PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Charles and Jones carries are matchup-based


chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 05:56 PM
Well, there you go.


http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?sport=NFL&id=4617&line=182997&spln=1

Jamaal Charles: Chiefs' carry distribution is matchup based
Jamaal Charles - RB - KC - Sep. 22 - 5:23 pm et

Coach Todd Haley indicated Wednesday that the Chiefs' carry distribution will be matchup-based moving forward.
"This is a fluid game with a lot of variables," he said. "We saw some weather in the first game and different situations in the second. You must be able to adjust in the way that you see fit." Haley may have decided to feature Thomas Jones in Week 2 based on the Browns' weaknesses up the gut. If the logic holds, Jamaal Charles would likely be featured against San Francisco's stout interior. The 49ers' defense figures to be more vulnerable on the perimeter. Sep. 22 - 5:23 pm et
Source: kcchiefs.com

keg in kc
09-22-2010, 05:58 PM
Good luck trying to convince anybody of that.

Brock
09-22-2010, 05:59 PM
This deserved its own thread.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 06:02 PM
This deserved its own thread.

Has Haley's response been addressed in other threads?

Goldmember
09-22-2010, 06:04 PM
Good luck trying to convince anybody of that.

I believe this and stated it in another thread that JC is a better fit against the Niners. They are too strong up the gut. I predict JC will get 20 touches Sunday, if they don't go 3 and out all day.

Hug it Out Dan
09-22-2010, 06:06 PM
This deserved its own thread.

ass......ROFL

Brock
09-22-2010, 06:07 PM
All I'm saying is, it's going to be the same argument that's taking place in 2 other threads.

Hug it Out Dan
09-22-2010, 06:07 PM
responding to the opening thread/post, JC needs to be on the field more. No excuse for him sitting on the sidelines unless he's tired/injured.

he's the team's best most explosive player, he needs to play more.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 06:07 PM
I will believe it when I see it

BossChief
09-22-2010, 06:08 PM
Two things, this shouldnt be a new thread, instead just posted in the current discussion going on about this very thing in the other thread...the other is that if we belive that (with the 49ers backers) they are vulnerable on the perimeters, we are smooking crack IMO...I may be wrong.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 06:08 PM
Two things, this shouldnt be a new thread, instead just posted in the current discussion going on about this very thing in the other thread...the other is that if we belive that (with the 49ers backers) they are vulnerable on the perimeters, we are smoking crack IMO...I may be wrong.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 06:08 PM
I believe this and stated it in another thread that JC is a better fit against the Niners. They are too strong up the gut. I predict JC will get 20 touches Sunday, if they don't go 3 and out all day.

Agreed.

San Diego = rain--give the ball to the guy who you know won't fumble
Cleveland = weak up the gut

If Charles doesn't get significant carries going into SF, then something's fishy.

the Talking Can
09-22-2010, 06:08 PM
yeah, charles isn't good enough to run against certain teams....

CaliforniaChief
09-22-2010, 06:11 PM
Charles was on pace to do some ungodly things last year in just half a season. You don't go with matchups. You put your best player on the field and give him the ball. Period.

the Talking Can
09-22-2010, 06:13 PM
Charles was on pace to do some ungodly things last year in just half a season. You don't go with matchups. You put your best player on the field and give him the ball. Period.

no no no


teams bench their best skill players for 'matchups' all the time


like..


um..





....

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 06:13 PM
yeah, charles isn't good enough to run against certain teams....

The question is, though, if you're hoping to get Charles about 250 carries a year, would you rather 10 games with 20 carries? Or 16 games with 15 carries?

ElGringo
09-22-2010, 06:14 PM
I can see the logic here and would offer this analogy to those that don't: You are entering a race, and have 2 cars to choose from, a ferrari or a hummer. Now if the race is on the streets, easy decision, take the ferrari, if the race is off-road, easy decision, take the hummer. Which car is better....well it doesn't matter, which one works better for the course.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 06:17 PM
Two things, this shouldnt be a new thread, instead just posted in the current discussion going on about this very thing in the other thread...the other is that if we belive that (with the 49ers backers) they are vulnerable on the perimeters, we are smooking crack IMO...I may be wrong.

1) This is news and news always deserves a new thread. The other threads are back-and-forth by the same 5 people about the same shit
2) Nobody's saying SF has a better interior. We're just saying that unlike the other two teams, there's no reason to believe the interior is exploitable. If a defense is stout both on the interior/exterior, then you go with your better RB.

I would go with the better RB period. But if it's matchup based and they're consistent on that, I can see the logic.

the Talking Can
09-22-2010, 06:18 PM
The question is, though, if you're hoping to get Charles about 250 carries a year, would you rather 10 games with 20 carries? Or 16 games with 15 carries?

i don't give a flaming ass fuck how many carries he gets



you don't sit your best offense player on the bench for the first quarter of games when your QB is a laughing stock and your offense can't score touchdowns....

Charles tore the league a new a-hole last year, on a worse team....

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 06:21 PM
i don't give a flaming ass **** how many carries he gets



you don't sit your best offense player on the bench for the first quarter of games when your QB is a laughing stock and your offense can't score touchdowns....

Charles tore the league a new a-hole last year, on a worse team....

You should give a shit. If he ends up with about 250 carries, I think very few people would complain how it was split up.

If he racks up 350 carries, a lot of people would complain he was overused and rightfully so.

the Talking Can
09-22-2010, 06:24 PM
You should give a shit. If he ends up with about 250 carries, I think very few people would complain how it was split up.

If he racks up 350 carries, a lot of people would complain he was overused and rightfully so.

maybe i'm not making myself clear

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK HOW MANY CARRIES THEY GIVE HIM


i simply want the best player on our incredibly shitty offense on the field before we punt 4 times.....

BossChief
09-22-2010, 06:25 PM
1) This is news and news always deserves a new thread. The other threads are back-and-forth by the same 5 people about the same shit
2) Nobody's saying SF has a better interior. We're just saying that unlike the other two teams, there's no reason to believe the interior is exploitable. If a defense is stout both on the interior/exterior, then you go with your better RB.

