PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs RB Carries and why Cassel is the problem


petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:21 PM
Why is Chales not getting more carries? The opportunites really are not there...

Top 5 RB's for carries so far in 2 games

Foster 52
Williams 49
McFadded 48
Peterson 47
Mendenhall 45


Jones + Charles = 55
All 5 of the teams with the top 5 RB carries have more ToP than the Chiefs.

When you get down to it, regardless of who is carrying the ball, the fact we have a total of 55 carries between our 2 backs is pathetic.

We are 6 of 26 on 3rd down conversions. We are 30th in 1st downs per game. We are averaging 4.4 yards per play which is 27th.

Cassel has a scant 4.9 yards per pass making him 30th in the league.


What it comes down too is the fact that our QB cannot keep drives moving. We are 15th in 3rd down attempts. We are 9th in YPC at 4.2

Therefore it is clearly obvious, since we can't run the ball every ****ing down, that Cassel is limiting overall touches for both Charles and Jones.

DeezNutz
09-22-2010, 07:22 PM
I was wondering where I might be able to discuss the RB situation.

loochy
09-22-2010, 07:22 PM
Wait....Charles isn't getting carries? This is the first I've heard about that...

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:23 PM
I was wondering where I might be able to discuss the RB situation.

I felt we needed another thread....there wasn't enough discussion about Charles and Jones carrying the ball.

DeezNutz
09-22-2010, 07:23 PM
Are we suggesting that Cassel sucks? That seems unlikely since Pioli knows him better than anyone, and he handpicked him to be our QB.

Baconeater
09-22-2010, 07:24 PM
Wouldn't it have been easier to simply say Cassel sucks?

loochy
09-22-2010, 07:24 PM
Are we suggesting that Cassel sucks? That seems unlikely since Pioli knows him better than anyone, and he handpicked him to be our QB.

Also, anyone with a last name that sounds like CASTLE has to be good because castles are good, right?

FAX
09-22-2010, 07:24 PM
Where do we rank in third down conversions, I wonder?

Oh ... and Charles should get more carries.

FAX

loochy
09-22-2010, 07:25 PM
Wouldn't it have been easier to simply say Cassel sucks?

Please refer to the *** The Official "How Many Times Can You Say The Same Thing?" Thread ***

BillSelfsTrophycase
09-22-2010, 07:25 PM
Cassel sucks

(can't be said enough)

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:27 PM
Are we suggesting that Cassel sucks? That seems unlikely since Pioli knows him better than anyone, and he handpicked him to be our QB.

Well, yes. But the point is that to argue that Jones is being favored of Charles is slightly misleading. Now if Jones were carrying the ball 30 times a game and Charles 10 then we have an issue.

The fact I keep hearing get skipped over here and on sports radio is that our QB is not converting to keep drives going. That to me is the biggest part of the equation on why Charles is being limited on carries. As I said, we can't run the ball every down and Charles is not going to carry the ball for 5-10 yards a carry to avoid having to pass. Neither is Jones.

So if we want to blame anyone about Charles not carrying the ball enough, start with the QB.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:28 PM
Where do we rank in third down conversions, I wonder?

Oh ... and Charles should get more carries.

FAX

We are 30th in 3rd down conversions, Mr. Fax

DeezNutz
09-22-2010, 07:29 PM
Well, yes. But the point is that to argue that Jones is being favored of Charles is slightly misleading. Now if Jones were carrying the ball 30 times a game and Charles 10 then we have an issue.

The fact I keep hearing get skipped over here and on sports radio is that our QB is not converting to keep drives going. That to me is the biggest part of the equation on why Charles is being limited on carries. As I said, we can't run the ball every down and Charles is not going to carry the ball for 5-10 yards a carry to avoid having to pass. Neither is Jones.

So if we want to blame anyone about Charles not carrying the ball enough, start with the QB.

What if, now stay with me for a minute, Charles started the game? Could this be helpful in getting him the ball?

As an aside: 22-11 is ok. 30-10 = problem?

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 07:31 PM
Nothing like trying to make a retarded point, and not even get the facts straight while doing so.

Jones and Charles have 55 carries between them, not 44.

