PDA

View Full Version : Rufus reminds us that we are not as smart as Herm


shaneo69
10-25-2006, 02:57 PM
DAWES: Game Management - 101
Oct 25, 2006, 4:39:21 AM by Rufus Dawes

The closing minutes of the first half of the recent Chiefs-Chargers game at Arrowhead attracted more than its share of boos from the usually friendly Arrowhead Stadium audience. They were directed at the Chiefs sidelines and specifically at head coach Herm Edwards. Presumably, they were the result of Edwards’ decision to play it safe and not to go with the crowd’s favored choice of trying to go for another score right before half.

This roaring of the plebs causes one to revisit what Edwards may have had in mind as he contemplated what course of action he would take before he and his players headed to the locker room. To our benefit, the head coach revealed his strategy at his most recent weekly press conference. Since Edwards’ game management appears to be the subject-du-jour these days, and is one likely to be second-guessed time and time again this season, let’s examine what he said given the circumstances he faced and, for the sake of this now rapt audience, note how he also approached the closing minutes of the second half of this most recent game.

The Circumstances: Chiefs vs. Chargers, 1st half, October 22, 2006
With 1:02 remaining in the first half, Kansas City had the ball on its own 37-yard line following a missed San Diego field goal.

The Outcome: Chiefs vs. Chargers, 1st half, October 22, 2006
On first down Kansas City ran the ball with Larry Johnson for a two-yard gain to the 39-yard line. It was then the boos rang out, no doubt as the crowd had hoped that like in past years, the Chiefs would go for the jugular and get one more score before halftime. While Edwards did call a time-out with 0:34 seconds remaining, he elected to run it again with Johnson, who gained one yard, and the team let time run out.

The Thinking, Chiefs vs. Chargers, 1st half, October 22, 2006
At the time Kansas City had the ball, the team was holding a two score lead (20-6) over the Chargers. According to Edwards, the defense had already been on the field for 31 plays and had just left after a long San Diego drive that had taken the Chargers from their own 27-yard line to the Kansas City 28-yard line. “With an offense like theirs that’s too productive…the thing you want to do is keep them off the field. Keep the possessions from them,” Edwards said.

Following that thought process, Edwards decided that “unless we break a big run on a (Johnson) draw and get across the 45 (yard line) I’m going to take a 14-point lead into half and I’m going to rest my defense which just came off the field in a two-minute situation where (it) had made them punt the football.” His team had momentum on its side, he believed and he didn’t want to risk losing it. “You don’t take chances when you don’t need to,” he emphasized.

Adding more insight, he noted San Diego’s status as the “leading sack team in the National Football League coming into our game,” which influenced his decision since “why the need to put (Huard) in harm’s way. You don’t need to put yourself in position to turn the ball over. Why do I need to do that when I’ve got a 14-point lead?”

Then, for the sake of comparison, he referenced the conclusion of the first half of Monday night’s Giants-Cowboys game. The Giants had crawled from their own five-yard line with 1:33 remaining to their 18 before Tiki Barber broke around right end for an 18-yard gain putting the ball on his team’s 31-yard line. Still, as Edwards saw it: “The Giants are on the road, got a little bit of a lead, Dallas is basically out of it” and there are only 0:28 second remaining

But sliding into a two-minute offense, NY quarterback Eli Manning dropped back and threw a pass right into the hands of a defender who, fortunately for the Giants, dropped the ball. Otherwise, he would have been on his way to the end-zone and the Cowboys, who had done little the first half, would have suddenly and surprisingly had the lead going into the third quarter and had the ball first when play resumed. Momentum would have clearly changed in favor of Dallas.

The Circumstances: Chiefs vs. Charges, 2nd half, October 22, 2006
With the score tied 27-27, Kansas City had stopped San Diego on its own 44-yard line after the Chargers had received the ball with 1:48 remaining. The Chiefs prepared to go on offense with 0:33 seconds left in the game.

The Outcome: Chiefs vs. Chargers, 2nd half, October 22, 2006
In what was obviously a two-minute offense and the ball on his team’s 18-yard line, Huard hit Larry Johnson for a 15-yard gain, then rifled a 19-yard pass to Tony Gonzalez and, following a time-out, another 18-yard pass to Gonzalez before taking the team’s final time-out with 0:11 seconds remaining in regulation. Following a penalty, Lawrence Tynes kicked a 53-yard field goal with 0:06 seconds remaining to give Kansas City the lead and eventually the win.

The Thinking: Chiefs vs. Chargers, 2nd half, October 22, 2006
The major focus of this sequence of events should be Edwards’ use of timeouts. If you recall from an earlier press conference, he noted that it is his preference to save his timeouts for the second and fourth quarters for reasons that should be obvious.

