PDA

View Full Version : Why do you say Ram's West or..


tommykat
04-29-2001, 10:34 PM
try to say Raiders. What I am trying to convey is what differece does it make whether the Chiefs use the same plays?? HELLO>>we are the Chiefs and what they are doing will not be Rams or the Raiders offense or defense. We have totally different players and plays!

So why all the concern that the CHIEFS are Rams west or copying the Raiders? Who cares as long as it works for us?

aturnis
04-29-2001, 10:51 PM
A defense is a defense, they are used worldwide......it ain't a certain teams defense or offense, my highschool ran this defense, and once the running game stopped working for us two years ago, we moved to a passing game, what is the big deal? you guys who say this raider and ram wannabe stuff are just ignorant bandwagon fans who have nothing better to do than to go on the chiefs message board and talk smack, get a life you f*ckz!!!

tommykat
04-29-2001, 11:04 PM
OK....someone HELP!!!!!! The only response if from a Lurker..:eek:
I know what I said is right or conterversial.....but this person sounds like he might know where Clinton comes from........

CrazyHorse
04-30-2001, 07:04 AM
Do lurkers not count as a credible respondent to your post? Or was it the controversy that you are more interested in?

As a lurker, my lack of football knowledge has left me confused.

Concerning the original post, I feel that we are the Chiefs and anything we do is a reflection of past teams. The fact is, the Chiefs nor the Rams invented football. So whatever either team does, is a direct reflection of teams before them. All teams emulate others that have had success. It is the evolution of football. I understand the reason for the Rams West reference. But, it carries little significance. The Chiefs are the Chiefs.

Any other explanation is self serving.

I hope I have not overstepped my authority by posting on a regulars thread.

Dan

KCTitus
04-30-2001, 07:10 AM
Dan: dont be offended, 15 more posts and your status will change.

MOF, I wish that the admins would change the classification to something that doesnt seem negative.

btw, welcome to the Planet...

CrazyHorse
04-30-2001, 07:20 AM
KCTitus as you will notice, my register dat and yours are close. I don't post as frequent as some. But I have been around awhile.

Thanks for the welcome.

Dan

chop
04-30-2001, 07:57 AM
This particular topic is based upon an ongoing debate between John Proctor and Jim "logical". John was going through "maul ball" withdrawals and was likening the new offensive scheme to the Rams current scheme. He wasn't too thrilled with the concept.Jim did not like the negative connotations so since the Ram offense was based on the Coreyell offense in the first place, he wants the Rams references removed.

You are just stepping into an argument between two posters with different points of view.

HC_Chief
04-30-2001, 08:00 AM
I'd have to agree with the Coryell take - rather than the "Rams' West" (though I'm sure it will be termed that by the brain-dead national media)

Saunders coached with Coryell. He is a direct Coryell 'descendant' of sorts. The fact that we will feature 2TE and 2RB sets differentiates this offense from Martz's.

alanm
04-30-2001, 08:19 AM
I think it has more to do with all the personel and coaches coming over from the Ram's than anything else.

bishop_74
04-30-2001, 08:22 AM
I was never worried about it in the first place. Who cares what they call it, as long as we come out on top.

HC_Chief
04-30-2001, 08:24 AM
agreed! :D

KCJohnny
04-30-2001, 08:27 AM
Report from mini-camp:
Chiefs ran close to 90 plays and did NOT use the I formation at all (eye witness report). So much for your "shrewd use of the FB."

Vermiel says in the paper that Trent G would be able to start with only 2 weeks of practice. That tells you that they are using Martz's playbook, lock, stock and barrel.

KC brings in Rams coaches, coordinators, players, systems, philosophies and now their very playbook. Has any pro-sports franchise ever lunged so desperately at copying another? Has any franchise EVER sold out this way, so shamelessly?

Do you have any Chiefs pride? Of course you do! Then you ought to see what is going on here. We are being SOLD OUT.

KCJ
Out on a limb while his planet buddies saw away...

oleman47
04-30-2001, 08:28 AM
Most are calling it the Rams offense because of Vermeil!!!! He is constantly referring to it as such. I do not understand why this is such a point of contention. Also, he has repeating said that most of the time they will be in a single back offense. Which is not an "I" or a fb and hb set. They will when they get into the red zone change to more convention coryell and pro sets as the stretching of the field is impossible on the goal line. So more power at the point of attack is needed.
Saunders is calling it the "attack offense".

By the way the Gunther offense was a Coryell offense.