I would go with the better RB period. But if it's matchup based and they're consistent on that, I can see the logic.

if they are by the same people with the same shit...by all means start a new thread instead of infusing new shit into the discussion. :doh!:

Dont listen to Frankie.

What Im saying is that if we think we can just run a bunch of toss sweeps and peremeter runs on those linebackers (that are ultrafast, behind a DL that diagnoses run plays like that in an instant) and be successful, we haven't done our homework.

Willis, Mays, Lawson, Smith and harlson will surely be waiting for it IMO.

crossbow
09-22-2010, 06:25 PM
My reaction:

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE

You just don't bench the most dynamic football player on your team for match up reasons. You let him demoralize your opponent and inspire the other players on your offense. I am getting sick of these high school mind games. If this is another stupid motivation tactic then it is a waist of time. JC is a professional and doesn't need his head messed with. He shows up ready to play.

Chiefs Pantalones
09-22-2010, 06:26 PM
The Titans shouldn't start Johnson because he might get worn down. I know he has a lot of talent but they need to conserve him.

-King-
09-22-2010, 06:26 PM
Two things, this shouldnt be a new thread, instead just posted in the current discussion going on about this very thing in the other thread...the other is that if we belive that (with the 49ers backers) they are vulnerable on the perimeters, we are smooking crack IMO...I may be wrong.

Two things, this shouldnt be a new thread, instead just posted in the current discussion going on about this very thing in the other thread...the other is that if we belive that (with the 49ers backers) they are vulnerable on the perimeters, we are smoking crack IMO...I may be wrong.

Literally.

MahiMike
09-22-2010, 06:28 PM
I think I've got Todd figured out. Here's the deal.

In any game where we have a coin toss of winning, he's gonna go Marty Ball and grind it out with running, defense and field position. Advantage Thomas.

In any game where it's a known shootout, he'll come out with guns drawn and wing it down field. Advantage Jamaal.

Look for 50/50 carries vs. 49ers. But come Indy and Houston, you'll see lots of Jamaal.

the Talking Can
09-22-2010, 06:28 PM
The Titans shouldn't start Johnson because he might get worn down. I know he has a lot of talent but they need to conserve him.

plus, he's only good against certain teams....he's limited due to matchups

Brock
09-22-2010, 06:29 PM
I think I've got Todd figured out. Here's the deal.

In any game where we have a coin toss of winning, he's gonna go Marty Ball and grind it out with running, defense and field position. Advantage Thomas.

In any game where it's a known shootout, he'll come out with guns drawn and wing it down field. Advantage Jamaal.

Look for 50/50 carries vs. 49ers. But come Indy and Houston, you'll see lots of Jamaal.

Sure, we don't want to mess around and score too much in those tight games.

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 06:29 PM
Matchup scenarios:

1.) Is the opponent an NFL team? If so, Jones gets the majority of the carries.

There are no other matchups.

-King-
09-22-2010, 06:30 PM
Sure, we don't want to mess around and score too much in those tight games.

Where's the fun in that?

-King-
09-22-2010, 06:30 PM
Matchup scenarios:

1.) Is the opponent an NFL team? If so, Jones gets the majority of the carries.

There are no other matchups.

:spock:

Errr.....

I...wait...huh?

BossChief
09-22-2010, 06:31 PM
I think I've got Todd figured out. Here's the deal.

In any game where we have a coin toss of winning, he's gonna go Marty Ball and grind it out with running, defense and field position. Advantage Thomas.

In any game where it's a known shootout, he'll come out with guns drawn and wing it down field. Advantage Jamaal.

Look for 50/50 carries vs. 49ers. But come Indy and Houston, you'll see lots of Jamaal.
We knew you could do it, trooper! :clap:

It took a long time, but this post is solid...too bad I covered it in the other thread.

(just kidding around)

the Talking Can
09-22-2010, 06:31 PM
I think I've got Todd figured out. Here's the deal.

In any game where we have a coin toss of winning, he's gonna go Marty Ball and grind it out with running, defense and field position. Advantage Thomas.

In any game where it's a known shootout, he'll come out with guns drawn and wing it down field. Advantage Jamaal.

Look for 50/50 carries vs. 49ers. But come Indy and Houston, you'll see lots of Jamaal.

so, in this theory

when you want to 'grind it out with running'...you bench your best running back and use the guy who averages less yards per carry and is 0 threat to score a break away td?

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 06:32 PM
if they are by the same people with the same shit...by all means start a new thread instead of infusing new shit into the discussion. :doh!:

Dont listen to Frankie.

What Im saying is that if we think we can just run a bunch of toss sweeps and peremeter runs on those linebackers (that are ultrafast, behind a DL that diagnoses run plays like that in an instant) and be successful, we haven't done our homework.

Willis, Mays, Lawson, Smith and harlson will surely be waiting for it IMO.

Dude, why are you giving such a shit about thread-starting? It's unlike you to get ticky-tack like this. This is news, unless you've seen the comment from Haley on matchup-based RB-by-committee anywhere else. If I posted this news on that last thread, nobody would have read it because the 5 people were going back-and-forth. When you have news, it deserves it's own thread.

To the second point, the Chiefs are in for a tough matchup both inside and outside. Charles at least hast the potential to break off a big run or two. Jones is going to get consistently stuffed in the interior. In this case, it's anything but a dream matchup to the outside, but it's easily the Chiefs' better way of moving the ball forward.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 06:33 PM
Sure, we don't want to mess around and score too much in those tight games.

Well, in all fairness, if we put everything on tape for teams to breakdown this early on...we dont have too many fall back options with craphole at qb.

CaliforniaChief
09-22-2010, 06:33 PM
The justifications for the blatant misuse of Jamaal Charles are pitiful.

You don't remove Albert Pujols for a pinch hitter because you've got a left-handed hitter who happens to have a .400 BA against a particular pitcher.

You never pinch hit for Albert Pujols because he is the best player on the team.

You never go with a lesser talent because of a match up. That's over-thinking a simple situation. You always go with the best player.

Dicky McElephant
09-22-2010, 06:35 PM
So according to the matchup people......Todd Haley is playing Fantasy Football with our team. Awesome.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 06:36 PM
maybe i'm not making myself clear

I DON'T GIVE A **** HOW MANY CARRIES THEY GIVE HIM


i simply want the best player on our incredibly shitty offense on the field before we punt 4 times.....

