PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs **Official "Charles doesn't get the ball" whining thread**


petegz28
09-19-2010, 04:31 PM
Just make this a sticky cause we are going to hear it all season long.

My take is that after watching the Browns game, Charles is a backup. Yes, he has the potential to bust one at any time. It's his lack of production, and to an extent play calls when he is in, between his big runs that is concerning. I still contend Charles will get the ball more in games as the season progresses. Cleveland actually brought a pretty good run defense today. Aside from a couple nice carries, one meaningless at the end of the 1st half, by Charles, he was stuffed and stuffed easily. And some of it was his own fault. He has to realize that if he has to start dancing in the backfield it's time to lower your head and get what you can.

I don't think it's that he needs more carries, he needs to be used better. We can't go to him just because he is in the game. Cleveland seem to pick up on that and shut it down. There were no screens to speak of today which was disappointing as I think that is where Charles can be most effective.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 04:36 PM
Let me get this straight: "his lack of production between big runs"? Really?

Reaper16
09-19-2010, 04:36 PM
I don't have a problem with Jones getting carries. He improves this team. I do have severe problems with Charles not being the #1 RB, with not getting a small majority of the touches, with only using Charles on plays where it is obvious that he'll get the rock. Charles can play on all three downs. He's the team's best offensive threat, he can be effective in the passing game, he blocks for the QB well. Charles will be all the more effective when he's used in a way that isn't predictable. When Charles does come in than the entire defense knows it will be a run play. And if not, then Charles is just a decoy, which is even worse

Absolutely. And for a guy who has aspirations to start to be limited to a backup role, with few chances to demonstrate that he has earned the starting spot, what is going to happen? Naturally, he will begin to press. He'll begin to try and hit a home run every time.

The Chiefs are absolutely using their best offensive player incorrectly. Every single thing that you like about Charles is diminished in his current role and everything you don't like about Charles (tentative stutter-steps, fumbles b/c of no rhythm) has the potential to be exacerbated by his current role.

Reposting stuff from other threads about the subject.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 04:53 PM
Let me get this straight: "his lack of production between big runs"? Really?

Yea. So far this year he either seems to bust a big run or get tackled for a loss. He is not going to power the ball ahead. Maybe it was the Cleveland defense today but he didn't seem to do much between his 2 runs and the catch. Some of that is playcalling as I said.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 04:54 PM
Yea. So far this year he either seems to bust a big run or get tackled for a loss. He is not going to power the ball ahead. Maybe it was the Cleveland defense today but he didn't seem to do much between his 2 runs and the catch. Some of that is playcalling as I said.

How did he do in the starter's role last year with a larger sample size?

Bane
09-19-2010, 04:55 PM
:doh!:

Priest31kc
09-19-2010, 04:56 PM
Jamaal Charles last year = 190 carries, 1,120 yards, 7 TDs, 5.9 average. Least amount of carries to get to 1,100 yds ever. Enough said.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 04:57 PM
How did he do in the starter's role last year with a larger sample size?

He did good. I am not saying he didn't. But some of the decisions I have seen him make this year are concerning. Not overly, but concerning nonetheless. And again, I will say a 3rd time, I think it's not so much he isn't starting but how he is being used when he is in. Some of it is on him, some of it is on the coaches.

Valiant
09-19-2010, 04:58 PM
Yea. So far this year he either seems to bust a big run or get tackled for a loss. He is not going to power the ball ahead. Maybe it was the Cleveland defense today but he didn't seem to do much between his 2 runs and the catch. Some of that is playcalling as I said.

Really most of his stuffs seem to come from obvious running situations where they stack the box to stop him.. Instead of p/action or straight pass we try to run it..

It is the playcalling... The touches need to be reversed to where they are at now.. Charles should be getting 15-20 touches runs/catches a game and Jones 10-15..

Bane
09-19-2010, 05:01 PM
Jamaal Charles last year = 190 carries, 1,120 yards, 7 TDs, 5.9 average. Least amount of carries to get to 1,100 yds ever. Enough said.

I have to agree with that.

texrose05
09-19-2010, 05:13 PM
IIRC, if you took out his big run in the first game i believe Charles STILLLLL averaged more than jones so i am not sure why people believe this load....

mcaj22
09-19-2010, 05:21 PM
I cannot believe some of you are brainwashing yourselves into this system and are looking past the most talented and gifted player on the offense, and most likely the entire ****ing team.


This is like the Miami Heat benching Dwayne Wade and having him come off the bench as the 6th man.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 05:32 PM
Really most of his stuffs seem to come from obvious running situations where they stack the box to stop him.. Instead of p/action or straight pass we try to run it..

It is the playcalling... The touches need to be reversed to where they are at now.. Charles should be getting 15-20 touches runs/catches a game and Jones 10-15..

Well I won't argue that the playcalling seems to be less than good when he is in the game. Problem is Jones is a better pass blocker, so it lends itself to the trend that when JC is in the game he is going to get the ball. That's a tough situation for a coach. You want to get JC in the game but you don't want to telegraph that he is going to get the ball and you want your QB getting the best pass protection he can get. It's a tough situation.

Sure-Oz
09-19-2010, 05:33 PM
He did good. I am not saying he didn't. But some of the decisions I have seen him make this year are concerning. Not overly, but concerning nonetheless. And again, I will say a 3rd time, I think it's not so much he isn't starting but how he is being used when he is in. Some of it is on him, some of it is on the coaches.

I am not concerned with Charles, at all....

He needs the ball 22 times a game damnit, he is a chris johnson in a chiefs uni!

texrose05
09-19-2010, 05:37 PM
good analogy mcaj22..

listen dewayne, we are going to bring you off the bench because you are not consistent enough.. Sure you drop 40 points a game, but they come in spurts.. we are going to start joeblow because he consistently averages 4 points a quarter....

poor charles, we have to "take away" his big runs to justify not starting him lol... and for the record, i love tj, just wish for a better split, at least mix it up.. sucks that teams are starting to learn to stack the box when charles comes in...

Pablo
09-19-2010, 05:38 PM
Charles is the best offensive player we have. Far and away the best. He should be on the field all the fucking time; even if he isn't getting the rock dished to him.

He has the potential to score every single time he touches it. Every time. Having that potential on the sidelines is fucking retarded; and my only true complaint about Haley thus far this season.

Sure-Oz
09-19-2010, 05:38 PM
He did good. I am not saying he didn't. But some of the decisions I have seen him make this year are concerning. Not overly, but concerning nonetheless. And again, I will say a 3rd time, I think it's not so much he isn't starting but how he is being used when he is in. Some of it is on him, some of it is on the coaches.

I am not concerned with Charles, at all....

He needs the ball 22 times a game damnit, he is a chris johnson in a chiefs uni!

Wallcrawler
09-19-2010, 05:48 PM
Yea. So far this year he either seems to bust a big run or get tackled for a loss.



That worked out okay for Barry Sanders.....

Td runs arent going to happen every play. You have to feed a running back the football. You cant say "Ok Charles. You got 10 chances to bust a big one, or it aint gonna happen."

threebag02
09-19-2010, 05:50 PM
There were a couple of carries that jones had that were nice runs but would have been monster runs for Charles. How can an offense with no punch leave it's uppercut on the sideline? As long as cassel plays it just makes it worse.

notorious
09-19-2010, 05:50 PM
Charles isn't getting the ball enough. Saying that his production is low between long TD runs is pretty laughable.

keg in kc
09-19-2010, 05:54 PM
It isn't going to matter who's running the ball as long as we have Matty Slingshot back there making the Chiefs defense quake in their boots. With this offensive line and that passing "threat" the running game will be lucky to get a handful of legitimate holes a game. Just have to hope it happens with Charles in the game. The rest of our carries are going to be backs grinding it out or trying not to get tackled in the backfield until we can open things up enough to get defenders out of the box.

RJ
09-19-2010, 05:56 PM
I'm no Norman Einstein but it seems to me that it's a good idea to let your most talented offensive player touch the ball more often than Charles has these first two weeks. I'm reminded of the old Michael Jordan/Dean Smith joke.

CupidStunt
09-19-2010, 05:57 PM
WTF?