HC_Chief
04-30-2001, 08:34 AM
<i>Chiefs ran close to 90 plays and did NOT use the I formation at all (eye witness report). </i>

Well, I was there and I saw them employ 2-back sets in the 11 on 11 drills. The formations were NOT in the 'traditional' I set though - that much is true. Rather, they used 'Pro' sets - splitting the RBs - one on either side of the QB (in both center and shotgun formations).

I don't see what all the fuss is about - we are running an OPEN offense. The QB is presented with five options on every passing play. No 'decoys', no 'false' routes - EVERYONE is eligible. We <i>finally</i> have a 'modern-era' offense - one that can score at will.

ct
04-30-2001, 08:35 AM
Hey Proctor, get off your damn high horse and realize the entire NFL is a copy-cat league. Every year 30(or however many losers there are dependant on when you're talking) losers are looking at the one team just crowned Champion, to see if they can copy their success. Had we hired anyone other than DV, we'd likely be copying the Ravens right now.

Get over it, man, everything is gonna be OK. If you can't deal with the ignorant Rams Trolls, that's your problem. We already dealt with this for several years running with our backup 49er QBs, this really is no different.

We sure didn't hear you griping when Gunther tried to emulate the Redskins offense, now did we?

California Injun
04-30-2001, 08:35 AM
Mike Stock's Special Teams was also a hybrid of Coryell's offense...

KCJohnny
04-30-2001, 08:35 AM
Thanks, oleman 47, you are the MOST IMPORTANT voice on this topic!
Keep up the good work!
KCJ
Grateful for an eyewitness with the integrity to tell it like it is

KCJohnny
04-30-2001, 08:42 AM
1. The Pro-set is a passing formation. Period.

2. When we blended the Chiefs power rushing game with the Left coast Offense, we didn't hire the 49ers head coach, coordinators, defensive coaches, players, and adopt their actual playbook. This is NOT the same as what we did with Montana and Hackett. This is shameless aping the Rams, and as oleman testified, the Rams West talk is coming fron Vermiel himself.

3. Of course it looks invincible now when they run dry plays without pads against their own defense!

4. Cory, you can change your signature anytime, bud, because they are not going to be giving the ball to T-Rich much.

5. Who knows what this will do to the Chiefs defense, who will be practicing every day against the Chiefs offense? I don't think it will help, unless we played the Rams every Sunday.

KCJ
Fell off his high horse and into horse doo doo

California Injun
04-30-2001, 08:43 AM
Speaking of MOST IMPORTANT issues....

How are the Redskins doing?

Packfan
04-30-2001, 08:51 AM
Rams West???

You get a couple of back up players and a burned out head coach and now you think the Chiefs are "Rams West"??

The Chiefs havent won a playoff game in 8 years. More appropriate term would be:

Bengals West

oleman47
04-30-2001, 09:06 AM
Whoa Johnny. I am quoting Vermeil, and those that went to the minicamp. Heck, I can hardly make it to the Quik Trip.
But, I do see with the draft , wanting to develop an interior game which the Rams did not have, so you may have a subset of maulball inserted in the offense. Spears at guard may open the middle. It has been and remains my opinion that a FB like TRich can be as effective or more so due to his interior capability as Faulk. With Toombs and Layne, this suspicion is being encouraged, or its an illusion of senility--which is just as likely.

yoswif
04-30-2001, 10:42 AM
Chiefs ran close to 90 plays and did NOT use the I formation at all (eye witness report). So much for your "shrewd use of the FB."

That depends on your definition of "shrewd use of the FB". In the old Raider split back offense Hewritt Dixon, a smaller, slower, less skilled Ja'Mar Toombs, had 1,000 yard seasons at split back fullback. But of course, we're not allowed to us any formation the hated Raiders used successfully even though our personnel might be suited to run it even better than they did.
We'll also be playing a lot of 3 wr/1 rb offense and a fullback type running back like TRich, Toombs, or Layne would do a better job of protecting Green and providing an inside running option to keep defenses honest than a halfback like Holmes. But we can't run any 3 wr formations even though our personnel are ideally suited to run a 3 wr formation because the hated Rams ran a 3 wr formation with great success.
Our halfbacks will be splitting out as slot wr's a lot, putting us in a 3 wr/1 rb formation, so the fb/rb's run skills are more importantant in this offense than they are in the I. I think it makes good sense to utilize TRich, Toombs, and Layne's run skills as this offense does. But we can't split our halfbacks out and utilize the run skills of our fb/rb's because the hated Rams split their halfback out a lot.

