than we needed to start 2002. In no order: 1 OG, 2 OT, 1 OC, 2 DT, 2 CB, 3 WR, 1 QB.

Prepare for MASSIVE turnover on the roster.

Yep. Its could get a lot worse before it gets better. On the bright side the defense is young and should be able to carry the Chiefs until the offense gets rebuilt. Year 3 is probably when Herm's team will be complete just like it took DV about 3 years to build his team.

Barrymore50
09-18-2006, 01:55 PM
I thought the Chiefs did fine against the Broncos! I had to work Sunday, but watched the whole game last night on tape. My impressions: The Chiefs dominated the first quarter, and if LJ wouldn't have fumbled, were headed for a TD. I thought Huard looked the best I've seen him. Dustin Colquitt had two awesome coffin corner kicks. The defense did really well the first half, but the Broncos started to figure them out in the second half, and basically ran them over in overtime, (BUT, if a defense can hold the Broncos at home to 9 POINTS, you can't fault them much!). Dante had some nice returns, and looks like he'll be breaking one for a TD soon. Derrick Johnson makes tons of plays. Ty Law and Surtain dominated the receivers for the most part (and finally knocked Rod Smith goofy). Glad to see LJ much more involved, except for the fumble, he always gets yards. Wish Tony G. had been able to make more plays. The defense still needs to get pressure on the QB, they were close to Plummer several times, but need to get some sacks! The Broncos got the benefit of a couple weak calls (including a very weak facemask call on the Chiefs). I think the Chiefs are the best-looking 0-2 team in the NFL, and if Trent comes back, and/or the defense and offensive lines keep improving, this team could get really good!

Nzoner
09-18-2006, 01:58 PM
shhh!

you'll blow Cowher's cover and ruin the taste of moral victories for Chiefs fans....


As hard as it is I'll STFU now

HC_Chief
09-18-2006, 01:58 PM
Explain to me why you think that we will need two cornerbacks? Law has plenty of miles left on him, and Surtain is only 30. Walls has played quite well this year, and we have drafted two corners with tools and have a head coach who is supposed to be adept at grooming DBs. We will need one WR going into next year, as Kennison is long in the tooth and Parker is a true #3, but it doesn't have to be a clear #1 type. We need 1 left tackle, and one DT. If Wellbourne comes back (highly plausible), we won't even need a guard, as it is his natural position. WE don't need a QB, as we have a Pro Bowl vet and a QBOTF already entrenched. We may need a #3 next year...OH NO!!

That's not many holes for an NFL team to fill

Law will be 33. That's pretty old, by NFL standards. Surtain, 31. Again, starting to get a bit old. Walls is tall... that's about it. He has been injury-prone and not particularly great in coverage. Hell, I remember dungver fans railing on the guy well before we signed him. Now, if you're comfortable replacing Law and/or Surtain w/ Alphonso Hodge and Marcus Maxey....

Kennison HAS been productive, to be sure. After him, we've had CRAP. In case you haven't noticed, Samie Parker has a habit of letting passes bounce right off his hands up into the air. After Parker who do we have? Dante Hall? Ever try to throw a pass to a midget over the top of 6'5" DL? That's what our QB has to do on each pass to Hall.... or he has to have wide-open passing lanes. Either way, that's a bit to ask. And, despite what you say, we DO need a "#1 receiver"!!! Kennison has been close... close enough at least. When he hangs 'em up, or if he loses a step (it's going to happen), we are screwed.

Wleborn has been busted twice for drug policy violations. Even a team desperate for OT help, such as KC, would be retarded for signing that headcase. You're delusional if you're pinning hope on that jerk.

We DO need a QB, as Trent Green will be 37 starting next season... that's if he comes back. After taking that hit and being sidelined for 4+ weeks, that may be in doubt. If we're going to annoint Croyle the next QB, great... he gets the start next year. That means Croyle, Huard? and who else?

As for one LT and one DT, you got half right: an LT is a definite need!! We actually need TWO DTs if we plan on running the cover-two effectively. This D relies less on blitzing than our previous zone-blitz schemes, which exposes our DTs for what they are/have been: crap. FFS, James Reed was out of the league, sitting on his arse thru June, and he walked right into the starting job. That should tell you something about the state of our DT "corps".

