PDA

View Full Version : Positives From Yesterday's Game?


Donger
09-10-2007, 09:03 AM
I didn't get to watch, or listen to, the game yesterday. It seems quite clear that many negatives were to be had. But, were there any positives and if so, what are they?

L.A. Chieffan
09-10-2007, 09:05 AM
Colquitt is going to the HOF

el borracho
09-10-2007, 09:06 AM
Defense looked good overall- the only TD they allowed was the blown coverage by one of the young safties.

Page got another interception, picking up where he left off last year.

Boone was a disruptive force.

Reerun_KC
09-10-2007, 09:06 AM
Huard is going to the HOF

InChiefsHell
09-10-2007, 09:07 AM
Priest was on the sidelines...no sign of nachos!

But seriously, I didn't see the first half but I saw some highlights...Bowe made some good catches, Page had a pic, Brackenridge forces a fumble that Donnie Edwards recovered, Pollard made an awesome play on a ball that would have been a sure TD. Larry had a 4.3 ypc, albeit only 10 carries, but Bennet looked good as well. There might be a few more I suppose...

Bugeater
09-10-2007, 09:08 AM
We didn't get shut out? :shrug:

StcChief
09-10-2007, 09:08 AM
postively awful

Woodrow Call
09-10-2007, 09:14 AM
My positives

McIntosh looks like a keeper.
Bowe and Webb getting extended PT
The LBs
Boone
Parker
Colquitt

L.A. Chieffan
09-10-2007, 09:15 AM
Seriously? DJ looked like a stud. Breakout all over it.

HemiEd
09-10-2007, 09:15 AM
The game started off great.
1) The defense held for a 3 and out on first series.
2) The offense drove right down the field, hitting on all cylinders on the first series.
3) S. Parker looked great along with several others.
Medlock missed the chipshot FG and the life was sucked out of the team and injected into the Texans.

kepp
09-10-2007, 09:16 AM
Our first drive was good except for the Medlock miss. Boone seemed to get consistent push. Bowe showed a couple flashes.

old_geezer
09-10-2007, 09:22 AM
OK, my .02 worth

Our offense is exactly that - offensive to watch. I really don't think we are going to improve much this year (my opinion). What I would like to see is Brodie Croyle starting at QB. Truthfully Huard does give us the best chance to win NOW, but what does that really mean? I would rather have Croyle getting some experience in a probable 4-12 season than Huard giving us a better chance to win now resulting in a 6-10 season.
I would also stick with Medlock for the entire season unless he completely collapses. Might as well see if he can mature and become the kicker we thought he would be when we drafted him. I don't really see a few missed kicks from Medlock as meaning much to this team this year anyway. :shrug:

Edit: oh, by the way, I'll remain a fan this year and in the forseeable future regardless of if they go 0-16, 15-1, or anywhere in between.

talastan
09-10-2007, 09:23 AM
Brodie getting experience.........Holding a clipboard.

Donger
09-10-2007, 09:24 AM
Thanks guys.

talastan
09-10-2007, 09:25 AM
My positives

McIntosh looks like a keeper.
Bowe and Webb getting extended PT
The LBs
Boone
Parker
Colquitt

Agree completely

Fish
09-10-2007, 09:26 AM
The game started off great.
1) The defense held for a 3 and out on first series.
2) The offense drove right down the field, hitting on all cylinders on the first series.
3) S. Parker looked great along with several others.
Medlock missed the chipshot FG and the life was sucked out of the team and injected into the Texans.

:thumb:

My take as well...

I thought we had a chance to reverse the momentum in the second half... but it never happened..

ct
09-10-2007, 09:37 AM
We should get a nice high draft seeding!

And if this embarrassment continues for very long, we're as close as we've even been to CP getting canned.

FringeNC
09-10-2007, 09:38 AM
Positives? We are one game closer to the end of the Peterson - Edwards regime?

Dr. Facebook Fever
09-10-2007, 09:41 AM
We're in the chase for Brian Brohm.

el borracho
09-10-2007, 09:42 AM
Do you guys really believe Peterson or Herm are in any danger of losing their jobs this year? I don't.