If you really, truly think Charles deserves anywhere close to 350 carries for the season, then you my friend are a moron. That's only 21 carries a game. Most people here would be worried about even 300. They have to use him sparingly. So you have a choice. You can either run him 15 times a game every game, or you can give him the ball 10 times per game for some games and 20-25 times in others. if the Chiefs choose matchup-based, it's not the way I'd do a RB-by-Committee, but I can see the logic.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 06:38 PM
Dude, why are you giving such a shit about thread-starting? It's unlike you to get ticky-tack like this. This is news, unless you've seen the comment from Haley on matchup-based RB-by-committee anywhere else. If I posted this news on that last thread, nobody would have read it because the 5 people were going back-and-forth. When you have news, it deserves it's own thread.

To the second point, the Chiefs are in for a tough matchup both inside and outside. Charles at least hast the potential to break off a big run or two. Jones is going to get consistently stuffed in the interior. In this case, it's anything but a dream matchup to the outside, but it's easily the Chiefs' better way of moving the ball forward.
just flippin shit is all, man, its all good.

Like I said in the other thread, I want Charles to start every game and get 20 touches NO MATTER WHAT (barring injury concerns) and I am just trying to give a look inside these guys heads in my recent posts as to whyu these things are getting done the way they are, maybe even reasoning through the decisions and trying to come up with valid reasons why such decisions are made.

I have been a Charles supporter/fan since the day we drafted him and well before. I even started a thread called "the birth of the JC era" where I likened him to Priest Holmes before JC ever got started.

the Talking Can
09-22-2010, 06:39 PM
If you really, truly think Charles deserves anywhere close to 350 carries for the season, then you my friend are a moron. That's only 21 carries a game. Most people here would be worried about even 300. They have to use him sparingly. So you have a choice. You can either run him 15 times a game every game, or you can give him the ball 10 times per game for some games and 20-25 times in others. if the Chiefs choose matchup-based, it's not the way I'd do a RB-by-Committee, but I can see the logic.

HELLO MCFLY

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CARRIES

STOP MAKING SHIT UP

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT ANY MORE FUCKING PLAINLY THAN I HAVE

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK HOW MANY CARRIES HE GETS

I DON'T WANT HIM SITTING ON THE BENCH WHILE JONES AND CASSEL PUNT THE FIRST QUARTER AWAY

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

BossChief
09-22-2010, 06:39 PM
The justifications for the blatant misuse of Jamaal Charles are pitiful.

You don't remove Albert Pujols for a pinch hitter because you've got a left-handed hitter who happens to have a .400 BA against a particular pitcher.

You never pinch hit for Albert Pujols because he is the best player on the team.

You never go with a lesser talent because of a match up. That's over-thinking a simple situation. You always go with the best player.

do you use occums razors?

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 06:40 PM
The justifications for the blatant misuse of Jamaal Charles are pitiful.

You don't remove Albert Pujols for a pinch hitter because you've got a left-handed hitter who happens to have a .400 BA against a particular pitcher.

You never pinch hit for Albert Pujols because he is the best player on the team.

You never go with a lesser talent because of a match up. That's over-thinking a simple situation. You always go with the best player.

You would also never let Steven Strasburg throw for over 200 innings. Oops, the Nationals already pushed him too hard ill-advisedly. Or maybe we should let Kerry Wood throw over 125 pitches a game as Dusty Baker did and that should have no negative effect on his arm.

When you have a player who probably has a season carry threshold, you have to cut carries somewhere. The Yankees are doing that this year with Phil Hughes. You can disagree with limiting Charles to about 300 carries if you want. But if you agree that he should be limited to 250-300 carries, then you have to make choices about how to cut carries.

Calitozoni
09-22-2010, 06:40 PM
yeah, charles isn't good enough to run against certain teams....

Or in certain weather conditions. He looked pretty good in the SD game until they iced him.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-22-2010, 06:42 PM
The Jets fans considered Jones "negligible" when it came to "running it up the gut" or punching through the goal line like Marcus used to do, and I doubt he's "gained a step" in those regards so this whole thing reeks of Vet Favoritism ala Broke-Dick.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 06:42 PM
I still think we are making a mountain out of a mohill.

Some here are acting as if giving the kid lesser carries was the reason we lost the games...

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 06:43 PM
HELLO MCFLY

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CARRIES

STOP MAKING SHIT UP

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT ANY MORE ****ING PLAINLY THAN I HAVE

I DON'T GIVE A **** HOW MANY CARRIES HE GETS

I DON'T WANT HIM SITTING ON THE BENCH WHILE JONES AND CASSEL PUNT THE FIRST QUARTER AWAY

JESUS ****ING CHRIST

http://www.stephencjensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/brick-loud-noises-b.jpg

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-22-2010, 06:44 PM
HELLO MCFLY

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CARRIES

STOP MAKING SHIT UP

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT ANY MORE FUCKING PLAINLY THAN I HAVE

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK HOW MANY CARRIES HE GETS

I DON'T WANT HIM SITTING ON THE BENCH WHILE JONES AND CASSEL PUNT THE FIRST QUARTER AWAY

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

LMAO

the Talking Can
09-22-2010, 06:44 PM
http://www.stephencjensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/brick-loud-noises-b.jpg

is there some other english language you speak?

BossChief
09-22-2010, 06:46 PM
I wonder if what happened during the Philly game (when he left after falling on his arm awkwardly) has played any part in this?

MahiMike
09-22-2010, 06:46 PM
so, in this theory

when you want to 'grind it out with running'...you bench your best running back and use the guy who averages less yards per carry and is 0 threat to score a break away td?

Yes. It's more important to keep the chains moving. Can't argue with 2-0.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 06:48 PM
YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!!!

the Talking Can
09-22-2010, 06:49 PM
Yes. It's more important to keep the chains moving. Can't argue with 2-0.