This team's window of opportunity closed last season. Age caught up to the offense this season. Our front office held out hope that we might be able to squeeze one more year out of the O, but it isn't going to happen. This team is going to enter into a massive rebuild cycle.

Baby Lee
09-18-2006, 02:14 PM
Ever try to throw a pass to a midget over the top of 6'5" DL?
http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/10-26-00/Images/graves.jpg

do you like movies about gladiators?

HC_Chief
09-18-2006, 02:19 PM
lol

"Ever been in a Turkish prison?"

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-18-2006, 03:34 PM
Law will be 33. That's pretty old, by NFL standards. Surtain, 31. Again, starting to get a bit old. Walls is tall... that's about it. He has been injury-prone and not particularly great in coverage. Hell, I remember dungver fans railing on the guy well before we signed him. Now, if you're comfortable replacing Law and/or Surtain w/ Alphonso Hodge and Marcus Maxey....

Kennison HAS been productive, to be sure. After him, we've had CRAP. In case you haven't noticed, Samie Parker has a habit of letting passes bounce right off his hands up into the air. After Parker who do we have? Dante Hall? Ever try to throw a pass to a midget over the top of 6'5" DL? That's what our QB has to do on each pass to Hall.... or he has to have wide-open passing lanes. Either way, that's a bit to ask. And, despite what you say, we DO need a "#1 receiver"!!! Kennison has been close... close enough at least. When he hangs 'em up, or if he loses a step (it's going to happen), we are screwed.

Wleborn has been busted twice for drug policy violations. Even a team desperate for OT help, such as KC, would be retarded for signing that headcase. You're delusional if you're pinning hope on that jerk.

We DO need a QB, as Trent Green will be 37 starting next season... that's if he comes back. After taking that hit and being sidelined for 4+ weeks, that may be in doubt. If we're going to annoint Croyle the next QB, great... he gets the start next year. That means Croyle, Huard? and who else?

As for one LT and one DT, you got half right: an LT is a definite need!! We actually need TWO DTs if we plan on running the cover-two effectively. This D relies less on blitzing than our previous zone-blitz schemes, which exposes our DTs for what they are/have been: crap. FFS, James Reed was out of the league, sitting on his arse thru June, and he walked right into the starting job. That should tell you something about the state of our DT "corps".

This team's window of opportunity closed last season. Age caught up to the offense this season. Our front office held out hope that we might be able to squeeze one more year out of the O, but it isn't going to happen. This team is going to enter into a massive rebuild cycle.


Cornerbacks actually age pretty well, far better then Linebackers or Running Backs. You can't have pro bowlers at every position. The strength in our D-Line is on the edges, and if we add an 80th percentile DT in the offseason, a guy like Reed or Edwards will be fine. Walls has played well *this year*...I'm not saying he's a long term solution, but he seems to be a viable option as a nickel back, particularly when we have to face Gates 2x/year. If we bring a good (not a Torry Holt type) receiver in, then we will be in fine shape. Parker looks like a #3, but he caught some tough passes yesterday, and he has the speed to stretch the field. Webb has the tools to be a 4th WR, and really, if he develops he could be a very good #2, he has size, speed, hands, the only question is his character. I also think that Law will be fine for the next 2-3 years. We should be able to develop one of our corners in that time, or find one in the draft to step in when his number is called.

You act like everything is falling apart tomorrow. I realize that Law and Surtain are aging, but they still have a couple of good years left, which allows us flexibility in restocking their positions. Sampson willl only get better at RT. We need a LT, that is indisputable, but we have options at guards when Shields hangs them up. One is Wellbourne (even though he's an ass clown). In the meantime, we could actually move Black there, since it is his natural position. If he is too mentally fried, there will be viable replacements via free agency (let's face it, Shields has gotten to the Pro Bowl on legacy lately). We can pick up a third QB as a developmental project through the draft, or sign one, of which there will be many, in free agency.