Charles should be getting 15-18 carries every game without fail. Doesn't matter whether he starts but not getting those carries is simply hurting the Chiefs and only adds to their offensive struggles.

redgoldexpress
09-19-2010, 06:08 PM
charles stats for his career (3 Years):
2008: (16 games) 67 attempts for 357 yards which equals to an average of 5.3 yards per carry. 0 touchdowns
2009: (15 games) 190 attempts for 1120 yards which equals to an average of 5.9 yards per carry. 7 touchdowns
2010 (2 games) 22 attempts for 141 yards which equals to an average of 6.4 yards per rush. 1 touchdown
http://www.nfl.com/players/jamaalcharles/careerstats?id=CHA561428

Now lets take a look at Thomas Jones for the past 3 years:
2008: (16 games) 290 attempts for 1312 yards which equals to an average of 4.5 yards per rush. 13 touchdowns
2009: (16 games) 331 attempts for 1402 yards which equals to an average of 4.2 yards per rush. 14 touchdowns
2010: (2 games) 33 attempts for 122 yards which equals to an average of 3.7 yards per rush. 0 touchdowns
http://www.nfl.com/players/thomasjones/careerstats?id=JON755755

Now with the stats here to show you that Charles is the better back. When we first signed Thomas Jones the Chiefs were saying that he was going to be our 3rd down and short yardage back. To me it looks an awful lot like the roles have been switched. The reason I believe that Charles has had as many negative yards plays that he has had is because football is a game of momentum which you cannot build when you are only one about 1 every 7-10 plays. What I think the Chiefs need to do is make a formation in which Castille is lined up as a fullback then have both Jones and Charles in the backfield so that way the defense will be guessing what one will receive the ball on a running play.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-19-2010, 06:15 PM
Are you serious Pete? You think the best player on our team is back up material? Really?

OnTheWarpath58
09-19-2010, 06:18 PM
Wow.

This thread is chock full of stupid.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-19-2010, 06:23 PM
Just make this a sticky cause we are going to hear it all season long.

My take is that after watching the Browns game, Charles is a backup. Yes, he has the potential to bust one at any time. It's his lack of production, and to an extent play calls when he is in, between his big runs that is concerning. I still contend Charles will get the ball more in games as the season progresses. Cleveland actually brought a pretty good run defense today. Aside from a couple nice carries, one meaningless at the end of the 1st half, by Charles, he was stuffed and stuffed easily. And some of it was his own fault. He has to realize that if he has to start dancing in the backfield it's time to lower your head and get what you can.

I don't think it's that he needs more carries, he needs to be used better. We can't go to him just because he is in the game. Cleveland seem to pick up on that and shut it down. There were no screens to speak of today which was disappointing as I think that is where Charles can be most effective.

It would be impossible to lobotomize you, since there is nothing that differentiates your brain from a reptile's.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 06:25 PM
Are you serious Pete? You think the best player on our team is back up material? Really?

Well, yes and no. For one I think his size limits the amount you can use him. Secondly I think Jones is the better pass blocker and that goes against Charles being a starter as well. There is absolutely no question that Charles is the better pure runner. I think there is room for him to grow if he wants to be a starter. Today I saw plays where he fidgeted around in the backfield instead of recognizing when the play isn't there and get your head down and go. In contrast Jones seems to realize that, though he pretty much does that anyway. When it comes down to it I think if I had to point out one reason why I think Jones is getting more time is the pass blocking. No one can argue Jones is the better pass blocker. Jones also happens to be able to run it up the gut and he doesn't fumble.

I said it once and I'll say it again, if they made Charles the starter I would hardly be disappointed. Personally though I would like to see them do different things with Charles like screens. Right now when he gets in the defense pretty much knows he is getting the ball. That's on the coaches but that is what Charles has to deal with as well. It's tough.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 06:27 PM
Charles can be just as good as Chris Johnson. /CP '09

I'm cool with Thomas Jones as the starter. /CP '10

Mr. Flopnuts
09-19-2010, 06:30 PM
Well, yes and no. For one I think his size limits the amount you can use him. Secondly I think Jones is the better pass blocker and that goes against Charles being a starter as well. There is absolutely no question that Charles is the better pure runner. I think there is room for him to grow if he wants to be a starter. Today I saw plays where he fidgeted around in the backfield instead of recognizing when the play isn't there and get your head down and go. In contrast Jones seems to realize that, though he pretty much does that anyway. When it comes down to it I think if I had to point out one reason why I think Jones is getting more time is the pass blocking. No one can argue Jones is the better pass blocker. Jones also happens to be able to run it up the gut and he doesn't fumble.

I said it once and I'll say it again, if they made Charles the starter I would hardly be disappointed. Personally though I would like to see them do different things with Charles like screens. Right now when he gets in the defense pretty much knows he is getting the ball. That's on the coaches but that is what Charles has to deal with as well. It's tough.

We're not a passing team though, Pete. Nor should we be. We have such an anemic offense that we need to fully utilize the only real play maker that we have. I understand your premise, but bro, we don't have Matt Schaub. We have Mark Castle. We literally have 1 guy that can take the ball to the house every single time he gets the ball. And he refers to himself as a backup. :facepalm:

teedubya
09-19-2010, 06:32 PM
Based on stats so far...

Charles will get 11 carries a game or 176 carries all year...

976 yards rushing with 8 TDs.

teedubya
09-19-2010, 06:32 PM
Based on stats so far...

Charles will get 11 carries a game or 176 carries all year...

976 yards rushing with 8 TDs.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 06:33 PM
Charles can be just as good as Chris Johnson. /CP '09

I'm cool with Thomas Jones as the starter. /CP '10

And if half the CP had their way Charles would be ran into the ground by game 4.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 06:35 PM
And if half the CP had their way Charles would be ran into the ground by game 4.

Complete nonsense.

The only poster I've seen come close to this statement would be myself: I claimed that I would rather avoid signing a RB to a lucrative second contract. Perhaps extend Charles for 3 years after '10, or, if a deal cannot be reached, use him and lose him after '11.

lcarus
09-19-2010, 06:35 PM
I'd like to see Charles get around 15 carries and 3 or 4 receptions per game. I think that would be a great way to use him. Unless he's just gashing the defense from the start, then feed him the ball.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-19-2010, 06:40 PM
There is absolutely no reason that JC should be getting less than 20 carries at a bare minimum every game.

Reaper16
09-19-2010, 06:42 PM
It isn't even so much the amount of touches he's getting now. Just 3-5 more would be grand (though I'd want more than that). It's that under the current set-up, the touches he does get are doomed to being less effective based on predictability.

-King-
09-19-2010, 06:46 PM
There is absolutely no reason that JC should be getting less than 20 carries at a bare minimum every game.

20 carries? You realize thats 320 carries a year? And then 40-50 catches is 360 touches.


He'll be dead by next year if you use him like that.

-King-
09-19-2010, 06:47 PM
It isn't even so much the amount of touches he's getting now. Just 3-5 more would be grand (though I'd want more than that). It's that under the current set-up, the touches he does get are doomed to being less effective based on predictability.

I think he should be getting about 15-18 carries a game plus catches.

Chiefs Pantalones
09-19-2010, 06:52 PM
I'm fine with them splitting carries, I just think Charles should start. I think with our D we could get up on a team early with Charles, then pound it with TJ to run some clock. JMO.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 06:54 PM
JC's carries today

4 yds
1 yd
3 yds
1 yd
2 yds
3 yds
1 yd
7 yds
20 yds
9 yds
3 yds
-2 yds
pass rec for 27 yds



They need to do something different with him. Get him the ball more in screens or throw it to him more.

Chiefs Pantalones
09-19-2010, 06:55 PM
JC's carries today

4 yds
1 yd
2 yds
20 yds
9 yds
3 yds
-2 yds
pass rec for 27 yds



They need to do something different with him. Get him the ball more in screens or throw it to him more.

Yep. It would only help the offense. Captain Obvious, over and out.

Bane
09-19-2010, 06:58 PM
20 carries? You realize thats 320 carries a year? And then 40-50 catches is 360 touches.


He'll be dead by next year if you use him like that.

Honestly....So what.That's what the draft is for.I was on the take it easy on him camp at first but after doing some real soul searching.......Fugg it.LJ him!!!

-King-
09-19-2010, 07:01 PM
Honestly....So what.That's what the draft is for.

So draft a RB every year? I bet we could draft a RB every year and none of them would be like JC. So we need to use him wisely. Give him his fair share of touches, but keep him healthy. He's a top RB. Despite what Mecca says, RBs like that are not a dime a dozen.

</post>
09-19-2010, 07:03 PM
:facepalm:

Lbedrock1
09-19-2010, 07:03 PM
Just make this a sticky cause we are going to hear it all season long.

My take is that after watching the Browns game, Charles is a backup. Yes, he has the potential to bust one at any time. It's his lack of production, and to an extent play calls when he is in, between his big runs that is concerning. I still contend Charles will get the ball more in games as the season progresses. Cleveland actually brought a pretty good run defense today. Aside from a couple nice carries, one meaningless at the end of the 1st half, by Charles, he was stuffed and stuffed easily. And some of it was his own fault. He has to realize that if he has to start dancing in the backfield it's time to lower your head and get what you can.

I don't think it's that he needs more carries, he needs to be used better. We can't go to him just because he is in the game. Cleveland seem to pick up on that and shut it down. There were no screens to speak of today which was disappointing as I think that is where Charles can be most effective.

You are just posting to see yourself post. Charles has earned the starting spot. And if he is benched then they most definitely should bench Cassel. He has already proven that he can hit the homerun at anytime which changes how defenses have to play us. I think T. Jones is a good back but he should be the backup. Last week if he didnt hit the homerun for us we would be 1-1 and not 2-0. We are not whining to be whining we have a legitimate whine that goes good with our cheese. J. Charles is one of our best players and should be starting.