:doh!:

no one is arguing with 2-0

what the fuck is with everyone making shit up?

we're talking about the offense, and the hilariously stupid theory that when you want to 'grind it out' you use your second best running back

FAX
09-22-2010, 06:50 PM
HELLO MCFLY

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CARRIES

STOP MAKING SHIT UP

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT ANY MORE ****ING PLAINLY THAN I HAVE

I DON'T GIVE A **** HOW MANY CARRIES HE GETS

I DON'T WANT HIM SITTING ON THE BENCH WHILE JONES AND CASSEL PUNT THE FIRST QUARTER AWAY

JESUS ****ING CHRIST

All well and good, Mr. the Talking Can.

But what about the number of carries he gets?

FAX

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-22-2010, 06:51 PM
All well and good, Mr. the Talking Can.

But what about the number of carries he gets?

FAX

ROFL

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 06:51 PM
is there some other english language you speak?

THIS TIME I'LL SPEAK IN ALL CAPS.

-YOU WANT JAMAAL CHARLES ON THE FIELD MORE.
-IF JAMAAL CHARLES IS ON THE FIELD MORE, HE WILL HAVE TO CARRY THE BALL 20-25 TIMES PER GAME
-IF HE CARRIES THE BALL 20-25 TIMES PER GAME HE WILL HAVE 320-400 CARRIES BY SEASON'S END

OR... YOU CAN PUT CHARLES IN THE GAME MORE AND RUN CHARLES LESS, WHICH MEANS YOU ARE PUTTING THE BALL IN MATT CASSEL'S HANDS

So again, tell me why his season-ending carry total is irrelevant. Your approach is suggesting he run the ball 300-350 times.

the Talking Can
09-22-2010, 06:52 PM
THIS TIME I'LL SPEAK IN ALL CAPS.

-YOU WANT JAMAAL CHARLES ON THE FIELD MORE.
-IF JAMAAL CHARLES IS ON THE FIELD MORE, HE WILL HAVE TO CARRY THE BALL 20-25 TIMES PER GAME
-IF HE CARRIES THE BALL 20-25 TIMES PER GAME HE WILL HAVE 320-400 CARRIES BY SEASON'S END

OR... YOU CAN PUT CHARLES IN THE GAME MORE AND RUN CHARLES LESS, WHICH MEANS YOU ARE PUTTING THE BALL IN MATT CASSEL'S HANDS

So again, tell me why his season-ending carry total is irrelevant. Your approach is suggesting he run the ball 300-350 times.

jesus god


i had no idea you were this fucking dense.

i'd have more luck conversing with hootie while he is peeing on himself...

-King-
09-22-2010, 06:53 PM
THIS THREAD HAS A LOT OF YELLING IN IT!

I THINK I WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE TREND!
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

CARRIES! CARRIES! CARRIES!!! TAKE THAT TALKING CAN

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 06:56 PM
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGU0rpsrCtK0-T6unlFlhO4biMKe-st5bQw-66jULeYpgjl-Q&t=1&usg=__u3XdjntfAcFniIXlYkYtnCKXxmY=

threebag02
09-22-2010, 06:56 PM
This deserved its own thread.

And it got one.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 06:59 PM
jesus god


i had no idea you were this ****ing dense.

i'd have more luck conversing with hootie while he is peeing on himself...

Pretty easy to make a comment like that when you continually dodge the question.

How do you propose that the Chiefs keep Jamaal Charles on the field and keep his carries to less than 300? That's all I am asking you to answer. Or are you suggesting he should get well over 300?

threebag02
09-22-2010, 07:00 PM
jesus god

i'd have more luck conversing with hootie while he is peeing on himself...

Uh you wouldn't be "tote'in the rock" would you?

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 07:05 PM
Pretty easy to make a comment like that when you continually dodge the question.

How do you propose that the Chiefs keep Jamaal Charles on the field and keep his carries to less than 300? That's all I am asking you to answer. Or are you suggesting he should get well over 300?
18 carries for 16 games = 288 carries. BOOM, ROASTED

Three7s
09-22-2010, 07:08 PM
This thread is entertaining!

Seriously though, all we ask for Charles is between 15-20 carries a game. Is that so much?!

DeezNutz
09-22-2010, 07:11 PM
you don't sit your best offense player on the bench for the first quarter of games when your QB is a laughing stock and your offense can't score touchdowns....

Charles tore the league a new a-hole last year, on a worse team....

CP: Where posters argue against this point.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 07:16 PM
18 carries for 16 games = 288 carries. BOOM, ROASTED

That's all I asked for.

But here's where the discussion gets interesting. What's more ideal? That you give Charles a measley 18 carries per game? Or that you give him 25 in game where matchups are ideal and 10-15 when the matchups are not? I'd rather a consistent diet of 18/game. But again, I'm pointing out that there's some logic that rather than be conservative on carries with Charles in every single game, why not heavy up on carries in games where we believe he either has a great matchup or has a significantly better matchup than Jones?

DeezNutz
09-22-2010, 07:19 PM
Charles should be inactive this Sunday because the 49er's are mean, especially that Patrick Willis poopy head.

beach tribe
09-22-2010, 07:21 PM
This thread is entertaining!

Seriously though, all we ask for Charles is between 15-20 carries a game. Is that so much?!

Not at all. I'm praying for season #s of 275 carries at 5.5 a pop, 38 catches at 7.5. That's 1800 all purpose yards, and a 190lb lightning back with lightning still in the bottle.

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 07:21 PM
That's all I asked for.

But here's where the discussion gets interesting. What's more ideal? That you give Charles a measley 18 carries per game? Or that you give him 25 in game where matchups are ideal and 10-15 when the matchups are not? I'd rather a consistent diet of 18/game. But again, I'm pointing out that there's some logic that rather than be conservative on carries with Charles in every single game, why not heavy up on carries in games where we believe he either has a great matchup or has a significantly better matchup than Jones?
Give Charles the 60 on a 60-40 split. Period.

keg in kc
09-22-2010, 07:22 PM
Good luck trying to convince anybody of that.Guess it didn't get through the first time.

the Talking Can
09-22-2010, 07:23 PM
Pretty easy to make a comment like that when you continually dodge the question.

How do you propose that the Chiefs keep Jamaal Charles on the field and keep his carries to less than 300? That's all I am asking you to answer. Or are you suggesting he should get well over 300?