In this instance, the key timeout occurred when San Diego was on offense and Kansas City, with all three timeouts remaining, called its first following the sacking of QB Philip Rivers’ on third down at his team’s 43-yard line with 0:52 seconds remaining. Why so important? It did not permit the Chargers to run the clock down as they prepared to punt and it gave the Chief the ball with something approximating a reasonable chance to do something with it.

With still two timeouts remaining, San Diego did not have the luxury of having to defend only the sidelines to prevent Kansas City from getting out of bounds and stopping the clock. With more of the field available to play, the Chiefs had more options and played them with two consecutive middle-of-the-field passes to Gonzalez totaling 37 yards squeezed between their two final time-outs.

With the ball now on San Diego’s 30-yard line and 0:11 left they could risk one more play but now, without a timeout to use, Edwards noted his reluctance to risk it on one more play. Looking back at it now, he said he was reminded of the situation he faced in Denver earlier in the year as time ran down in regulation.

“Same exact game,” he noted. “We don’t do it. Same players. Different mindset.”

A “different mindset”

While it is more than a bit presumptuous to put oneself inside the head of another, particularly an NFL head coach engaged in a heated football game in a full stadium in a game with a division foe, it is an exercise that more than a few of us enjoy, provided we take into consideration that it is at best hindsight. In this instance, however, Edward laid out his thinking and rationale and while it probably wouldn’t pass muster with the fellow who sat next to me in the stands last Sunday, and who jumped up, screamed out a couple of invectives at Edwards and spilled beer all over my new parka as halftime approached, it’s good enough for me and it should be good enough for you.

It’s a new way of playing football in Kansas City, but if you have been listening carefully it’s an approach that Edwards laid out almost from the first day he got here. “Understand the flow of the game,” he cautioned. “I have more information than anybody else on which to make my decisions. I don’t make it on a series.”

Neither should we.

The opinions offered in this column do not necessarily reflect those of Carl Peterson.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2006/10/25/dawes_game_management__101/

HC_Chief
10-25-2006, 03:04 PM
Rufus is and retart.

I do NOT like Edwards' mentality: "Play particular style of offense to rest the defense".

MY philosophy on offense is to score every time we touch the damn ball. Score, score, and more score. If the D tries to stop the run, burn them with the pass. If they try to stop the pass, run the ball down their throat. Score, score, SCORE! Got a big lead? Score some more!

see: Pittsburgh -v- KC
The Steelers weren't trying to "rest their defense", they were trying to score every time they had the pigskin. More often than not, they DID score. And they KEPT scoring. And they're supposedly a run-first "conservative" team.
Hardly!

FAX
10-25-2006, 03:09 PM
El Rufo would have been well advised just to let this one go.

Herm's explanation makes no sense and has little or nothing to do with what actually happened. Herm's a little on the defensive when it comes to his game/clock management and the organization should stop demeaning fans who own tvs and watch games.

FAX

Rain Man
10-25-2006, 03:13 PM
Rufus is and retart.

I do NOT like Edwards' mentality: "Play particular style of offense to rest the defense".

MY philosophy on offense is to score every time we touch the damn ball. Score, score, and more score. If the D tries to stop the run, burn them with the pass. If they try to stop the pass, run the ball down their throat. Score, score, SCORE! Got a big lead? Score some more!



But if you score, you have to kick off the ball to the other team. That more or less a turnover, and we don't want turnovers.

HC_Chief
10-25-2006, 03:15 PM
But if you score, you have to kick off the ball to the other team. That more or less a turnover, and we don't want turnovers.

heh
Nah, it just gives my defense the opportunity to bitch-slap the opposition and embarass them by taking the ball away via forced fumble or interception. At worst, they're forced to punt it right back to us... which, as an admission of defeat, is quite demoralizing; just not as satisfactory as punching them in the mouth & taking their ball away. ;)

KCChiefsFan88
10-25-2006, 03:24 PM
The funniest comment this week from Carl's personal sex toys comes from Fatboy Gretz who refers to Whitlock as "Le Grande Poison Pen" and proceeds to trash Whitlock's column about the Passion Party in Pittsburgh.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2006/10/25/gretz_from_the_mailbag/

Mr. Laz
10-25-2006, 03:28 PM
But if you score, you have to kick off the ball to the other team. That more or less a turnover, and we don't want turnovers.
you so funny ... me luv you long time.











err ... sorry, got carried away for a sec. :redface:

Baby Lee
10-25-2006, 03:33 PM
you so funny ... me luv you long time.











err ... sorry, got carried away for a sec. :redface:
Hide your gatorade, RM.

kc rush
10-25-2006, 03:43 PM
Needing to keep the D rested doesn’t wash here. It was going into half-time and the offense was going to open up with the ball. Provided the O does their job in opening the second half the D would have plenty of rest.