OnTheWarpath58
09-19-2010, 07:03 PM
Someone better tell Jim Schwarz that Jahvid Best will be dead next year if they keep using him like this.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 07:04 PM
You are just posting to see yourself post. Charles has earned the starting spot. And if he is benched then they most definitely should bench Cassel. He has already proven that he can hit the homerun at anytime which changes how defenses have to play us. I think T. Jones is a good back but he should be the backup. Last week if he didnt hit the homerun for us we would be 1-1 and not 2-0. We are not whining to be whining we have a legitimate whine that goes good with our cheese. J. Charles is one of our best players and should be starting.

Yea, that's what it is.....

Bane
09-19-2010, 07:04 PM
So draft a RB every year? I bet we could draft a RB every year and none of them would be like JC. So we need to use him wisely. Give him his fair share of touches, but keep him healthy. He's a top RB. Despite what Mecca says, RBs like that are not a dime a dozen.

No not really.I just can't see not playing a RB with his skills.I like the split with him and TJ,but I still think great players get the ball period.I don't care how bad we suck,how bad we are etc.... Give him the GODDAMN ball.That's what he gets paid for.

-King-
09-19-2010, 07:06 PM
Someone better tell Jim Schwarz that Jahvid Best will be dead next year if they keep using him like this.

He got 14 and 17 attempts this year which is what I'd like Charles to get.

-King-
09-19-2010, 07:06 PM
No not really.I just can't see not playing a RB with his skills.I like the split with him and TJ,but I still think great players get the ball period.I don't care how bad we suck,how bad we are etc.... Give him the GODDAMN ball.That's what he gets paid for.

Well...um have I said anything contrary to that?

SNR
09-19-2010, 07:08 PM
Someone better tell Jim Schwarz that Jahvid Best will be dead next year if they keep using him like this.

If only the Titans were smarter about limiting Chris Johnson's touches. He'll be out of the league in two years max!

OnTheWarpath58
09-19-2010, 07:08 PM
He got 14 and 17 attempts this year which is what I'd like Charles to get.

He had 26 touches today.

Or 4 more than JC has had in TWO games.

Bane
09-19-2010, 07:08 PM
Well...um have I said anything contrary to that?

No but you quoted me first so I thought maybe you just wanted to argue tonight.

luv
09-19-2010, 07:10 PM
JC's carries today

4 yds
1 yd
3 yds
1 yd
2 yds
3 yds
1 yd
7 yds
20 yds
9 yds
3 yds
-2 yds
pass rec for 27 yds



They need to do something different with him. Get him the ball more in screens or throw it to him more.

How are they going to do that if he's not in?

-King-
09-19-2010, 07:10 PM
He had 26 touches today.

Or 4 more than JC has had in TWO games.

Dude, I think JC should be getting the same amount of touches. You should see me in the game chat. I don't understand a bit about him not getting the carries that he has earned and should be getting.

But I don't think he should be getting 20 carries minimum like Flop nuts was saying.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 07:11 PM
I think if we are playing with a lead Charles is going to ge the ball more until it's time to run the clock. If we are tied I'd look for the carries to be split. If we are behind I would expect Jones to be on the field more because of the pass blocking. That being said Charles did start the 2nd half. Charles was in during the 1st Q. Keep in mind we had the ball 3 times in the 1st and one of the series we didn't run at all.

Charles also started the 2nd quarter. He split time with TJ and we had out longer drive (play # wise) with TJ and our longest with a split between the 2. Maybe the coaches felt TJ was having the better day?

OnTheWarpath58
09-19-2010, 07:12 PM
Dude, I think JC should be getting the same amount of touches. You should see me in the game chat. I don't understand a bit about him not getting the carries that he has earned and should be getting.

But I don't think he should be getting 20 carries minimum like Flop nuts was saying.

I wasn't arguing with you.

Just strengthening the point.

Pablo
09-19-2010, 07:16 PM
I think if we are playing with a lead Charles is going to ge the ball more until it's time to run the clock. If we are tied I'd look for the carries to be split. If we are behind I would expect Jones to be on the field more because of the pass blocking. That being said Charles did start the 2nd half. Charles was in during the 1st Q. Keep in mind we had the ball 3 times in the 1st and one of the series we didn't run at all.

Charles also started the 2nd quarter. He split time with TJ and we had out longer drive (play # wise) with TJ and our longest with a split between the 2. Maybe the coaches felt TJ was having the better day?The only way we're ever going to get a lead is by utilizing Charles. We can't rely on defensive take-aways every week and Cassel IS NOT going to put up numbers for us. Use Charles for everything besides chewing up the clock. Run him, screen him, let him run the wildcat...it doesn't matter. He needs to be in from the first snap up until we have a 21 point lead.

Chiefs Pantalones
09-19-2010, 07:21 PM
I think if we are playing with a lead Charles is going to ge the ball more until it's time to run the clock. If we are tied I'd look for the carries to be split. If we are behind I would expect Jones to be on the field more because of the pass blocking. That being said Charles did start the 2nd half. Charles was in during the 1st Q. Keep in mind we had the ball 3 times in the 1st and one of the series we didn't run at all.

Charles also started the 2nd quarter. He split time with TJ and we had out longer drive (play # wise) with TJ and our longest with a split between the 2. Maybe the coaches felt TJ was having the better day?

That's backasswards to what they should be doing, IMO.

Bane
09-19-2010, 07:23 PM
That's backasswards to what they should be doing, IMO.

Yeah no shit.That's almost as bad as the lets not start him till we're good as a team bullshit going around.:rolleyes:

You know since great RB's throughout history have sat on the bench and waited for their teams to be great all the sudden so they could play.ROFL

Chiefs Pantalones
09-19-2010, 07:28 PM
Yeah no shit.That's almost as bad as the lets not start him till we're good as a team bullshit going around.:rolleyes:

You know since great RB's throughout history have sat on the bench and waited for their teams to be great all the sudden so they could play.ROFL

Yeah that really baffles my mind when I hear that. Who the F throughout history hasn't used a player that much because they were "waiting to be good?" Some fans should be punched in the face while getting an anal bleach from Carrot Top.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 07:28 PM
That's backasswards to what they should be doing, IMO.

Well, yes and no. We know teams are going to stack up the line and make Cassel throw. Thus us coming out at the begining of both games throwing. That would dictacte pass protection, i.e. Jones. Yes, it hinges around our suck QB. If we had more of a solid line where the RB protecting wasn't as quite as important then I agree, you put Charles in to get the lead.But because our QB is less than average and our o-line average, well, wtf are you gonna do? But running JC into 9 and 10 man fronts is not going to do us or him any good.

mcaj22
09-19-2010, 07:29 PM
Isn't this JC's contract year too? Can you imagine if these touches keep playing out like this, he will definitely want to walk at the end of the season, pending on the lockout if there are still franchise tags, our team will tag him, and we could be looking a Vincent Jackson like holdout.

Chiefs Pantalones
09-19-2010, 07:30 PM
Well, yes and no. We know teams are going to stack up the line and make Cassel throw. Thus us coming out at the begining of both games throwing. That would dictacte pass protection, i.e. Jones. Yes, it hinges around our suck QB. If we had more of a solid line where the RB protecting wasn't as quite as important then I agree, you put Charles in to get the lead.But because our QB is less than average and our o-line average, well, wtf are you gonna do? But running JC into 9 and 10 man fronts is not going to do us or him any good.

Charles causes more match up problems for a defense, both via receiving and running, than Jones does. Start it with Charles, end it with Jones.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 07:37 PM
Charles causes more match up problems for a defense, both via receiving and running, than Jones does. Start it with Charles, end it with Jones.

Ideally I would agree. That would seem to be the common sense move. I've pointed out why I think Jones is getting the favor. Personally I don't care who starts. I would like to see Charles get more touches. We didn't run 1 screen today and I think that is not smart when you have a player like Charles. But for whatever reason the coaches feel Jones deserves to be the starter. And no, I don't buy the crap that he was a Herm pick therefore they don't like him. Maybe they are expecting too much magic out of him with too few touches? Maybe we aren't stringing enough plays together to get him the touches? Again I think as the season progresses we will see more and more of Charles. I think a lot of that though has to do with Cassel being able to do his part to keep drives going on 3rd down though too. Jones had 22 carries today, Charles 11. I think we can all agree that when it comes time to grind clock Jones is the man so I don't want to be one to say it should be tit-for-tat on # of carries.

RJ
09-19-2010, 07:43 PM
I think if we are playing with a lead Charles is going to ge the ball more until it's time to run the clock. If we are tied I'd look for the carries to be split. If we are behind I would expect Jones to be on the field more because of the pass blocking. That being said Charles did start the 2nd half. Charles was in during the 1st Q. Keep in mind we had the ball 3 times in the 1st and one of the series we didn't run at all.