ROFL

dude

i have no idea how to use english to communicate with you

i'm not talking about the number of carries..this is the 5th fucking time you've brought up a number that i don't give a shit about

i can pull my hair out, cry, go pee on hootie...but i can't make you understand the words that are coming out of my fucking mouth...

FAX
09-22-2010, 07:27 PM
Well, there you go.


http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?sport=NFL&id=4617&line=182997&spln=1

Jamaal Charles: Chiefs' carry distribution is matchup based
Jamaal Charles - RB - KC - Sep. 22 - 5:23 pm et

Coach Todd Haley indicated Wednesday that the Chiefs' carry distribution will be matchup-based moving forward.
"This is a fluid game with a lot of variables," he said. "We saw some weather in the first game and different situations in the second. You must be able to adjust in the way that you see fit." Haley may have decided to feature Thomas Jones in Week 2 based on the Browns' weaknesses up the gut. If the logic holds, Jamaal Charles would likely be featured against San Francisco's stout interior. The 49ers' defense figures to be more vulnerable on the perimeter. Sep. 22 - 5:23 pm et
Source: kcchiefs.com

First off, I want to make it perfectly clear that I think Jamaal Charles should get more carries.

Second off, I just listened to the press conference and Haley did say the bolded part. He did not say all the other stuff ... it's just total speculation on the part of somebody at kcchiefs.com.

Also, Haley did not say anything at all about the Charles and Jones contributions being "matchup-based".

FAX

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:27 PM
I think it's simple. Game one Haley was guarding against the turnover which Charles has a tendancy to do.

Game two there was no outside running. And that being said, until it came down to time where we were running out the clock, Jones had 4 more touches than Charles.

Charles is getting in the game. The problem is two fold...

1. We can't keep the ball long enough to extend opportunities for Charles or Jones for that matter

2. When he is in the game other teams are keying on him and we play right into it

Until Cassel can start converting 3rd and 4 - 3rd and 6 both of our backs are going to be limitied simply because we won't have the ball.

beach tribe
09-22-2010, 07:27 PM
I have A LOT of Faith in Haley. I think he knows how to push the right buttons, and keep players hungry.
Hell DJ is in a contract year, and is playing as if Haley will sit his ass on the bench in front of the entire check writing league if he doesn't play to his potential. I wonder why he would think such a thing.
Not saying Charles' situation is the same, but I do think that a lot of thought went into how this situation is being handled, and that Charles will benefit greatly from how it unfolds. I expect JC to have a HUGE second half of the season.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 07:28 PM
Give Charles the 60 on a 60-40 split. Period.

So let's say you're playing in a shootout. The Chiefs have run Jamaal Charles all game long and have been getting 10 yard gains pretty consistently. And it's because the defense you're facing is not very good against the outside run. Because Charles has had so much success running the ball, he's up to 25 carries. Do you take the ball out of his hands because he's past the 15-20 carry limit? If it's me, I'm letting him get 30+ carries so we can win the game.

But I also realize that if you give him 30 in one game, you have to give him 10 in another. If the Chiefs are truly going matchup-based (and it's not just coachspeak), then you're saying that in games where Jones has a favorable matchup, then we can keep Charles' carries light so that we can heavy up on Charles carries when the Chiefs really need him most. If.

aturnis
09-22-2010, 07:30 PM
This deserved its own thread.

This deserved it's own post?

Of course it deserved it's own thread. Why wouldn't it? This has been a hot topic of discussion for months, and even more lately. Has many threads and this one should answer everyone's question without having to get to that right thread at the right time.

You guys annoy me. I'd rather have a new thread for every new "important" bit of info. I will NEVER NEVER NEVER check EVERY fucking thread, ALL the time. I don't have that much time. I have a job, a family, friends, and a whole damn list of shit to do. Not to mention I've got a kid on the way in less than a month. I'm guessing most of the board probably feels about the same.

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 07:30 PM
So let's say you're playing in a shootout. The Chiefs have run Jamaal Charles all game long and have been getting 10 yard gains pretty consistently. And it's because the defense you're facing is not very good against the outside run. Because Charles has had so much success running the ball, he's up to 25 carries. Do you take the ball out of his hands because he's past the 15-20 carry limit? If it's me, I'm letting him get 30+ carries so we can win the game.

But I also realize that if you give him 30 in one game, you have to give him 10 in another. If the Chiefs are truly going matchup-based (and it's not just coachspeak), then you're saying that in games where Jones has a favorable matchup, then we can keep Charles' carries light so that we can heavy up on Charles carries when the Chiefs really need him most. If.
I can allow for a true, significant matchup-dependant change in who gets how many carries. Whatever helps the team.

What is going on now does not help the team.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 07:33 PM
ROFL

dude

i have no idea how to use english to communicate with you

i'm not talking about the number of carries..this is the 5th ****ing time you've brought up a number that i don't give a shit about

i can pull my hair out, cry, go pee on hootie...but i can't make you understand the words that are coming out of my ****ing mouth...

Then please tell me what you're trying to say. Because you said the Chiefs need to put Jamaal Charles in the game a lot more and not rot on the bench. Tell me if I have any of that wrong.

And I'm saying that means you either have to give him a lot more carries OR if you don't want to give him more carries, then you have to ask Cassel to throw a lot more passes.

Please tell me what I'm getting wrong here?

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:33 PM
I can allow for a true, significant matchup-dependant change in who gets how many carries. Whatever helps the team.

What is going on now does not help the team.

What's going on now is when JC gets in the game the defense knows he is getting the ball and we play right into it. I lay that on Cassel and\or the coaches. I saw plenty of times in the last game where they had 9 guys in the box and we still ran it. Cassel has to check out of those. I don't care if he throws the ball 40 yards incomplete, send the fucking message.

But constantly running JC into 8 and 9 man fronts when the defense knows he is going to get the ball is not going to do us any good at all.

aturnis
09-22-2010, 07:34 PM
Two things, this shouldnt be a new thread, instead just posted in the current discussion going on about this very thing in the other thread...the other is that if we belive that (with the 49ers backers) they are vulnerable on the perimeters, we are smooking crack IMO...I may be wrong.