It looks like whoever (TRich, Toombs, or Layne) is two back fullback/one back running back, he's going to be on the field virtually every play, other than 3rd and long or 2 minute offense. That would make the dual role of two back fullback/one back running back one of the most critical on the team and considering the number of hits this position is going to take and it's importance to our new offense, it makes sense to be three deep at the position of two back fullback/one back running back. If Ja'Mar Toombs has been signed (it hasn't been verified by the Chiefs organization), he, TRich, and Layne all have the versatility to perform well in the dual role of two back fullback/one back running back and would make us three deep at this critical position in our new offense.
The I formation is probably the worst formation you could devise for utilizing the run skills of our two back fullback/one back running backs, TRich, Toombs, and Layne.

KCJohnny
04-30-2001, 01:58 PM
Yoswif:
You missed the point.
The point is not that we can't use schemes popularized by rivals.
There is something much deeper going on here.
There is something happening deep down in the soul of the Chiefs organization. It is tantamount to an admission of total failure. Carl has handed the car keys over to Vermiel who has shamelessly attempted to transplant as much Ramball as he possibly can. Coaches, coordinators, systems, playbook, players, and even the Rams QB. That is a condemnation of 'Chiefsball' and a capitulation to the Rams organization. Just putting all these Rams guys in KC red doesn't make them the new Chiefs. This is the Rams taking over and allowing the Chiefs to play with THEM.
KCJ

htismaqe
04-30-2001, 02:04 PM
Chaplain,

Man, you should have been a writer. You would have done good with stories like "1984"..."Soylent Green"..."Planet of the Apes"

JESUS CHRIST...does it really have to be as bleak as you make it? The answer is NO...

"It's the end of the world as we know it...
It's the end of the world as we know it..."

HC_Chief
04-30-2001, 02:56 PM
lol yoswif - I enjoy your posts! :D

ChiefGator
04-30-2001, 02:58 PM
Isn't it more accurate to say that it is a coach who was out of coaching for many years, started coaching again and built a franchise to Super Bowl level by bringing in coaches he thought were the best, and bringing in and supporting players he thought were the best?

Then, after leaving football for one year, he returns to football again. And naturally, he is going after the same players he thought were the best, and the same coaches he thought were the best. He thought they were the best coaching staff he could put together, and after winning a Super Bowl with them, certainly hasn't changed his mind, and has built up a good relationship.

We are not having RamBall shoved down our throats, we are having the philosophy of VermielBall brought in. The same philosophy that helped him compete in three Championship games. And I for one, don't mind. I will embrace VermielBall with as much enthusiasm as I embraced GuntherBall. MartyBall took us to the playoffs on numerous times, but GuntherBall made us a 50-50 team.

Change is better than 7-9.

Mark

Brock
04-30-2001, 02:59 PM
It is tantamount to an admission of total failure.

Not a bad idea when you have totally failed.

tommykat
04-30-2001, 06:19 PM
Dan,
Welcome to the Planet. What I posted last night about Lurkers was in jest. I am sorry if you took it personally. I just am tired of all the sport commentators saying the Rams West. WE are the Chiefs. So how we get where we are going to be, who cares? Not me...:D Just ready to see our awesome team build and run the butts off of Denver, Raiders and others. Now that will be cool!

KCJohnny
05-01-2001, 05:19 PM
Parker:
Perhaps you see things differently. I did not say this was doom and gloom, end of the world etc (BTW, there WILL be an end, and Christ will reign in glory ON the earth- no occasion for doom and gloom unless you reject the King of Kings!).
What I DID say (and apparently what you don't want to hear) is that the wholesale sell out to the Rams coaches/coordinators/systems/players/philosophy is a very radical re-tooling of the entire organization. It points to an admission of total failure (which is untrue: Marty and Gun combined for a higher than .630 winning %) and a surrender to a completely non-chiefs reorganization. Perhaps you don't care. Perhaps you are happy to bring in 53 strangers, a new staff, a new everything, dress it in our red uniforms and that is 'Chiefs' to you.
Well, its not to me.
Say the word, and I'll stop molesting your patrons on this BB.
If you allow me to stay, I'm also staying with my opinions, whether you deem them noble or boorish.
After all, that is all they are, MY opinions.
KCJ

keg in kc
05-01-2001, 05:52 PM
It points to an admission of total failure (which is untrue: Marty and Gun combined for a higher than .630 winning %)

Lest we forget, this "higher than .630 winning %" drops to about .300 winning % when you get into the playoffs.

What I DID say (and apparently what you don't want to hear) is that the wholesale sell out to the Rams coaches/coordinators/systems/players/philosophy is a very radical re-tooling of the entire organization.