Charles also started the 2nd quarter. He split time with TJ and we had out longer drive (play # wise) with TJ and our longest with a split between the 2. Maybe the coaches felt TJ was having the better day?


We should bench our most explosive player when we're behind? The only player we have who is a threat to score every time he touches the ball?

Damn, I sure hope not.

ChiefGator
09-19-2010, 07:45 PM
Seemed like Jones had a pretty good game to me today.

He has some good speed and explosion still.

A 50/50 mix is just fine by me, especially when Charles is struggling a bit.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 07:47 PM
We should bench our most explosive player when we're behind? The only player we have who is a threat to score every time he touches the ball?

Damn, I sure hope not.

Depends. If it is late 3rd, early 4th and we are down by more than 1 score, running the ball is more than likley going to be a futile effort. Thus the problem of having a suck QB and awesome RB combined with an averge line. I only keep going back to the pass protection aspect because that is the only reason in my mind that Jones is starting over Charles. But we don't see what the coaches see either.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 07:49 PM
Seemed like Jones had a pretty good game to me today.

He has some good speed and explosion still.

A 50/50 mix is just fine by me, especially when Charles is struggling a bit.

By all standards Jones had an above average game today. Which is why I wonder of the coaches felt he was the better of the two today and stayed with him? The only problem was we got ourselves into a position where Charles was running on 3rd and 1 where Jones should have been but we had to rest Jones because of his previous runs.

Bane
09-19-2010, 07:49 PM
Keeping JC on the bench because of the score is like trading for Aaron Rodgers and still playing Cassel because the rest of the team still sucks!:banghead:

petegz28
09-19-2010, 07:53 PM
Keeping JC on the bench because of the score is like trading for Aaron Rodgers and still playing Cassel because the rest of the team still sucks!:banghead:

Dude, get real, JC is not a grinder or clock runner. That's just a fact you can accept or not. And I think that the stats would bear out that when your are down by multiple scores late in a game that running the ball isn't going to get you back into the game. You're banking on a huge run in a short amount of time, if not 2 or 3 times to get back into the game. As a coach I don't think you can bet the game on running the ball in passing situations too much to get back into the game.

Charles is a slasher and a burner. You go running him up the gut to burn clock and you're going to get him killed.

suds79
09-19-2010, 07:54 PM
Another week, another misuse of our best player.

Essentially there's no logical compelling reason one can make why Thomas should get this many more touches.

Jamaal in having an off day still bested Jones in YPC. I'm waiting for the game where that's not that case. I just don't think we'll see it. Thomas will have to get into the 4s (3. something this week and last) if he wants it to even be close.

So when there's no logical excuse what's left? How do you make sense of the situation? Well you can't. But that doesn't mean I've stopped trying. I've narrowed down these theories. All seem crazy and/or even idiotic but as I think about it, the reason as to be something along these lines because it can't be based on performance.

- Todd & Scott have a huge man-crush on Thomas Jones. He's a hard worker and he's their guy while Jamaal isn't.

- Jamaal is in a contract year. Either they want to save Jamaal for when they pay him big $$$ before using him up or they want to let him walk and justify it as if we're okay without him. After all, he doesn't even start.

- They are actually trying to save Jamaal for future years. This is the most idiotic theory but perhaps they know our big years are not until next year or more likely the year after that. They feel he's special and want to have him when that time comes.

- They actually think Thomas Jones is just that much better. Which would be an indictment on their ability to evaluate talent.


I'm taking suggestions on other crazy theories. Only requirement is that it has to be null & void of all logic and statistics since that would only hurt your case.

Bane
09-19-2010, 07:55 PM
Dude, get real, JC is not a grinder or clock runner. That's just a fact you can accept or not. And I think that the stats would bear out that when your are down by multiple scores late in a game that running the ball isn't going to get you back into the game. You're banking on a huge run in a short amount of time, if not 2 or 3 times to get back into the game. As a coach I don't think you can bet the game on running the ball in passing situations too much to get back into the game.

Charles is a slasher and a burner. You go running him up the gut to burn clock and you're going to get him killed.

The kid got WWE style body slammed by douche bag Ayers in Dungver last year.Got right up and shoved it straight down their throats on his very next carry for a TD......:rolleyes:

petegz28
09-19-2010, 07:57 PM
Another week, another misuse of our best player.

Essentially there's no logical compelling reason one can make why Thomas should get this many more touches.

Jamaal in having an off day still bested Jones in YPC. I'm waiting for the game where that's not that case. I just don't think we'll see it. Thomas will have to get into the 4s (3. something this week and last) if he wants it to even be close.

So when there's no logical excuse what's left? How do you make sense of the situation? Well you can't. But that doesn't mean I've stopped trying. I've narrowed down these theories. All seem crazy and/or even idiotic but as I think about it, the reason reason as to be something along those lines because it can't be based on performance.

- Todd & Scott have a huge man-crush on Thomas Jones. He's a hard worker and he's their guy while Jamaal isn't.

- Jamaal is in a contract year. Either they want to save Jamaal for when they pay him big $$$ before using him up or they want to let him walk and justify it as if we're okay without him. After all, he doesn't even start.

- They are actually trying to save Jamaal for future years. This is the most idiotic theory but perhaps they know our big years are not until next year or more likely the year after that. They feel he's special and want to have him when that time comes.

- They actually think Thomas Jones is just that much better. Which would be an indictment on their ability to evaluate talent.


I'm taking suggestions on other crazy theories. Only requirement is that it has to be null & void of all logic and statistics since that would only hurt your case.

YPC can be misleading at times. If Darren Sproles broke off a 70 yard run then had a few runs of 2-3 yards he would have a huge YPC. Does that mean you would start him over LT? I am not saying Charles shouldn't get more touches, just pointing out that YPC is not always a stat you can bank on. It's like batting Avg. vs. OBP.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 07:58 PM
The kid got WWE style body slammed by douche bag Ayers in Dungver last year.Got right up and shoved it straight down their throats on his very next carry for a TD......:rolleyes:

I think you are in the minority if you think JC is a gut runner and clock burner.

ChiefGator
09-19-2010, 07:59 PM
Jones is going to be very underappreciated this year apparently. He had a very good game, especially considering he was mostly played as a two-down player.

Bane
09-19-2010, 08:00 PM
I think you are in the minority if you think JC is a gut runner and clock burner.

I think he is too talented to back up TJ.That's all.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 08:05 PM
Jones is going to be very underappreciated this year apparently. He had a very good game, especially considering he was mostly played as a two-down player.

Jones' day..

1st Q
10 yds
3 yds
1 yd

2nd Q
5 yds
2 yds
5 yds
3 yds

3rd Q
11 yds
5 yds
4 yds
7 yds
2 yds

4th Q
3 yds
1 yd
2 yds
3 yds
0 yds
4 yds
1 yd
7 yds
3 yds
4 yds
2 yds
1 yd

Not anything really flashy. Nothing like a big run Charles is going to break off that's for sure.

suds79
09-19-2010, 08:05 PM
YPC can be misleading at times. If Darren Sproles broke off a 70 yard run then had a few runs of 2-3 yards he would have a huge YPC. Does that mean you would start him over LT? I am not saying Charles shouldn't get more touches, just pointing out that YPC is not always a stat you can bank on. It's like batting Avg. vs. OBP.

True stats can at times be misleading. But lets be clear on this.

Jamaal's insane YPC isn't a one time fluke or on just a few carries where he happened to break a big one. The guy has been doing it his whole career.

Rookie Year - 5.3
2nd Year - 5.9 (lead the NFL)
So far this Year - 6.45

You can't take away Jamaal's big carries. That's what this guy does. It's his game. You don't get to act like they don't count.

Was he slowed by the Browns today? Yeah. Not his best day. Routinely what we've seen he gets bigger gains than Thomas.

Just saying get Jamaal at least 15 carries a game.

suds79
09-19-2010, 08:07 PM
Jones is going to be very underappreciated this year apparently. He had a very good game, especially considering he was mostly played as a two-down player.

22 carries for 83 yards and at 3.8 a pop.

I think you're expectations are really, really low if you think that is a "very good game".

petegz28
09-19-2010, 08:13 PM
Carries (touches) per Quarter

1Q
Jones=3
Charles=1

2Q
Jones=4
Charles=4

3Q
Jones=5
Charles=4

4Q
Jones=11
Charles=2

Toss in 1 Rec. by Charles and it comes down to Jones 22, Charles 12.

All in all it was even for the most part until it came time to run the clock. And it seems the majority here say that is when Jones should be in, to grind and burn clock.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 08:13 PM
True stats can at times be misleading. But lets be clear on this.

Jamaal's insane YPC isn't a one time fluke or on just a few carries where he happened to break a big one. The guy has been doing it his whole career.