Gotta disagree Boss. This important bit of info which could stop half of us asses from arguing at all, would be buried in a 10+ page thread(that's set on 50 posts per page). I would never know about it if it hadn't been for this thread.

keg in kc
09-22-2010, 07:35 PM
This deserved it's own post?

Of course it deserved it's own thread. Why wouldn't it? This has been a hot topic of discussion for months, and even more lately. Has many threads and this one should answer everyone's question without having to get to that right thread at the right time.

You guys annoy me. I'd rather have a new thread for every new "important" bit of info. I will NEVER NEVER NEVER check EVERY ****ing thread, ALL the time. I don't have that much time. I have a job, a family, friends, and a whole damn list of shit to do. Not to mention I've got a kid on the way in less than a month. I'm guessing most of the board probably feels about the same.Oh yes, I'm sure that most of the board feels that this needed a new thread. The other three aren't enough. And this is such a new and unique idea.

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 07:36 PM
What's going on now is when JC gets in the game the defense knows he is getting the ball and we play right into it. I lay that on Cassel and\or the coaches. I saw plenty of times in the last game where they had 9 guys in the box and we still ran it. Cassel has to check out of those. I don't care if he throws the ball 40 yards incomplete, send the fucking message.

But constantly running JC into 8 and 9 man fronts when the defense knows he is going to get the ball is not going to do us any good at all.
Almost all of that is because of how Charles is used. If he were the primary back like he should be then he'd be in on passing downs and for play action and for passing plays. If he were the primary back then the defense wouldn't know that every Charles huddle means a run play is coming up.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 07:36 PM
I can allow for a true, significant matchup-dependant change in who gets how many carries. Whatever helps the team.

What is going on now does not help the team.

It depends on how you look at it.

If conserving Charles' carries today gives him a better chance to give him a ton of carries for tomorrow's game where we need him more, then you could argue that in the long-term, it did help the team. Against Cleveland, you're not that worried about that team beating you in a shootout.

I don't know what's right or what's wrong. But if the Chiefs are truly going matchup-based, then that's the argument you'd make.

Rausch
09-22-2010, 07:38 PM
Gotta disagree Boss. This important bit of info which could stop half of us asses from arguing at all, would be buried in a 10+ page thread(that's set on 50 posts per page). I would never know about it if it hadn't been for this thread.

Really?


Fucking, honestly?...

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 07:39 PM
Almost all of that is because of how Charles is used. If he were the primary back like he should be then he'd be in on passing downs and for play action and for passing plays. If he were the primary back then the defense wouldn't know that every Charles huddle means a run play is coming up.

Yeah, I can buy that. I have seen him split out quite a bit when he's in the game, so I don't necessarily agree that they're telegraphing the run. But he should definitely see more "off-carry" downs.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:40 PM
Almost all of that is because of how Charles is used. If he were the primary back like he should be then he'd be in on passing downs and for play action and for passing plays. If he were the primary back then the defense wouldn't know that every Charles huddle means a run play is coming up.

My guess anyway is he is not being used on passing downs a lot because TJ is the better pass blocker.

Sully
09-22-2010, 07:41 PM
I love lamp.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 07:41 PM
First off, I want to make it perfectly clear that I think Jamaal Charles should get more carries.

Second off, I just listened to the press conference and Haley did say the bolded part. He did not say all the other stuff ... it's just total speculation on the part of somebody at kcchiefs.com.

Also, Haley did not say anything at all about the Charles and Jones contributions being "matchup-based".

FAX

Well, I would hope they wouldn't write a bold statement like that if it wasn't said, even if only paraphrased. If that was an interpretation based on that comment, it's reckless journalism. I just assumed he was paraphrasing.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:41 PM
Yeah, I can buy that. I have seen him split out quite a bit when he's in the game, so I don't necessarily agree that they're telegraphing the run. But he should definitely see more "off-carry" downs.

We threw to him once last game and didn't run one screen. The playcalling the last game was terrible.

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 07:43 PM
It depends on how you look at it.

If conserving Charles' carries today gives him a better chance to give him a ton of carries for tomorrow's game where we need him more, then you could argue that in the long-term, it did help the team. Against Cleveland, you're not that worried about that team beating you in a shootout.

I don't know what's right or what's wrong. But if the Chiefs are truly going matchup-based, then that's the argument you'd make.
The Jones-first strategy produced zero offensive touchdowns against the Browns. None. ZERO. That strategy WAS NOT HELPING.

LaChapelle
09-22-2010, 07:43 PM
You ladies have been on the rag for two weeks now
since a doctor isn't present
tube socks may be too rough on the tender parts

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:45 PM
The Jones-first strategy produced zero offensive touchdowns against the Browns. None. ZERO. That strategy WAS NOT HELPING.

Didn't help that our QB threw 2 picks and couldn't otherwise convert a 3rd down pass until late in the game.

Rausch
09-22-2010, 07:45 PM
You ladies have been on the rag for two weeks now
since a doctor

Since a doctor......what?

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 07:50 PM
Didn't help that our QB threw 2 picks and couldn't otherwise convert a 3rd down pass until late in the game.
Cassel is terrible. This is undeniable. So the question becomes this: if your QB is a hindrance to your team's ability to score offensive points, then should your most explosive offensive player then be featured more to help balance that out? Or, inexplicably, not?

sedated
09-22-2010, 07:51 PM
The Jones-first strategy produced zero offensive touchdowns against the Browns. None. ZERO. That strategy WAS NOT HELPING.

it wasn't a whole lot better when Charles was in there.


I wanted to see Charles as much as everyone, but Jones really seemed to do better in that game, and I'm not going to have an aneurysm just because one guy got 10 more carries in one game.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:52 PM
Cassel is terrible. This is undeniable. So the question becomes this: if your QB is a hindrance to your team's ability to score offensive points, then should your most explosive offensive player then be featured more to help balance that out? Or, inexplicably, not?

Well, let me ask you, what RB is going to to have consistent success running into 8-10 man fronts? While the running game can help the passing game it has to have a passing game to help. And vice-versa.

