PDA

View Full Version : Playing not to lose DOES NOT WORK


FringeNC
10-07-2007, 02:44 PM
Sure, we may win a few games here, and there, and occasionally sneak into the playoffs....but without a high-powered offense, you must get turnovers to win against the better teams in the league. We didn't get any today. So...we will when some games, but have ZERO shot at winning a SB with this playing not to lose head coach. Only true homers can delude themselves into believing this strategy can work. If so, how come NO OTHER teams use it?

Red and Gold Mania
10-07-2007, 02:46 PM
Good afternoon, Captain Obvious.

chiefsfan1963
10-07-2007, 02:46 PM
Sure, we may win a few games here, and there, and occasionally sneak into the playoffs....but without a high-powered offense, you must get turnovers to win against the better teams in the league. We didn't get any today. So...we will when some games, but have ZERO shot at winning a SB with this playing not to lose head coach. Only true homers can delude themselves into believing this strategy can work. If so, how come NO OTHER teams use it?


I see you're missing DV. :)

AZChief
10-07-2007, 02:50 PM
playing without an Offensive Line doesn't work either...

Dave Lane
10-07-2007, 03:11 PM
Yes it does ask Herm and his apologists

Count Alex's Losses
10-07-2007, 03:12 PM
You really think we were playing not to lose today?

Because we weren't. We threw it down the field ALL DAY LONG. We appeared committed to it.

Hell, Gunther got so pissed off that the Jaguars burned his 3-man rush, he started blitzing like crazy.

We did NOT play it safe today. We left it all out on the field. The coaches did a good job today...we just don't have enough talent to beat a team like Jacksonville.

Oh Snap
10-07-2007, 03:55 PM
GOATSE.

your wrong. The defense played decent today. the second half was much better then the first half.

The offense on the other hand played like shit. DBowe did not see the ball until the second half and TG stopped seeing the ball. Meanwhile our other recievers did not see the ball that much. Huard, just 'gets us by'. We need someone else other then a 35 year old career back up to be our head man under center. Croyle anyone?

Reaper16
10-07-2007, 04:00 PM
While I can't wait to see Croyle permanently, I'm not about to pin this loss on Huard alone. The Chiefs' o-line is just shockingly, appallingly bad.

siberian khatru
10-07-2007, 04:01 PM
I'm not about to pin this loss on Huard alone.

Nobody is.

Reaper16
10-07-2007, 04:03 PM
Nobody is.
But we're sure being made out like we are by certain people, eh?

KCChiefsFan88
10-07-2007, 04:25 PM
The defense played decent today. the second half was much better then the first half.


Let's see... the Chiefs give up 156 yards rushing on 4.5 yards per carry and let a mediocre QB go 20-27 for 218 yards and 1 TD against them.

All of that against a mediocre offense.

That isn't a "decent" day for a defense that homers on this board are attempting to spin as a "top-5 caliber defense"

blueballs
10-07-2007, 04:31 PM
Herm loves Hermy ball
because he doesn't know how
to beat Hermy ball