HemiEd
09-10-2007, 09:43 AM
:thumb:

My take as well...

I thought we had a chance to reverse the momentum in the second half... but it never happened..

Three plays kept it from happening. Tony's penalty, Tony's drop and the Kris Wilson reviewed play.

DaneMcCloud
09-10-2007, 09:44 AM
We should get a nice high draft seeding!

And if this embarrassment continues for very long, we're as close as we've even been to CP getting canned.

No way. NO WAY.

This post is just part of the irony that exists with the Chiefs fandom. Everyone wants to rebuild, but can't take it when the Chiefs struggle. If they go young and lose, CP and Herm suck. If they plug in veterans, it's just the same ol' same ol'.

The Chiefs can't win for losing.

FringeNC
09-10-2007, 09:45 AM
Do you guys really believe Peterson or Herm are in any danger of losing their jobs this year? I don't.

At the end of the year, I think it's a real possibility. We don't know enough about Clark Hunt to assume he isn't disgusted by the lack of playoff wins like we all are...

ct
09-10-2007, 09:47 AM
Do you guys really believe Peterson or Herm are in any danger of losing their jobs this year? I don't.

If this ugliness continues, and the fans start leaving the seats empty, after the Trent, Brodie, LJ, and HBO fiascos, yeah I do think we might come to that point this year or after this year.

el borracho
09-10-2007, 09:50 AM
At the end of the year, I think it's a real possibility. We don't know enough about Clark Hunt to assume he isn't disgusted by the lack of playoff wins like we all are...
With the emphasis this year on turning over the roster and getting younger I just can't imagine that Carl nor Herm are in any danger of being canned. The excuse is built right in- we are rebuilding and rebuilding looks ugly in it's early phases. Seriously, I don't expect much from the Chiefs this year- there are just too many deficits in talent. Just play the youngsters, beat the Raidurrs twice and try not to embarrass themselves and I will be happy.

ct
09-10-2007, 09:51 AM
No way. NO WAY.

This post is just part of the irony that exists with the Chiefs fandom. Everyone wants to rebuild, but can't take it when the Chiefs struggle. If they go young and lose, CP and Herm suck. If they plug in veterans, it's just the same ol' same ol'.

The Chiefs can't win for losing.

If you've read any of my posts this off-season, I'm all for taking painful hits this season to start over. Here's the thing tho, they didn't. They gave up and started Huard, and embarrased themselves on HBO. I'm not a Carl or Herm basher, just saying, if this continues, I'd not be at all surprised to see the Hunt family turn on CP.

FringeNC
09-10-2007, 09:52 AM
With the emphasis this year on turning over the roster and getting younger I just can't imagine that Carl nor Herm are in any danger of being canned. The excuse is built right in- we are rebuilding and rebuilding looks ugly in it's early phases. Seriously, I don't expect much from the Chiefs this year- there are just too many deficits in talent. Just play the youngsters, beat the Raidurrs twice and try not to embarrass themselves and I will be happy.

I dunno. How can the Colts just have won the SB, and have the youngest roster in the league, and we are supposedly rebuilding, and still have a relatively old roster. Also, if we are rebuilding, why in the **** is Damon Huard starting?

the Talking Can
09-10-2007, 09:57 AM
Damon's leadership

el borracho
09-10-2007, 10:01 AM
I dunno. How can the Colts just have won the SB, and have the youngest roster in the league, and we are supposedly rebuilding, and still have a relatively old roster. Also, if we are rebuilding, why in the **** is Damon Huard starting?
Because the Colts are better than anyone else in the league except maybe the Patriots.

I don't know why Huard is starting. I'm pretty confident he won't start all year so it's really just a question of when we officially throw in the towel. While we remain "in contention," Huard starts; when we are (in Carl and Herm's opinions) out of contention, Croyle will start. I would guess around week 15 unless we really do go 0-4 in which case it should be much sooner.

RedThat
09-10-2007, 10:01 AM
Do you guys really believe Peterson or Herm are in any danger of losing their jobs this year? I don't.