HC_Chief
09-18-2006, 04:05 PM
You act like everything is falling apart tomorrow. I realize that Law and Surtain are aging, but they still have a couple of good years left, which allows us flexibility in restocking their positions. Sampson willl only get better at RT. We need a LT, that is indisputable, but we have options at guards when Shields hangs them up. One is Wellbourne (even though he's an ass clown). In the meantime, we could actually move Black there, since it is his natural position. If he is too mentally fried, there will be viable replacements via free agency (let's face it, Shields has gotten to the Pro Bowl on legacy lately). We can pick up a third QB as a developmental project through the draft, or sign one, of which there will be many, in free agency.

I am pretty sure this is exactly what we will do: blow our wad on ONE F/A signing, an LT, then add a bunch of backup-calibre players. It's been our MO.

We have been in desperate need of a WR for years. Imagine Javon Walker on THIS team.... a wideout that can make big plays? Why would we want that? :(

I see a lot of holes on this team. The most glaring = OL and DL. I am a firm believer in the notion that games are won in the trenches. We've lost our first two games due to our weak OL and DL.

GoHuge
09-18-2006, 04:16 PM
I am pretty sure this is exactly what we will do: blow our wad on ONE F/A signing, an LT, then add a bunch of backup-calibre players. It's been our MO.

We have been in desperate need of a WR for years. Imagine Javon Walker on THIS team.... a wideout that can make big plays? Why would we want that? :(

I see a lot of holes on this team. The most glaring = OL and DL. I am a firm believer in the notion that games are won in the trenches. We've lost our first two games due to our weak OL and DL.Guys give your keyboards a break. Let the other kids play to.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-18-2006, 04:27 PM
Wide Receiver is the most overrated position in football, and one of the least important in the grand design of things. Arizona had 2 of the 10 best WRs in the league last year and couldn't score a touchdown to save their life...why? Because they couldn't run the ball, and they didn't have a tight end to serve as a big target in the red zone.

Gates makes a bigger difference on his team than any WR does on any team in the NFL.

WilliamTheIrish
09-18-2006, 05:13 PM
I have to agree with hamas here. Yea, we only lost by three. Yes, the D was stellar. But we lost. And I feel the Chiefs deserved more than a coin toss chance in OT.

And while I understand that Herm's game plan was responsible for giving us a chance at the victory, I'm upset that Herm, when he had his chance to go down the field, and put a dagger in the donx, decided to run a sweep late in the game.

That was Martyball in purest form.

siberian khatru
09-18-2006, 05:52 PM
And while I understand that Herm's game plan was responsible for giving us a chance at the victory, I'm upset that Herm, when he had his chance to go down the field, and put a dagger in the donx, decided to run a sweep late in the game.


"And BINGO was his name-o."

the Talking Can
09-18-2006, 06:13 PM
I have to agree with hamas here. Yea, we only lost by three. Yes, the D was stellar. But we lost. And I feel the Chiefs deserved more than a coin toss chance in OT.

And while I understand that Herm's game plan was responsible for giving us a chance at the victory, I'm upset that Herm, when he had his chance to go down the field, and put a dagger in the donx, decided to run a sweep late in the game.

That was Martyball in purest form.

great minds.........afraid to win (http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=147944)

a good gameplan is worthless if you're too afraid to risk winning...a good gameplan puts you in position to win, but you still have to pull the trigger....or not, just punt and lose...

no passes into the endzone

no fly routes to Kennison or Parker

no nothing...

WilliamTheIrish
09-18-2006, 06:42 PM
great minds.........afraid to win (http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=147944)

a good gameplan is worthless if you're too afraid to risk winning...a good gameplan puts you in position to win, but you still have to pull the trigger....or not, just punt and lose...

no passes into the endzone

no fly routes to Kennison or Parker

no nothing...

Agreed.

This leads to my next gripe.

Are we going to put the onus for winning on the defense? It seems we will.

I hate to see that.

JohnnyV13
09-18-2006, 10:40 PM
I'll just agree with Johhny here.

I'm scared of getting judo chopped.


Roflmao. Judo doesn't include chops BTW. You can only pin, throw, choke and use armlocks.

greg63
09-18-2006, 10:51 PM
The offense didn't play well enough not to loose.