PDA

View Full Version : My only complaint about yesterday's loss...


jAZ
09-18-2006, 10:33 AM
Why did we run the ball on 1st and 10 with 40 seconds left in regulation? We weren't in FG range, there were only 40 seconds left, we were past mid-field.

The rest of the play calling I get, and I don't blame the coaches for players not calling the TO. But this play, I just don't understand. It's not like we were already in FG range. It's not like we were only a few yards away from being in FG range. It's not like we were deep in our own endzone where at TO would immediately win the game for the Broncos.

Overall, I'm quite satisfied with the performance we had yesterday, given the circumstances.

But this one play keeps bugging me.

Was there some "no-sh!it" reason that I'm just missing?

JBucc
09-18-2006, 10:36 AM
I think right before that play I said all we need is a mid range pass and we're in FG range. Instead we run for a 5 yard loss. Just a stupid play not to lose call.

keg in kc
09-18-2006, 10:36 AM
The only reasoning I could come up with to make sure we ran the clock out, along the lines of "either we get in field goal range or the game goes to OT - either way, they're not getting the ball back with time on the clock".

Problem with that, of course, was that they did get the ball back when they won the toss. I figure everyone everywhere, Chiefs or Bronco fan, knew they'd won when that happened. The toss was going to determine the outcome of that game, one way or the other, and we all knew it.

dtebbe
09-18-2006, 10:36 AM
Blame it on Bush. It seems to work for you in every other instance.

DT

ChiefsfaninPA
09-18-2006, 10:40 AM
Blame it on Bush. It seems to work for you in every other instance.

DT

Reggie?

jspchief
09-18-2006, 10:41 AM
Our 2 minute drill looked exactly like a "run the clock out" drill.

It's all part of our brilliant Huard led attack.

jAZ
09-18-2006, 10:47 AM
I wasn't expecting a deep pass down the middle, but why not a bubble screen, or something like that?

Chiefnj
09-18-2006, 10:49 AM
Playing not to lose.

jAZ
09-18-2006, 11:12 AM
Our 2 minute drill looked exactly like a "run the clock out" drill.
Given that it was 1st down and there was only 40 seconds left, we could have passed on 1st (even if incomplete, 35 sec left) and 2nd downs (even if incomplete, 30 sec), take a knee on 3rd (28 sec), let the play clock run out on 4th down.

That's a more effective way to run the clock out. I actually think that running play was really part of an effort to get into field-goal range (hoping for a long LJ run?).

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 11:13 AM
It was a stupid call. I couldn't believe it.

Hound333
09-18-2006, 12:08 PM
I have never understood decisions like this. If you are so afraid to throw and interception why is that guy your QB. At least if you take a chance and lose you took a chance. This way we left it up to a coin toss. Hell we could have done that at the start of the game and saved us a few hours to do yardwork.

kregger
09-18-2006, 12:45 PM
I agree. The gameplan was well scripted for the particular situation. But when you are in your last possession, with the score tied, on the road, you abandon the conservative and try to WIN THE GAME.

Sure-Oz
09-18-2006, 12:45 PM
Yeah i was pretty pissed on the call too, we just accepted OT at that point screw that!

jAZ
09-18-2006, 01:28 PM
Yeah i was pretty pissed on the call too, we just accepted OT at that point screw that!
It was so strange... because after running the play, we actually called a time out. Not quite trying to win before over time... not quite trying to "just go into over time".

Very odd play calling. Seemed like either

1) it was a brain fart, or
2) It was an attempt to suprise them with the run in an obvious passing situation (when in reality, it was not suprise at all, because its what we showed them we were going to do all day).

Dunno, but at least I'm not the only one who didn't get it.