No. But it's what the fans are hoping for.

el borracho
09-10-2007, 10:06 AM
No. But it's what the fans are hoping for.
Well, that I believe.

Honestly (and I expect to get slammed for this) I would be ok with Carl if he would just do two things:
1. get a real head coach with a real coaching staff
2. stop trading away draft picks

Other than those two objections I think Carl does a pretty good job of getting players for the coaches.

Hailchief
09-10-2007, 10:10 AM
What game?

Chiefnj2
09-10-2007, 10:13 AM
Positives.
1. 3 Rookies got some playing time.
2. Page and Pollard didn't do too badly and got some needed experience.
3. Samie Parker was the best receiver.
4. Boone looked good.

That is all.

FringeNC
09-10-2007, 10:13 AM
Because the Colts are better than anyone else in the league except maybe the Patriots.

I don't know why Huard is starting. I'm pretty confident he won't start all year so it's really just a question of when we officially throw in the towel. While we remain "in contention," Huard starts; when we are (in Carl and Herm's opinions) out of contention, Croyle will start. I would guess around week 15 unless we really do go 0-4 in which case it should be much sooner.


How can the Colts be so good with such a young roster? My point is that so many other teams seem to be able to build better rosters than Carl, and ALL coaches get more of their rosters. What exactly do Carl and Herm bring to the table? Why keep them around? Are they the best two guys to rebuild the Chiefs?

Inspector
09-10-2007, 10:21 AM
Tynes hit all of his FG's yesterday.

Oh wait... you were asking about positives from the Chiefs game.

Ok, let me get back to you on that.

DaneMcCloud
09-10-2007, 10:24 AM
Well, that I believe.

Honestly (and I expect to get slammed for this) I would be ok with Carl if he would just do two things:
1. get a real head coach with a real coaching staff
2. stop trading away draft picks

Other than those two objections I think Carl does a pretty good job of getting players for the coaches.

1. I don't know why you'd question a coach and coaching staff that had been in the playoffs 5 out of 7 years. Unfamiliarity with the rest of the league, maybe?

2. Last I checked, the Chiefs have had two very good drafts under the current coaching staff and next year could be the biggest draft boon in Chiefs history.

Seems to me what you're asking for is already in place.

Dave Lane
09-10-2007, 10:29 AM
Well, that I believe.

Honestly (and I expect to get slammed for this) I would be ok with Carl if he would just do two things:
1. get a real head coach with a real coaching staff
2. stop trading away draft picks

Other than those two objections I think Carl does a pretty good job of getting players for the coaches.

All I want is a head coach with a resume that doesn't slope sharply down on the right side of the graph. (Hi Herm) And can bring some fresh ideas and balance to the team. Then I'll be happy. And if it takes 0-16 to get this this done I'm ready to suffer for the sake of the future.

Dave

RedThat
09-10-2007, 10:31 AM
Well, that I believe.

Honestly (and I expect to get slammed for this) I would be ok with Carl if he would just do two things:
1. get a real head coach with a real coaching staff
2. stop trading away draft picks

Other than those two objections I think Carl does a pretty good job of getting players for the coaches.

Pretty good points.

I believe the best coach he hired was Marty, and the last time that happened we were pretty good.

I think point number 2 will happen. And the reason I say this is because Herm wants to stockpile draftpicks. That has been said on here, and we're seeing it now.

*To comment on your last statement there, I don't credit Carl at all for getting pretty good players for the coaches. I credit the coaches more. Im lead to believe that the coaches Carl has hired lately are VERY one dimensional coaches.

One either specializes in offense or defense. Thus, defensive minded or offensive minded coach. It's no different the Chiefs are just going from extreme to the next. It's clear and safe to say the coaches he has hired have done an excellent job in evaluating, accessing and recruiting talent on whatever particular side of the ball they specialize in?

But whatever side of the ball those coaches are were weak at, Carl has done a porous job at helping them recruit talent. This is why we never have a balanced team. This is a coincedence as to why he sucks as a GM.