Rookie Year - 5.3
2nd Year - 5.9 (lead the NFL)
So far this Year - 6.45

You can't take away Jamaal's big carries. That's what this guy does. It's his game. You don't get to act like they don't count.

Was he slowed by the Browns today? Yeah. Not his best day. Routinely what we've seen he gets bigger gains than Thomas.

Just saying get Jamaal at least 15 carries a game.


And I wonder if him being slowed today was something the coaches saw and felt TJ was the better hand for the day?

Reaper16
09-19-2010, 08:14 PM
And I wonder if him being slowed today was something the coaches saw and felt TJ was the better hand for the day?
Him being slowed was a product of how he was used. I have zero doubts.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 08:17 PM
6 of Jones' carries came with under 6 minutes left when we were trying to burn clock.

WilliamTheIrish
09-19-2010, 08:17 PM
Let me get this straight: "his lack of production between big runs"? Really?


LMAO

petegz28
09-19-2010, 08:17 PM
Him being slowed was a product of how he was used. I have zero doubts.

I don't disagree there. We seem to be predictable when he is in the game. Which is why I was rather irked we didn't try to get him out on 1 screen, ever. Or even use him as a decoy.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 08:19 PM
So when you break it down, excluding clock burning time, Charles had 12 touches, Jones 16. I can't see how the difference of 4 touches is going to be that big of a deal, not in this game anyway.

LaChapelle
09-19-2010, 08:22 PM
I'm not going through this post by post to see if this has been said
Jones was helping to get 1st downs and giving the D a rest
Charles is a HR threat but going 3 & out makes for HR threats for the othr team -TODAY

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 08:22 PM
So when you break it down, excluding clock burning time, Charles had 12 touches, Jones 16. I can't see how the difference of 4 touches is going to be that big of a deal, not in this game anyway.

Dick Vermeil? If you take away those three big plays, our defense played pretty well!

This honestly has to be a fan base first. We have extensive, serious arguments about whether or not we should utilize our best players. Twilight Zone mind fucking going on around here.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-19-2010, 08:22 PM
20 carries? You realize thats 320 carries a year? And then 40-50 catches is 360 touches.


He'll be dead by next year if you use him like that.

I thought you knew better than this shit. But since you don't, let me show you.


http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_ATTEMPTS&d-447263-n=1

By clicking that link you'll see that a number of guys got over 300 carries last year. All of them are in more than their 2nd year in the league, and none of them are "dead".

Not only that, but we don't need JC to get 50-60 catches this year. We have DMC for that now. This whole idea that 320 carries is going to break down a back is just entirely unfounded. If anything, the only magic number is 400. And 20 carries a game is nowhere near that.

suds79
09-19-2010, 08:22 PM
So when you break it down, excluding clock burning time, Charles had 12 touches, Jones 16. I can't see how the difference of 4 touches is going to be that big of a deal, not in this game anyway.

Maybe not in this game but what about the big picture? What about a game where it's close or we need points? Will there ever be a time where Jamaal has more touches leading into or after crunch-time? Because I doubt it.

That's what I want to know about. When a game is on the line and there's a few carries that could go to either guy. Will it be Jones? Or Charles. I think Haley will chose Jones and it simply doesn't make sense. At this stage in their career's they're not in the same league. I'm sorry. They're just not.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 08:26 PM
With an anemic offense, I think it's very gracious of us not to allow our best playmaker to take the field until, essentially, the second quarter.

"Save 'em."

Priest31kc
09-19-2010, 08:28 PM
I thought you knew better than this shit. But since you don't, let me show you.


http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_ATTEMPTS&d-447263-n=1

By clicking that link you'll see that a number of guys got over 300 carries last year. All of them are in more than their 2nd year in the league, and none of them are "dead".

Not only that, but we don't need JC to get 50-60 catches this year. We have DMC for that now. This whole idea that 320 carries is going to break down a back is just entirely unfounded. If anything, the only magic number is 400. And 20 carries a game is nowhere near that.

Agreed. Replace alot of JC's catches w/ Dex. We drafted Dex to be our slot WR I THOUGHT. But he's been invisible on offense. I dont get it. Atleast throw it to him.

But yeah I agree w/ Flopnuts, 15-20 carries a game for Charles is what it should be. And if he's killin em, keep him in for more. I just simply dont get what Haley is doing, did he not see what JC did for him last year? So far in these 2 games, Cassel looks worse than last yr & JC isn't getting touches. I liked the 2nd half of last year's offense better than what I've seen so far. That's sad. Yet, we're 2-0. Weird.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 08:28 PM
Maybe not in this game but what about the big picture? What about a game where it's close or we need points? Will there ever be a time where Jamaal has more touches leading into or after crunch-time? Because I doubt it.

That's what I want to know about. When a game is on the line and there's a few carries that could go to either guy. Will it be Jones? Or Charles. I think Haley will chose Jones and it simply doesn't make sense. At this stage in their career's they're not in the same league. I'm sorry. They're just not.

I'll withhold judgment on that until we see it and see what happens. Honestly I think it is going to depend on the situation. Today the Browns covered the edges well thus taking away JC's strength. Lets face it, they were as intent on stopping JC as we were Harrison and Cribs. Neither team wanted to get burned by the guy(s) that burned them last year.

L.A. Chieffan
09-19-2010, 08:29 PM
Charles is overrated and really isn't that good anyways.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-19-2010, 08:30 PM
Agreed. Replace alot of JC's catches w/ Dex. We drafted Dex to be our slot WR I THOUGHT. But he's been invisible on offense. I dont get it. Atleast throw it to him.

But yeah I agree w/ Flopnuts, 15-20 carries a game for Charles is what it should be. And if he's killin em, keep him in for more. I just simply dont get what Haley is doing, did he not see what JC did for him last year? So far in these 2 games, Cassel looks worse than last yr & JC isn't getting touches. I liked the 2nd half of last year's offense better than what I've seen so far. That's sad. Yet, we're 2-0. Weird.

Defense and special teams. Charles might bring a little offense to us as well. The fact is, he was getting 20 carries plus a game last year in the 2nd half of the season if memory serves me correctly, and he kept getting better and better because of it.

I can't for the life of me grasp the rationale going on in this thread right now. It's fucking baffling.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 08:30 PM
With an anemic offense, I think it's very gracious of us not to allow our best playmaker to take the field until, essentially, the second quarter.

"Save 'em."

He was on in the 1st Q, the 2nd Q, and started the 3rd. You are acting like he never got into the game. We had a total of 4 running plays in the 1st Q and he had 1 of them.

Pablo
09-19-2010, 08:32 PM
So when you break it down, excluding clock burning time, Charles had 12 touches, Jones 16. I can't see how the difference of 4 touches is going to be that big of a deal, not in this game anyway.Because every time Charles touches the ball HE COULD POSSIBLY SCORE.

That's 4 more times throughout the course of the game that we could have scored a touchdown. We kinda need those things. They're pretty important. Mark isn't getting them for us.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 08:32 PM
He was on in the 1st Q, the 2nd Q, and started the 3rd. You are acting like he never got into the game. We had a total of 4 running plays in the 1st Q and he had 1 of them.

Thus, "essentially." I have a wild idea: we just might be able to do some things to make sure that our best player...wait for it...gets to participate in the first quarter.

And the dumbest shit being offered is, "Well, we need to sustain drives." Wow. That's nice. Part of the goal of this whole "offense" concept. I get it. So how about we get really innovative and start our best players?

petegz28
09-19-2010, 08:33 PM
Defense and special teams. Charles might bring a little offense to us as well. The fact is, he was getting 20 carries plus a game last year in the 2nd half of the season if memory serves me correctly, and he kept getting better and better because of it.

I can't for the life of me grasp the rationale going on in this thread right now. It's ****ing baffling.

Mr. Flopy, I am just trying to cut through the emotional responses. There is no argument that Charles deserves to be on the field. And I would like to see him get more touches as well. But that takes getting 1st downs and as much as our emotions like to tell us that if we played Charles every play we would get those 1st downs I think we both know that is not the case. It also takes a QB to complete passes to keep drives alive thus allowing the opprtunity for more touches by RB's.

dirk digler
09-19-2010, 08:34 PM
Offensively Charles is our best player and should get more touches but we really can't argue with the results since they are 2-0.

Hopefully they will start getting him the ball more but it is good to have 2 solid RB's.

suds79
09-19-2010, 08:34 PM
I can't for the life of me grasp the rationale going on in this thread right now. It's ****ing baffling.

I know it's nuts.

Seems like 90% of Chief fans, that I encounter, can clearly see that Jamaal is the more talented player. Yet he takes a backseat to Thomas.

It's too bad. It's actually making me start to resent Thomas Jones who is a good guy, good runner but should just be used for about 10 carries and short yardage stuff. Nothing more.

I'd pay good $$$ to ask Todd Haley off the record, in an honest answer what's really going on. I'd love to hear it.

It wouldn't make a lick of sense as there is no logical explanation but I'd still like to hear what he says.