FAX
09-22-2010, 07:52 PM
Well, I would hope they wouldn't write a bold statement like that if it wasn't said, even if only paraphrased. If that was an interpretation based on that comment, it's reckless journalism. I just assumed he was paraphrasing.

Nope. Didn't say it.

Nothing about "matchup-based" anything. He talked about how they determined who would suit up, who would take the field, who would get the ball, etc.

Nothing about deciding to play Jones because the Browns' defense was considered to be weak in the middle. Nothing about attacking the "edges" against the 49rs.

In other words, this thread is predicated on nothing. It is utterly and completely worthless with a value similar to that of lizard boogers.

Sorry, Mr. chiefzilla1501. Hate to be the one to break it to you, man.

FAX

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 07:53 PM
it wasn't a whole lot better when Charles was in there.


I wanted to see Charles as much as everyone, but Jones really seemed to do better in that game, and I'm not going to have an aneurysm just because one guy got 10 more carries in one game.
How many times am I going to have to claim that if Charles was ineffective to any extent against the Browns then it was directly because of how he was used?

DeezNutz
09-22-2010, 07:54 PM
Nope. Didn't say it.

Nothing about "matchup-based" anything. He talked about how they determined who would suit up, who would take the field, who would get the ball, etc.

Nothing about deciding to play Jones because the Browns' defense was considered to be weak in the middle. Nothing about attacking the "edges" against the 49rs.

In other words, this thread is predicated on nothing. It is utterly and completely worthless with a value similar to that of lizard boogers.

Sorry, Mr. chiefzilla1501. Hate to be the one to break it to you, man.

FAX

Sweet! FAX says that we can keep arguing.

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 07:54 PM
Well, let me ask you, what RB is going to to have consistent success running into 8-10 man fronts? While the running game can help the passing game it has to have a passing game to help. And vice-versa.
No running back will be consistently successful doing that. But they sure put more guys in the box for Charles. And that does help the odds of a completed pass.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 07:55 PM
The Jones-first strategy produced zero offensive touchdowns against the Browns. None. ZERO. That strategy WAS NOT HELPING.

But again, the question I'm asking is, does conserving Charles today give us the opportunity to heavy up on Charles in another game when we'd need him more? It could be like saving your money in a piggy bank--you could either spend $18 a week for 16 weeks, or you can save $10 when you don't need it so you can spend $30 the week you really need it.

The Jones-first strategy didn't lead to any offensive TDs. But we're talking about a team we didn't expect to put up a ton of points. I just wonder if the strategy, as someone else pointed out, is to use Charles less in defensive battles and to use more Charles when we might have to play in a shootout.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-22-2010, 07:56 PM
Watching NLFN Replay of MNF, it's obvious as all fuck that Charles and McCluster need to be the featured running weapons in this game.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:56 PM
No running back will be consistently successful doing that. But they sure put more guys in the box for Charles. And that does help the odds of a completed pass.

Only if the QB is smart enough to check out of the run and pass the fucking ball. I don't know if Cassel can't do it or what but something has to change there.

FAX
09-22-2010, 07:56 PM
Piggy bank?

FAX

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 07:56 PM
But again, the question I'm asking is, does conserving Charles today give us the opportunity to heavy up on Charles in another game when we'd need him more? It could be like saving your money in a piggy bank--you could either spend $18 a week for 16 weeks, or you can save $10 when you don't need it so you can spend $30 the week you really need it.

The Jones-first strategy didn't lead to any offensive TDs. But we're talking about a team we didn't expect to put up a ton of points. I just wonder if the strategy, as someone else pointed out, is to use Charles less in defensive battles and to use more Charles when we might have to play in a shootout.
I don't really give a shit about the difference between 290 carries and 310 carries. Or whatever.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:01 PM
I don't really give a shit about the difference between 290 carries and 310 carries. Or whatever.

I'd lay money right now that in a close game where a turnover could cost us that the coaches are going to go with Jones, right or wrong, that is what I think their mentality is at the time.

LaChapelle
09-22-2010, 08:03 PM
Charles will play more and they well get their asses kicked
Sunday night will be primetime Chiefsplanet

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 08:04 PM
I don't really give a shit about the difference between 290 carries and 310 carries. Or whatever.

When you're talking about 300+ carries, I would start taking carry totals very serious for a guy like Charles who is just coming off of surgery. And is small to begin with.

That's your opinion and I respect it. But if getting 10 carries today makes me feel comfortable giving him 30-35 carries in a game where he is clearly needed to do that, then I can understand the approach. Again, it's not the move I'd make. But I understand it.

DeezNutz
09-22-2010, 08:04 PM
If we don't play Charles this Sunday, we can give him an extra 1.2 carries per game for the rest of the season, which might be best.

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 08:06 PM
If we don't play Charles this Sunday, we can give him an extra 1.2 carries per game for the rest of the season, which might be best.

If Jones doesn't get 20+ carries this week despite it being a bye week and despite a very unfavorable matchup for Jones in the middle, there better be some 'splaining to do.

wazu
09-22-2010, 08:15 PM
This absolutely deserved it's own thread. I am being serious. It's a new explanation offered by Haley of why he is acting like an insane, crack-smoking, fool when it comes to deciding which RB to give the ball to. I'm not going to stay on the same thread for 15 pages just watching people bitch about the same topic with no new information, or if there is new information, it's added on some page between 1 and 15 and I have to hope I can backtrack and find it.

New information, relevant quotes, etc, about key topics deserve to have new threads.

FAX
09-22-2010, 08:20 PM
This absolutely deserved it's own thread. I am being serious. It's a new explanation offered by Haley of why he is acting like an insane, crack-smoking, fool when it comes to deciding which RB to give the ball to. I'm not going to stay on the same thread for 15 pages just watching people bitch about the same topic with no new information, or if there is new information, it's added on some page between 1 and 15 and I have to hope I can backtrack and find it.

New information, relevant quotes, etc, about key topics deserve to have new threads.

Actually (and as was pointed out earlier by one of ChiefsPlanet's most fabulous posters), almost nothing in the OP was actually said by Haley or anyone else in the Chiefs organization, Mr. Adam.

FAX

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 08:24 PM
Matchups.