In 1989, were you wishing that they hadn't brought in those "53 strangers, a new staff, a new everything, dress it in our red uniforms"?

Were you afraid of turning into the "Browns West"?



Gunther is a Titan.

Marty is a Redskin.



Vermeil is a Chief.


Those are the facts.

It's time to deal with them.

Zebedee DuBois
05-01-2001, 05:54 PM
KCJohney,
The constant references to the Rams from the Chiefs administration are annoying to me. I don't know why they keep mentioning it. But as for the style of play... teams copy off one another all the time. After half a season, it will no longer be Rams West; it will be Chiefs ball (except for the inane TV commentaters, who take turns having an original thought or comment, and then all share that comment for the season) :D

keg in kc
05-01-2001, 06:14 PM
The constant references to the Rams from the Chiefs administration are annoying to me. I don't know why they keep mentioning it

I think I can take a stab at that one.

Remember that we're hardcore fans (at least I'm assuming the rest of you are...). We understand football, its history, its terminology and so forth.

When they refer to the "Rams offense", I don't think they're talking to us.

They have to call it something, and chances are that more people will understand the offense if they relate it to St. Louis and their recent success than if they talk about San Diego and "Air Coryell".

They even go against their own characterization of it being a "Ram offense" philosophy when they state that the tight end and the fullback will have prominent roles.

Some people out there in Chiefs land may not recognize names like Fouts and Winslow, but they probably will know Warner and Faulk...

We may try to take the pace of the offense from St. Louis, where everyone is always going at full speed, but the fact remains that we don't have the Ram personnel, so how can we expect to have the Ram offense? They just call it that because it's easy and because people will know what they're talking about....

No matter what the media or even coaches on the staff may call it, it won't ever be Rams west, it will be the offense of the Kansas City Chiefs, through-and-through, from day one, and it will be fun to see how it develops.

milkman
05-01-2001, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by KCJohnny
What I DID say (and apparently what you don't want to hear) is that the wholesale sell out to the Rams coaches/coordinators/systems/players/philosophy is a very radical re-tooling of the entire organization. It points to an admission of total failure
KCJ [/B]

The goal of each team at the start of the season is to claim a championship. I haven't seen the Chiefs win a championship since '69-'70.
To that end, it has been a total failure.

htismaqe
05-02-2001, 07:15 AM
Keg, god damnit, you beat me to it...

I remember 1989, when they brought Marty in and it WAS like bringing in the BROWNS...

Chaplain,

You're a RBBC guy, you like the big backs...remember Kevin Mack? That's right, he played with Marty at CLEVELAND. Marty brought the style of ball you like here in 1989 and it was NEW. It was Cleveland's style. Were you this upset then?

What's happening now is no different than when Marty came in, or when Stram left. The team is heading in a new direction. That doesn't make it less "Chief-like"...

By the way, John, I welcome you here at the Planet. I've always liked your takes, even if I don't agree with them. You are one of the most noble and courteous posters around. So stop sitting on the edge of the seat...stop saying things like "say the word and I'll go"...you're not going anywhere!

KCTitus
05-02-2001, 08:02 AM
Im still having trouble getting around the fact that getting rid of Gunther and all vestiges of Marty is a bad thing.

I recently heard on the radio something I never knew about Marty. That he dramatically re-wrote his playbook going into the playoffs. The show which was on Fox Sports net was hosted by Dan Sileo who said that he had the opportunity to talk to many players that played for Marty in the past and he was notorious for putting in plays that the team had never practiced.

Now, I dont typically believe anything I hear, but this does make sense and explain why KC who twice went 13-3 in the regular season took a major dump in the playoffs.

Those failures in the playoffs should be the failures that we are trying to fix. Im confident that with coach that has been to the SB, twice, he knows how to win in the post season.

If that's considered a bad thing or a 'sell out', count me in.

Gaz
05-02-2001, 11:39 AM
There are those among the R&G faithful who still fail to cope with the fact that there will be no more Maulball in the R&G. Those unfortunates are stuck between anger and denial, hurling epithets at the new regime, wailing the loss of our “identity” and mourning the loss of Jimmy Raye’s Offense.

Get over it.

Maulball is dead in KC. Stick a fork in it, Maulball is done. Maulball met Ed. Maulball succumbed to the Grim Reaper. Maulball is a dead parrot.

Here are the questions I care about:

Will we attack the Defense?
Will we balance the run and pass?
Will we have a coherent philosophy?
Will I be unable to call the play before the snap?

Rams West or Chargers Midwest?

Who cares?

That which we call a rose…

xoxo~
Gaz
A Homer by any other name.