Priest31kc
09-19-2010, 08:35 PM
Defense and special teams. Charles might bring a little offense to us as well. The fact is, he was getting 20 carries plus a game last year in the 2nd half of the season if memory serves me correctly, and he kept getting better and better because of it.

I can't for the life of me grasp the rationale going on in this thread right now. It's fucking baffling.

Yep:

Buffalo - 20 carries, 143 yds, 1 TD, 7 rec, 38 yds
Cleveland - 25 carries, 154 yds, 1 TD
@ Cincy - 24 carries, 102 yds
@ Denver - 25 carries, 259 yds, 2 TD

GIVE HIM THE FUCKING ROCK. Let him get into a groove, every fucking RB always says that because its true. You gotta get him going, not just have him in every now and then and give him a draw play or 2. We're limiting a Chris Johnson type player to a 3rd down/backup RB. I DONT GET IT.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 08:35 PM
Offensively Charles is our best player and should get more touches but we really can't argue with the results since they are 2-0.

Yeah, scoring offensive touchdowns is overrated. If it's not, then perhaps there's a wee bit to analyze, no?

Mr. Flopnuts
09-19-2010, 08:35 PM
Mr. Flopy, I am just trying to cut through the emotional responses. There is no argument that Charles deserves to be on the field. And I would like to see him get more touches as well. But that takes getting 1st downs and as much as our emotions like to tell us that if we played Charles every play we would get those 1st downs I think we both know that is not the case. It also takes a QB to complete passes to keep drives alive thus allowing the opprtunity for more touches by RB's.

Fair enough Pete. Who gives us a better opportunity for 10 yard rushes? Thomas Jones, or Jamaal Charles? So can we get those 1st downs every single time? Of course not. Could we get more by having the very best player on our team on the field for more than half the carries? I'd certainly think so.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 08:36 PM
Thus, "essentially." I have a wild idea: we just might be able to do some things to make sure that our best player...wait for it...gets to participate in the first quarter.

And the dumbest shit being offered is, "Well, we need to sustain drives." Wow. That's nice. Part of the goal of this whole "offense" concept. I get it. So how about we get really innovative and start our best players?

I think the coaches anyway would say they are. Th tbeing said, what have we heard for most on here all pre-season? Cassel sucks, they are going to stack the line cause they know we are going to have to run the ball. Now you love to talk the stats, what do the stats say about running into 9 and 10 man fronts?

In other words, I don't care who is in the backfield, until Cassel can loosen up the defense the number of touches available are going to be limited. You know this.

Pablo
09-19-2010, 08:37 PM
Really...we should probably sit Brandon Flowers and just bring him in as a nickel.

It really makes the most sense.

Remember how he got hurt at the end of last season??? We're not going to win anything this year; we need to save him.

suds79
09-19-2010, 08:37 PM
Offensively Charles is our best player and should get more touches but we really can't argue with the results since they are 2-0.

Hopefully they will start getting him the ball more but it is good to have 2 solid RB's.

We're 2-0 because of a ST's return TD, Jamaal's 56 yard TD, and a pick 6 today.

Has nothing to do with the limited use of our best player. So you can't exactly say the RB mix we have now has been winning us games.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-19-2010, 08:38 PM
I know it's nuts.

Seems like 90% of Chief fans, that I encounter, can clearly see that Jamaal is the more talented player. Yet he takes a backseat to Thomas.

It's too bad. It's actually making me start to resent Thomas Jones who is a good guy, good runner but should just be used for about 10 carries and short yardage stuff. Nothing more.

I'd pay good $$$ to ask Todd Haley off the record, in an honest answer what's really going on. I'd love to hear it.

It wouldn't make a lick of sense as there is no logical explanation but I'd still like to hear what he says.

I don't resent T-Jones for it. He's a great player, and I'm glad we have him. I'm also a big fan of our head coach, but I don't have any idea what he's doing right now with JC. Why you would want to take away the swagger of a dynamic playmaker like that by relegating him to back up status is just beyond me. He even referred to himself as a backup in the press conference after the game today, and that made me want to puke.

LET THIS FUCKER RUN, AND LET HIM DANCE IN THE ENDZONE!!!! Fuck.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 08:39 PM
I think the coaches anyway would say they are. Th tbeing said, what have we heard for most on here all pre-season? Cassel sucks, they are going to stack the line cause they know we are going to have to run the ball. Now you love to talk the stats, what do the stats say about running into 9 and 10 man fronts?

In other words, I don't care who is in the backfield, until Cassel can loosen up the defense the number of touches available are going to be limited. You know this.

The stats suggest that Charles has recorded our only 50-yard TD run and that we would have been ****ed without him last week. The stats suggest that he helped a dog shit offensive unit be second in the league in rushing in the last half of '09.

But Charles wasn't and isn't a team captain, so we should trust the process; he's starting to get it.

dirk digler
09-19-2010, 08:40 PM
Yeah, scoring offensive touchdowns is overrated. If it's not, then perhaps there's a wee bit to analyze, no?

Of course. I am just less inclined to get worked up about it as long as they keep winning.:shrug:

Pablo
09-19-2010, 08:40 PM
I don't resent T-Jones for it. He's a great player, and I'm glad we have him. I'm also a big fan of our head coach, but I don't have any idea what he's doing right now with JC. Why you would want to take away the swagger of a dynamic playmaker like that by relegating him to back up status is just beyond me. He even referred to himself as a backup in the press conference after the game today, and that made me want to puke.

LET THIS ****ER RUN, AND LET HIM DANCE IN THE ENDZONE!!!! ****.Sometimes your best offensive player just has to know his role. There are benches to warm. There are blatantly obvious running situations to be utilized.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 08:42 PM
Fair enough Pete. Who gives us a better opportunity for 10 yard rushes? Thomas Jones, or Jamaal Charles? So can we get those 1st downs every single time? Of course not. Could we get more by having the very best player on our team on the field for more than half the carries? I'd certainly think so.

All things being equal Charles does. But it rarely is equal. I am just saying I am going to wait until after 5 or 6 games are played to see what the mindset of the coaching staff is. Game 1 was shitty weather, we all know JC has a tendancy to fumble and we were playing close to the chest. I'll toss that one out. Today? Today was more of a combination of how the coaches used Charles when he was in and the fact that Cleveland was determined not to let him have a big day. I'd like to see how a game goes when we start stringing together some drives. We know Jones is going to start and that is that. I don't know if that is for pass blocking or game planning or on-field leadership or something else the coaches haven't told us? But 2 games in I am not going to get real bent because Jones has 11 more carries than Charles, 6 of which came at a point in the game when I think most agree Jones should be on the field.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-19-2010, 08:43 PM
Of course. I am just less inclined to get worked up about it as long as they keep winning.:shrug:

Hopefully next week they pull out another W. After that, it's going to get tougher. Maybe, just maybe, Todd knows exactly what he's doing. I've heard Jamaal is incredibly humble, maybe Todd is trying to keep him that way.

But if you're going to play these kind of mind fuck games with your best player, you better know what you're doing.

the Talking Can
09-19-2010, 08:44 PM
let's keep this simple

not starting your best offensive player, your only 'playmaker', and the guy capable of going the distance on any snap -especially when your QB is a worthless piece of shit - is fucking retarded...

Mr. Flopnuts
09-19-2010, 08:45 PM
All things being equal Charles does. But it rarely is equal. I am just saying I am going to wait until after 5 or 6 games are played to see what the mindset of the coaching staff is. Game 1 was shitty weather, we all know JC has a tendancy to fumble and we were playing close to the chest. I'll toss that one out. Today? Today was more of a combination of how the coaches used Charles when he was in and the fact that Cleveland was determined not to let him have a big day. I'd like to see how a game goes when we start stringing together some drives. We know Jones is going to start and that is that. I don't know if that is for pass blocking or game planning or on-field leadership or something else the coaches haven't told us? But 2 games in I am not going to get real bent because Jones has 11 more carries than Charles, 6 of which came at a point in the game when I think most agree Jones should be on the field.

Just so I'm clear about my position, not only should Jamaal be starting over Jones in games, but he should be taking snaps from center because the guy doing that sucks a big dick too. :D

dirk digler
09-19-2010, 08:47 PM
We're 2-0 because of a ST's return TD, Jamaal's 56 yard TD, and a pick 6 today.

Has nothing to do with the limited use of our best player. So you can't exactly say the RB mix we have now has been winning us games.

I agree but it hasn't lost us games either.

Hopefully next week they pull out another W. After that, it's going to get tougher. Maybe, just maybe, Todd knows exactly what he's doing. I've heard Jamaal is incredibly humble, maybe Todd is trying to keep him that way.

But if you're going to play these kind of mind fuck games with your best player, you better know what you're doing.

I think he is playing mind games and it really is mind boggling why he is doing it.

petegz28
09-19-2010, 08:48 PM
Oh, and Deez, I hate to tell you but it does come down to the play of others to give JC the opportunity for more touches.