ROFL

Seriously?

Sully
09-22-2010, 08:25 PM
There was a play on Sunday where we lined up, and Richardsom started patting his left ass cheek pretty excitedly. I start thinking, "He sees something over there that can really open up!" the play was zone left, and sure enough, Richardson washed down his guy and opened up a huge cutback. Charles, however, had run too far without making his cut read, tried too late to cut back, and was stuffed at the line.
Just one play, but I look at his circumstances, and look at the fact that in the MNF game on one play he didn't know it was fourth down, and add that to Haley's preseason comment, "He's Starting to get it."
It seems this may, in addition to being a game plan situation, also be a situation where they want Charles to be more consistently reliable. They may want some consistent "good" runs to go along with his "holy fucking shit!!!" runs. It may be a little like the DJ situation.
Do I think he should be involved earlier?
Yeah.
But at this point I refuse to subscribe to the belief that Haley and Weis don't know what they are doing.

LaChapelle
09-22-2010, 08:30 PM
feelings
GET IN TOUCH WITH 'EM

wazu
09-22-2010, 08:35 PM
Actually (and as was pointed out earlier by one of ChiefsPlanet's most fabulous posters), almost nothing in the OP was actually said by Haley or anyone else in the Chiefs organization, Mr. Adam.

FAX

Okay, so it maybe a debatable article, but it is at least a new explanation that I really haven't seen put forth anywhere, and it makes it appear that they are attributing it to Haley as that is what he meant.

Just generally think the sensitivity levels here are a little bit high to what is "threadworthy". Honestly, once an old thread gets past two or three pages, I generally just assume it's an off topic flamewar and look for other threads.

ClevelandBronco
09-22-2010, 08:44 PM
Coincidentally, Charles's and Jones's barbecue sauces are ketchup-based.

FAX
09-22-2010, 09:12 PM
Okay, so it maybe a debatable article, but it is at least a new explanation that I really haven't seen put forth anywhere, and it makes it appear that they are attributing it to Haley as that is what he meant.

Just generally think the sensitivity levels here are a little bit high to what is "threadworthy". Honestly, once an old thread gets past two or three pages, I generally just assume it's an off topic flamewar and look for other threads.

I understand about the flamewar/long-thread problem, Mr. Adam. I, too, suffer from long-thread, flamewar aversion.

However, I've observed a troubling trend over the past couple of weeks in which mentally disturbed posters of questionable parentage are posting threads presented as "news" which are, in fact, not "news" ... or, at least, not factual.

In this case, it's merely unsubstantiated speculation and blatant falsehoods and petty lies intended to rile the innocent Chiefs fan into a blood-thirsty frenzy. Personally, I think it's a conspiracy initiated by a secret society of professional panty straighteners who realize a windfall of bunched-up panties by the time the thread hits the second page.

FAX

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-22-2010, 09:40 PM
Regardless of what you think about who should get the workload, or whether it matters, Todd Haley is completely full of shit on this issue.

When asked, during the preseason, on why the depth chart was the way it was, he said that if one back clearly had a better YPC, he'd play that guy. It was on August 23. I remember listening to it live.


Todd Haley: "My father told me a long-time ago about an unnamed player, ‘We’ve got this guy who’s starting who’s averaging 3.5 yards per carry and then you’ve got this guy on the bench who’s averaging 22 yards per carry in the preseason. Wouldn’t you put him in until the average went down a little bit? At least keep him in there until he’s not averaging 22 yards.’ That makes sense to me. That’s common sense."

OnTheWarpath58
09-23-2010, 12:05 AM
Regardless of what you think about who should get the workload, or whether it matters, Todd Haley is completely full of shit on this issue.

When asked, during the preseason, on why the depth chart was the way it was, he said that if one back clearly had a better YPC, he'd play that guy. It was on August 23. I remember listening to it live.


Todd Haley: "My father told me a long-time ago about an unnamed player, ‘We’ve got this guy who’s starting who’s averaging 3.5 yards per carry and then you’ve got this guy on the bench who’s averaging 22 yards per carry in the preseason. Wouldn’t you put him in until the average went down a little bit? At least keep him in there until he’s not averaging 22 yards.’ That makes sense to me. That’s common sense."


Did Dick tell him that the long runs by the guy averaging 22 didn't count?

CaliforniaChief
09-23-2010, 12:32 AM
There's a complicated formula we aren't grasping.

6.5 YPC - Never played for the Patriots/Jets/Cardinals < 4.5 YPC

johnny961
09-23-2010, 01:55 AM
But at this point I refuse to subscribe to the belief that Haley and Weis don't know what they are doing.

You've got a point here. Weis has coached exactly 2 regular season games for us and is already getting tossed under the bus by some. I don't agree with some of the playcalls the last couple of games but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. At least a little more time to work the bugs out of our system before declaring him a failure.

Detoxing
09-23-2010, 10:56 AM
Jamal Charles Needs more carries

siberian khatru
09-23-2010, 10:58 AM
Jamal Charles Needs more carries

That would make a GREAT thread.

Detoxing
09-23-2010, 10:59 AM
That would make a GREAT thread.

That's a good point. Should I start one? I haven't seen one on the front page....so I guess I should?

siberian khatru
09-23-2010, 11:01 AM
That's a good point. Should I start one? I haven't seen one on the front page....so I guess I should?

Carpe diem

ct
09-23-2010, 12:01 PM
The question is, though, if you're hoping to get Charles about 250 carries a year, would you rather 10 games with 20 carries? Or 16 games with 15 carries?

this

Bob Dole
09-23-2010, 12:30 PM
Bob Dole kind of enjoys this mashup, Todd.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TYa7furgQsA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TYa7furgQsA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-23-2010, 12:31 PM
Bob Dole kind of enjoys this mashup, Todd.

<object height="385" width="480">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TYa7furgQsA?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

Brubeck needs more carries.

King_Chief_Fan
09-23-2010, 01:43 PM
I wonder when the know it all fuckers are going to get the HC and OC role?

KC Tattoo
09-23-2010, 05:03 PM
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/of-57Ivfwz8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/of-57Ivfwz8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

TOUCHDOWN!!!!