If you “Play to win the game” you take points whenever you have the opportunity. With good field position, over a minute on the clock and time-outs there was plenty of time to get into field goal range (as they proved they could do it at the end of the game). This was “playing not to lose”, and that mentality doesn’t win championships.

Hopefully Herm can learn from his mistakes, but I’m not counting on it.

But, what do I know; I’m only an idiot fan.

listopencil
10-25-2006, 03:45 PM
Another poorly written article.

bsp4444
10-25-2006, 04:47 PM
I have to agree with the philosophy of keeping San Diego's offense off of the field. The worst thing that could have happened at the beginning of the second half (besides a turnover) was what happened...three and out. The offense should of had a better plan than that to carry the momentum forward.

Crashride
10-25-2006, 04:51 PM
Does herm know if .999 = 1?

SNR
10-25-2006, 04:58 PM
It's not our fault we're classless and deranged Chiefs fans

ChiefFan31
10-25-2006, 04:59 PM
Rufus is a dumb****.

Good point FAX about the organization slamming the fans who own TV's or who go to the games. Rufus is an extension of the Chiefs brass. That is no secret.

Im all for milking the clock in that situation if we are on our own 18 or 20. No need to push it, but when we are at our own 37 with two timeouts all we need is two or three first downs to get into field goal range, you should go for it.

If we had gotten those three extra points, we might not have had to had that last second 53 yard field goal to win the game. He flat out left a scoring opportunity on the field, and you cant do that week after week and expect to win games.

Easy 6
10-25-2006, 05:08 PM
Dufus Rawes.

Halfcan
10-25-2006, 05:11 PM
This whole article is BS-we didn't even try.

Redcoats58
10-25-2006, 05:24 PM
Nice cover up article for poor clock management from our head coach. I'm not buying it!

Crashride
10-25-2006, 05:30 PM
I think it was a smart call, we still have to remember we dont have the best online or recievers or qb, so since we had a 14 point lead I think its a good stratagy to keep that lead and not risk anything. Herm is just smarter than that to let a bunch of loud drunk as fans that just want to see a hail mary get to him. If he would have let Huard try to score and he threw a pick causing a loss it everyone would be asking why he wasnt more conservative

StcChief
10-25-2006, 05:38 PM
I have always been a fan of score at every opportunity.

IT IS STILL a playoff tiebreaker.

Redcoats58
10-25-2006, 05:41 PM
I think it was a smart call, we still have to remember we dont have the best online or recievers or qb, so since we had a 14 point lead I think its a good stratagy to keep that lead and not risk anything. Herm is just smarter than that to let a bunch of loud drunk as fans that just want to see a hail mary get to him. If he would have let Huard try to score and he threw a pick causing a loss it everyone would be asking why he wasnt more conservative
That doesnt dismiss the fact that it was poor clock management by the coach. Also with all our timeouts and a minute left in the game it's hardly a hail mary situation, there should have atleast been an attempt to get into field goal range. You don't leave points on the field period.

gblowfish
10-25-2006, 05:45 PM
Sometimes Rufus ODs on his Thesaurus. Basically, Chiefs fans were pissed that Herm left two time outs on the board and ran the last minute of the first half like a Chinese fire drill. His excuse is BS. You always, ALWAYS try to put up more points, especially against a dangerous team like SD.

Anyway, instead of trying to interpret the entire voluminous output of this Rufus-gazm, allow me to just define and explain the big words, so maybe we'll all have a better understanding of what exactly Rufus is trying to say:

Rufus-isms:
PLEBS:
n.
In Ancient Rome, the plebs was the general body of Roman citizens, distinct from the privileged class of the patricians. A member of the plebs was known as a plebeian (Latin: plebeius).

The true origin of the test distinction between plebeians and patricians is unknown; there is little evidence for any sort of a racial basis, nor many signs of a distinction during the time of the kings. However, the populace of the city of Rome during the reigns of Romulus, Numa Pompilius, and Tullus Hostilius were all called patrician as they were the only inhabitants of Rome. It is during the reign of Ancus Marcius that the plebeians came to Rome from diplomatic alliances as secondary citizens. In any case, around the time of the foundation of the Roman Republic, the plebeians were excluded from religious colleges and magistracies, and the law of the Twelve Tables disallowed intermarriage (which was finally allowed by the Lex Canuleia.) At the same time, plebeians were enrolled in the gentes and tribes, served in the army, and could become military tribunes.