Couple examples:

1st drive of 2nd quarter
Charles for 1 yard
Charles for 3 yards
Bowe for 5 Yards

Penalty, we punt

2nd drive of the 2nd
Charles for 2 yards
Cassel intercepted


See, it does take other players to perform to create opportunities. In both cases our QB killed the chance to do just that.

Chiefs Pantalones
09-19-2010, 08:49 PM
let's keep this simple

not starting your best offensive player, your only 'playmaker', and the guy capable of going the distance on any snap -especially when your QB is a worthless piece of shit - is ****ing retarded...

lol pretty much

Mr. Flopnuts
09-19-2010, 08:50 PM
I agree but it hasn't lost us games either.



I think he is playing mind games and it really is mind boggling why he is doing it.

I could see why he's doing it. JC was running his mouth last year when he started taking off. I just think if that is what he's doing, he could be handling it in a much better way. Why you would want to alienate the most dynamic guy on your team, is beyond me. For all we know though, he's tried other things and this is the only thing left. I trust Haley, I'm just scratching my head big time right now.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 08:52 PM
Oh, and Deez, I hate to tell you but it does come down to the play of others to give JC the opportunity for more touches.

Couple examples:

1st drive of 2nd quarter
Charles for 1 yard
Charles for 3 yards
Bowe for 5 Yards

Penalty, we punt

2nd drive of the 2nd
Charles for 2 yards
Cassel intercepted


See, it does take other players to perform to create opportunities. In both cases our QB killed the chance to do just that.

You're misapplying the context for my comment, but whatever.

I have to laugh that we're full circle to RB by committee and now we're embracing the concept, just as many embraced the acquisition of Cassel, which was SO fucking different from everything we'd seen under Carl.

Spott
09-19-2010, 08:54 PM
I'm not going to whine. I'm just going to take the high road and hope for Jones to sprain his ankle.

dirk digler
09-19-2010, 08:55 PM
I could see why he's doing it. JC was running his mouth last year when he started taking off. I just think if that is what he's doing, he could be handling it in a much better way. Why you would want to alienate the most dynamic guy on your team, is beyond me. For all we know though, he's tried other things and this is the only thing left. I trust Haley, I'm just scratching my head big time right now.

I agree it is head scratching and I don't think it is working unless his goal is to piss him off so he will play and run harder.

dirk digler
09-19-2010, 08:57 PM
I have to laugh that we're full circle to RB by committee and now we're embracing the concept, just as many embraced the acquisition of Cassel, which was SO fucking different from everything we'd seen under Carl.

To be fair the entire NFL has embraced RB by committee. You basically have to have 2 NFL starters at RB now a days.

Priest31kc
09-19-2010, 08:57 PM
The only thing I can think of besides Haley just playing mind fuck games w/ him for some stupid reason, would be maybe he's "saving" him for the 2nd half of the season. They saw what he did w/ fresh legs the 2nd half last year. Maybe they really dont think he can take the pounding all year, especially after shoulder surgery. Still, that's a shitty reason, and not a good one. But I cant think of anything else. Its baffling.

Priest31kc
09-19-2010, 08:57 PM
I'm not going to whine. I'm just going to take the high road and hope for Jones to sprain his ankle.

lol its sad we gotta hope for an injury to a good player to get our best player on the field.

the Talking Can
09-19-2010, 09:01 PM
last 4 games of 2009

Charles had

carries
20
25
24
25

yards
143
154
102
259

he was an unstoppable force

and now we're actually pretending that he's just a fragile situational back who can only carry it in the 2nd quarter when the Chiefs are up 10 or down 14 and we're almost ready for or just came out of a TV timeout but not a reviewed play but yes to an injury break requiring a golf cart but no if the delay if due to a communications problem with the QBs helmet but OK i guess if we're waiting for someone to put a shoe back on though really at that point I'd probably just go with Jones because his tendancy to get no more than 5 but no less than 3.2 yards per carry is a more dependable variable than Charles who may break it for 50 but will probably only average 6 yards a carry...and plus it makes Matt sad when players show him up

petegz28
09-19-2010, 09:02 PM
The only thing I can think of besides Haley just playing mind **** games w/ him for some stupid reason, would be maybe he's "saving" him for the 2nd half of the season. They saw what he did w/ fresh legs the 2nd half last year. Maybe they really dont think he can take the pounding all year, especially after shoulder surgery. Still, that's a shitty reason, and not a good one. But I cant think of anything else. Its baffling.

We don't see what goes on at practice and stuff either. I mean, if Charles is going to let his ego get in the way then that is a problem too. If that is the case. Jones is a veteran who has been consistent. Charles has to recognize that, be professional and beat him out of the position if he wants to be the starter. I am not saying Charles has an ego issue, I am just tossing out possibilities.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 09:05 PM
To be fair the entire NFL has embraced RB by committee. You basically have to have 2 NFL starters at RB now a days.

You need a competent second stringer, for sure, but you don't need two starters.

What teams do not employ a committee? Why? Perhaps the Chiefs should follow this model.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 09:07 PM
We don't see what goes on at practice and stuff either. I mean, if Charles is going to let his ego get in the way then that is a problem too. If that is the case. Jones is a veteran who has been consistent. Charles has to recognize that, be professional and beat him out of the position if he wants to be the starter. I am not saying Charles has an ego issue, I am just tossing out possibilities.

Oh, beat him out? If only Charles had played worth a **** in week 1. If only he kicked the shit out of Jones in terms of production. If only Charles had demonstrated a track record of success in '09. If only...

petegz28
09-19-2010, 09:10 PM
Oh, beat him out? If only Charles had played worth a **** in week 1. If only he kicked the shit out of Jones in terms of production. If only Charles had demonstrated a track record of success in '09. If only...

Yeah, that's what I said, beat him out. Obviously he hasn't done it, for whatever reason, Deez.

the Talking Can
09-19-2010, 09:10 PM
You know how Jamal Charles beats out Jones?











by being Jamal Charles


the guy who averages 6 yards a carry, takes it to the house if someone so much as slips

the guy who could give you 260 yards beats out the guy who gives you 3.8 per carry simply by existing....

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 09:12 PM
Yeah, that's what I said, beat him out. Obviously he hasn't done it, for whatever reason, Deez.

I'll offer a slight possibility: our staff has a stilted view of players who aren't "their guys" for whatever reason.

I can guaranfuckingtee that when Jones was first signed, few would have advocated the acquisition if we knew it was to be the #1. But Jones was a team captain, just like Z. Thomas before him, so everything's cool.

Let's put up a sign.

Priest31kc
09-19-2010, 09:13 PM
I just want to know the damn reason. And it sucks worse because we all know we'll never know the reason. We just have to hope it changes, and it needs to change against the Niners.

dirk digler
09-19-2010, 09:13 PM
You need a competent second stringer, for sure, but you don't need two starters.

What teams do not employ a committee? Why? Perhaps the Chiefs should follow this model.

Off the top of my head I can't really think of any except the Vikings this year. I am sure there are more.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 09:16 PM
Off the top of my head I can't really think of any except the Vikings this year. I am sure there are more.

The Titans tend to give it to one scrub more than any other guy. The Panthers are another good example. Two solid backs, but a clear hierarchy with Williams at the top.

It's simple: if you have a clear #1, you use him as such. Teams who don't, can't.

Except for the Chiefs, who feel obliged to "save" Charles (and their opponents from worrying about defending our best offensive player).

petegz28
09-19-2010, 09:18 PM
The Titans tend to give it to one scrub more than any other guy. The Panthers are another good example. Two solid backs, but a clear hierarchy with Williams at the top.

It's simple: if you have a clear #1, you use him as such. Teams who don't, can't.

Except for the Chiefs, who feel obliged to "save" Charles (and their opponents from worrying about defending our best offensive player).

Both of those teams lost today. One to Tampon Bay.

Reaper16
09-19-2010, 09:20 PM
Both of those teams lost today. One to Tampon Bay.
Tampon Bay is 2-0. Over on some other board, some is posting "Those teams you mentioned lost today. One to the Queefs."

mcaj22
09-19-2010, 09:20 PM
JC should be getting the same deployment/touches as guys like Moreno, Best, McCoy, etc


they touch the ball in some way through the run and the pass almost every series, and it opens things up. JC is better than all of those guys and they are getting way more looks than he is.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 09:21 PM
Both of those teams lost today. One to Tampon Bay.

Completely irrelevant, tangential responses for $200, Alex.

dirk digler
09-19-2010, 09:22 PM
The Titans tend to give it to one scrub more than any other guy. The Panthers are another good example. Two solid backs, but a clear hierarchy with Williams at the top.

It's simple: if you have a clear #1, you use him as such. Teams who don't, can't.

Except for the Chiefs, who feel obliged to "save" Charles (and their opponents from worrying about defending our best offensive player).

LMAO How could I forget about the Titans. Damn my memory is bad.