33 for Jones, 22 for Charles.

That's 22.5 rushes a game, and if Charles was getting 14-15 of those while Jones was getting 7-8, this wouldn't be a discussion.

Cassel's a POS, no debating that.

But to say that opportunities aren't there?

Retarded.

You wanna know why we aren't converting drives?

Because our lone playmaker on offense touches the ball 12 times per game.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:32 PM
What if, now stay with me for a minute, Charles started the game? Could this be helpful in getting him the ball?

As an aside: 22-11 is ok. 30-10 = problem?

We are averaging 4.2 yards a carry. And again, I know you don't like it, but the simple fact is 6 of the 22 caries Jones got were inside 6 minutes to go when we were running out the clock. And to correct you, Charles had 12 touches, 11 carries, 1 rec.

If Charles started the game I don't see us making any difference until our QB can convert 3rd downs. We are 5th overall in rushing. So the problem is not the running game. The problem is we can't keep drives going because of the lack of a passing game.

DeezNutz
09-22-2010, 07:34 PM
We are averaging 4.2 yards a carry. And again, I know you don't like it, but the simple fact is 6 of the 22 caries Jones got were inside 6 minutes to go when we were running out the clock. And to correct you, Charles had 12 touches, 11 carries, 1 rec.

If Charles started the game I don't see us making any difference until our QB can convert 3rd downs. We are 5th overall in rushing. So the problem is not the running game. The problem is we can't keep drives going because of the lack of a passing game.

Correcting me why? Jones had 22 carries. Charles had 11. Let's keep the parameters equal for a minute. Moving the discussion to touches is tangential.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:34 PM
Nothing like trying to make a retarded point, and not even get the facts straight while doing so.

Jones and Charles have 55 carries between them, not 44.

33 for Jones, 22 for Charles.

That's 22.5 rushes a game, and if Charles was getting 14-15 of those while Jones was getting 7-8, this wouldn't be a discussion.

Cassel's a POS, no debating that.

But to say that opportunities aren't there?

Retarded.

You wanna know why we aren't converting drives?

Because our lone playmaker on offense touches the ball 12 times per game.

Yes, you are right, my math was off on the total carries. My bad on that. But that doesn't change the facts. And I don't believe that Charles can carry the ball every down and consistently get us 1st downs. We have to convert in the passing game. Particularly when teams are playing the run against us. Cassel has to be able to complete a 6 yard pass or I don't think even if you reverse the carries between Charles and Jones you are going to see a huge difference.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:35 PM
Correcting me where? Jones had 22 carries. Charles had 11. Let's keep the parameters equal for a minute.

Well I look at touches when it gets down to it. And we do need to get Charles the ball more in screens and other passing routes besides just handing the ball off to him every time which defenses have come to expect.

keg in kc
09-22-2010, 07:36 PM
We really needed another thread.

We also really need more than 22.5 carries/game.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:37 PM
We really needed another thread.

We also really need more than 22.5 carries/game.

This is my point and the problem.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 07:38 PM
Anyone else think it would be easier for the QB to convert 3rd and 1 instead of 3rd and 8?

I could be WAY off base here, but I'm betting the guy averaging over 6 yards a carry has a better chance of putting us in 3rd and short (or making sure we don't see 3rd down to begin with) than the guy averaging 3 yards and some change.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 07:39 PM
We really needed another thread.

We also really need more than 22.5 carries/game.

This is my point and the problem.

Blame Weis.

There's no reason for Cassel to be throwing the ball 25 times a game.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:40 PM
Anyone else think it would be easier for the QB to convert 3rd and 1 instead of 3rd and 8?

I could be WAY off base here, but I'm betting the guy averaging over 6 yards a carry has a better chance of putting us in 3rd and short (or making sure we don't see 3rd down to begin with) than the guy averaging 3 yards and some change.

Are we still talking about Cassel? Because 3rd and 1 might as well be 3rd and 8 if you are going to ask him to pass.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:41 PM
Blame Weis.

There's no reason for Cassel to be throwing the ball 25 times a game.