Even so, the "Conflict of the Orders" over the political status of the plebeians went on for the first two centuries of the Republic, ending with the formal equality of plebeians and patricians in 287 BC. The plebeians achieved this by developing their own organizations (the concilium plebis), leaders (the tribunes and plebeian aediles), and as the ultimate weapon used the secessio, by which the plebeians would literally leave Rome, effectively boycotting the city. This is recorded to have happened five times, although only the last (in 287) is believed to be accurately documented.

After this period, the wealthier plebeians were gradually incorporated into the Senatorial elite. The distinction between members of patrician families and members of wealthy senatorial plebeian families became essentially a legal, rather than a social one - at least one consul each year had to be a plebeian, and only plebeians had the right to act as Tribune of the People and to vote in the Plebeian Council. By the first century BC, many of the wealthiest and most prominent senatorial figures were actually plebeians, as many of the old patrician families died out.

Still later, during the Empire the term was often used of anyone not in the senatorial or equestrian orders. The word lives on in plebe, the term for a freshman at the U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Naval Academy, Valley Forge Military Academy and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.

In British and Australian English pleb continues in use as a derogatory term for someone inferior, common or ignorant, who may be described as being a pleb, plebby or a plebhead. In Dutch it is used literally; someone may be part of the 'Plebs'.

I'm sure Rufus means it in the most derogatory way.

SUBJECT-DU-JOUR: That's Frenchy talk. Means "Subject of the Day."
Rufus often uses Frenchy talk to appear "world-wise."

RAPT: Pronunciation (rpt)
adj.
1. Deeply moved or delighted; enraptured: listened to the speaker with rapt admiration.
2. Deeply absorbed; engrossed: was rapt in thought all evening.

Use in a sentence: "Rufus believes LJ enjoys rapt music."

JUGULAR:
n.
The principal vein in the front of either side of the neck. The word comes from the Latin jugulum meaning throat. The jugular is "the vein of the throat" or in ancient times "the sacrificial vein."

Use in a sentence: "When it comes to ticket and parking price increases, King Carl always goes for the fan's jugular."

PRESUMPTUOUS: Pronunciation (pr-zmpch-s)
adj.
Going beyond what is right or proper; excessively forward.
Use in a sentence: "King Carl charging for Playoff Tickets before the Chiefs actually qualify for the Playoffs is presumptuous."

RATIONALE: Pronunciation (rsh-nl)
n.
1. Fundamental reasons; the basis.
2. An exposition of principles or reasons.
Use in a sentence: "There is no rationale for running out the clock with a minute left and two time outs at the end of the first half."

INVECTIVES:
n.
1. Abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will. - vituperation, vitriol
Use in a sentence: "King Carl's favorite invective: STFU & STFD!!!"

the Talking Can
10-25-2006, 05:55 PM
This article doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

2 TOs for the Chiefs
0 for the Chargers

Chiefs do nothing

have to kick game winning FG

conservatism on display....Herm thinks you can waste time and plays...

chiefbowe82
10-25-2006, 05:56 PM
I love Herman Edwards thought process in the games.

Logical
10-25-2006, 06:00 PM
I love Herman Edwards thought process in the games.The philosophy is essence of Martyball

Phobia
10-25-2006, 06:06 PM
Herm is way smarter than me. He spends 60 hours a week managing a football team and making $3,500,000 a year. I spend 60 hours a week watching his football team, talking about his football team, writing about his football team, and listening to Herm talk about his football team for $350 a year. Yes, I daresay he's a little more intelligent.

the Talking Can
10-25-2006, 06:11 PM
Herm thought a 14 point lead was enough.

He was wrong.

Case closed.

kc rush
10-26-2006, 08:52 AM
I think it was a smart call, we still have to remember we dont have the best online or recievers or qb, so since we had a 14 point lead I think its a good stratagy to keep that lead and not risk anything. Herm is just smarter than that to let a bunch of loud drunk as fans that just want to see a hail mary get to him. If he would have let Huard try to score and he threw a pick causing a loss it everyone would be asking why he wasnt more conservative

If that was the case, why throw the ball in worse field position at the end of the game? Had San Diego picked off the ball at the end of the game they would have been much closer to scoring range. You can't play afraid to lose, or play not to lose.

At the half it wouldn't have taken a "hail mary" to get in field goal range. Field position and time-outs favored the Chiefs and the coach blew it.

htismaqe
10-26-2006, 04:46 PM
Anybody that was at the game saw what Damon Huard did.

Yet Herm takes the blame.