Btw the Chiefs are now #5 in rushing and IMO the reason why we don't score points isn't because Charles isn't getting that many carries it is all because of the QB.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 09:25 PM
LMAO How could I forget about the Titans. Damn my memory is bad.

Btw the Chiefs are now #5 in rushing and IMO the reason why we don't score points isn't because Charles isn't getting that many carries it is all because of the QB.

I agree that's the primary reason, but this is a problem we cannot correct this year. We can, however, decide to utilize our best player more reasonably, as this couldn't hurt with the scoring thing.

Lbedrock1
09-19-2010, 09:27 PM
Rk Player Team Pos Att Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD Lng 1st 1st% 20+ 40+ FUM
1 Chris Johnson TEN RB 358 22.4 2,006 5.6 125.4 14 91T 79 22.1 22 7 3
2 Steven Jackson STL RB 324 21.6 1,416 4.4 94.4 4 58 61 18.8 10 2 2
3 Thomas Jones NYJ RB 331 20.7 1,402 4.2 87.6 14 71T 64 19.3 8 2 2
4 Maurice Jones-Drew JAC RB 312 19.5 1,391 4.5 86.9 15 80T 68 21.8 8 3 2
5 Adrian Peterson MIN RB 314 19.6 1,383 4.4 86.4 18 64T 74 23.6 12 3 6
6 Ray Rice BAL RB 254 15.9 1,339 5.3 83.7 7 59T 54 21.3 11 3 2
7 Ryan Grant GB RB 282 17.6 1,253 4.4 78.3 11 62T 61 21.6 8 2 0
8 Cedric Benson CIN RB 301 23.2 1,251 4.2 96.2 6 42 57 18.9 10 1 1
9 Jonathan Stewart CAR RB 221 13.8 1,133 5.1 70.8 10 67T 54 24.4 11 3 3
10 Ricky Williams MIA RB 241 15.1 1,121 4.7 70.1 11 68T 55 22.8 4 2 4
11 Jamaal Charles KC RB 190 12.7 1,120 5.9 74.7 7 76T 54 28.4 9 5 2
11 Frank Gore SF RB 229 16.4 1,120 4.9 80.0 10 80T 47 20.5 11 4 4
13 DeAngelo Williams CAR RB 216 16.6 1,117 5.2 85.9 7 77 51 23.6 7 3 3
14 Rashard Mendenhall PIT RB 242 15.1 1,108 4.6 69.2 7 60 48 19.8 9 1 3
15 Fred Jackson BUF RB 237 14.8 1,062 4.5 66.4 2 43 43 18.1 5 1 2
notice J. charles only needed 190 touches thats says alot about his talent. sorry not in line.

tk13
09-19-2010, 09:29 PM
The real unfortunate thing about this is it's causing people to root against Jones. And that's too bad... Jones has been one of the best RB's in football the last 3-4 years. There's nothing not to like about the guy. He runs hard, is reliable, can finish drives and score TD's. Last year he put up numbers as good as anyone in football not named Chris Johnson. 3rd in rushing yards, 3rd in TD's. Has played in big time playoff games. But I do absolutely agree Charles should get more touches. I've said it before... it's too bad because really our offense should be able to move the chains more and get them both 20+ touches a game. That's just not happening so far.

Priest31kc
09-19-2010, 09:32 PM
Rk Player Team Pos Att Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD Lng 1st 1st% 20+ 40+ FUM
1 Chris Johnson TEN RB 358 22.4 2,006 5.6 125.4 14 91T 79 22.1 22 7 3
2 Steven Jackson STL RB 324 21.6 1,416 4.4 94.4 4 58 61 18.8 10 2 2
3 Thomas Jones NYJ RB 331 20.7 1,402 4.2 87.6 14 71T 64 19.3 8 2 2
4 Maurice Jones-Drew JAC RB 312 19.5 1,391 4.5 86.9 15 80T 68 21.8 8 3 2
5 Adrian Peterson MIN RB 314 19.6 1,383 4.4 86.4 18 64T 74 23.6 12 3 6
6 Ray Rice BAL RB 254 15.9 1,339 5.3 83.7 7 59T 54 21.3 11 3 2
7 Ryan Grant GB RB 282 17.6 1,253 4.4 78.3 11 62T 61 21.6 8 2 0
8 Cedric Benson CIN RB 301 23.2 1,251 4.2 96.2 6 42 57 18.9 10 1 1
9 Jonathan Stewart CAR RB 221 13.8 1,133 5.1 70.8 10 67T 54 24.4 11 3 3
10 Ricky Williams MIA RB 241 15.1 1,121 4.7 70.1 11 68T 55 22.8 4 2 4
11 Jamaal Charles KC RB 190 12.7 1,120 5.9 74.7 7 76T 54 28.4 9 5 2
11 Frank Gore SF RB 229 16.4 1,120 4.9 80.0 10 80T 47 20.5 11 4 4
13 DeAngelo Williams CAR RB 216 16.6 1,117 5.2 85.9 7 77 51 23.6 7 3 3
14 Rashard Mendenhall PIT RB 242 15.1 1,108 4.6 69.2 7 60 48 19.8 9 1 3
15 Fred Jackson BUF RB 237 14.8 1,062 4.5 66.4 2 43 43 18.1 5 1 2
notice J. charles only needed 190 touches thats says alot about his talent. sorry not in line.

Chris Johnson can carry it 358 times, but Charles will barely get 200 this year, if that.

chiefzilla1501
09-19-2010, 09:32 PM
It's one of two things. Either Haley's trying to prove a point to Charles about work ethic, which is entirely possible (and would piss me off). Or it could just be that defenses are stacking the box right now daring the Chiefs to throw the ball. When that happens, Jones might actually be the better back because he's a far better pass protector and he's more suited for running up the gut.

I get pissed that Charles isn't getting the ball. But truth is, when he is getting the ball, he's been ineffective and it has nothing to do with rhythm. It has everything to do with defenses not having an ounce of respect for the pass.

DeezNutz
09-19-2010, 09:34 PM
It's one of two things. Either Haley's trying to prove a point to Charles about work ethic, which is entirely possible (and would piss me off). Or it could just be that defenses are stacking the box right now daring the Chiefs to throw the ball. When that happens, Jones might actually be the better back because he's a far better pass protector and he's more suited for running up the gut.

I get pissed that Charles isn't getting the ball. But truth is, when he is getting the ball, he's been ineffective and it has nothing to do with rhythm. It has everything to do with defenses not having an ounce of respect for the pass.

While it's true that Cassel fucks this offense in numerous ways, not having Charles on the field very much makes it pretty obvious, when he comes in, that he might be coming in for a reason.

dirk digler
09-19-2010, 09:34 PM
I agree that's the primary reason, but this is a problem we cannot correct this year. We can, however, decide to utilize our best player more reasonably, as this couldn't hurt with the scoring thing.

Agreed

-King-
09-19-2010, 09:34 PM
Charles needs to get more carries because he's the best play maker this team has.


Thats all there is to it. I don't even see how theres a 150 post thread about it.

redgoldexpress
09-19-2010, 09:41 PM
In here we all believe the TJ should have been in the game at the end to run down the clock. I just got done looking at the play-by-play of the 4th quarter. When the Chiefs got the ball back at the 6:12 min mark left TJ's carries were for 4,7,3,4,2, and 1 yards which averages to 3.5 yards per carry. TJ's 7 yard carry happend when it was (2 and 9) and the two 4 yard runs took place on (2nd and 7) and (1st and 10) Lets look at JC last 6 rushes for the day they were of 1,7,-2,1,3 and 9 for a total of 3.2 yards per rush. JC's 7 yard rush happened on a (3rd and 6)which kept the chains moving, and the 9 yard run happened on a (1st and 10) to end the half. Regardless of how you look at it the 2 backs are pretty much directly identical, and in order to keep the clock and drive moving you have to average 4 yards per play. When you look at these stats each one would need some help from the passing game to help continue to run out the clock. I do believe that JC can help run down the clock if he is given the chance. So what if he bust on all the way at least we will be at least a 6 more point lead.

You always hear RB's say it is about momentum when it comes to their running and how it reflects in the amount of yards they gain that particular game. I think the best way to keep the chains moving is to possibly start for maybe the first 4 drives with either back then the next drive the other back. This could enable each back to establish momentum and then the rest of the game go with the back that has the best momentum and use the other back for short yardage/3rd down back so that way that back is fresh

chiefzilla1501
09-19-2010, 09:46 PM
While it's true that Cassel ****s this offense in numerous ways, not having Charles on the field very much makes it pretty obvious, when he comes in, that he might be coming in for a reason.

That's not true. Charles was in on quite a few downs where they split him out wide. I don't think it signals anything. The defense is playing balls out against the run no matter who's in the game. Until our pass offense can prove we can move the ball consistently, they'll keep stacking the box. That's what is easily the most frustrating thing about Cassel's shitty play.