I don't blame Weis all that much but he is not without some blame. I do blame a QB that can't throw the ball for 5 yards to pick up a 1st down consistently.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 07:41 PM
Are we still talking about Cassel? Because 3rd and 1 might as well be 3rd and 8 if you are going to ask him to pass.

Comments like this and the fact you can't even get the stats right for your own argument is why no one takes your opinion seriously.

Newsflash, Pete:

The great thing about 3rd and short?

You don't HAVE to pass.

go bowe
09-22-2010, 07:41 PM
charles has to pass more...

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:43 PM
Comments like this and the fact you can't even get the stats right for your own argument is why no one takes your opinion seriously.

Newsflash, Pete:

The great thing about 3rd and short?

You don't HAVE to pass.

If that's the case then why are we 6/26 on 3rd down? I can even remember a few people during the game Sunday saying how bad we such on 3rd and short.

go bowe
09-22-2010, 07:43 PM
Comments like this and the fact you can't even get the stats right for your own argument is why no one takes your opinion seriously.

Newsflash, Pete:

The great thing about 3rd and short?

You don't HAVE to pass.boy, am i glad to hear that...

cassel sucks...

go bowe
09-22-2010, 07:45 PM
If that's the case then why are we 6/26 on 3rd down? because we're usually faced with a 3rd and 22 situation...

why can't charles pass more?

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:48 PM
because we're usually faced with a 3rd and 22 situation...

why can't charles pass more?

I wish I could find the stat for the average distance we have to go on 3rd down. Needless to say that since somehow Cassel has only been sacked what, twice? that we cannot convert the 3rd and short and 3rd and medium

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 07:50 PM
Blame Weis.

There's no reason for Cassel to be throwing the ball 25 times a game.

Actually there is. If the D is stacking the box you have to throw to get them to back off. This is all about Cassel and the lack of respect he gets from defenses.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 07:54 PM
If that's the case then why are we 6/26 on 3rd down? I can even remember a few people during the game Sunday saying how bad we such on 3rd and short.

Two things:

Constantly being in 3rd and long, and shitty playcalling.

Here's every 3rd down attempt from the SD game:

8 to go: DNC (did not convert)

8 to go: DNC

4 to go: DNC - Stupid play call - draw called on back-to back plays

8 to go: DNC

4 to go: DNC - Pass inc.

10 to go: DNC

4 to go: DNC - Pass inc.

9 to go: DNC - Run play on 3rd and fucking 9.

3 to go: Converted via pass

20 to go: DNC

3 to go: DNC - Run play from shotgun


So of their 11 3rd downs, 5 were short conversions.

1 of those 5 we converted.

2 of those 5 were retarded play calls

2 of the 5 were incomplete passes.


I see a trend here, and it's not the QB.

It's that we're in 3rd and long too much.

Wonder why?

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 07:55 PM
Actually there is. If the D is stacking the box you have to throw to get them to back off. This is all about Cassel and the lack of respect he gets from defenses.

Yeah, all that stacking the box last year - and this year, for that matter - is really shutting down Jamaal.

The only change this year?

He's not getting the ball as much.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 07:56 PM
because we're usually faced with a 3rd and 22 situation...

why can't charles pass more?

Here is what we faced in the Cleveland game...

3rd 6, punt
3rd 4, FG
3rd 6, punt
3rd 6, punt
3rd 2, punt
3rd 1, FG
3rd 1, punt
3rd 5, punt
3rd 2, punt


Those are the 3rd downs we could not convert. Nothing past 6 yards.

Renegade
09-22-2010, 07:57 PM
I can't imagine how much Chiefs fans would complain IF we ever won the SB.

I can see it now,

(CP) QB only threw for 175 yards and one TD. RB's had only had 20 carries the whole game.

(Rest of the NFL) Congrats on your SB win, it has been a long time coming, you deserved this win

(CP) Yeah whatever, did see our stats, we SUCKED @$$

I am thrilled that we have started out 2-0, I don't care how we got there, a win is a win no matter how you slice it. We only have to win 4 more games to match our win total for the last 2 years COMBINED, and 8 (yes that is a stretch) to match our win total for the last 3 years combined. Yes we have problems, but we are in much better shape than when DV and Herm have left us in this mess. I agree that QB will be our Achilles heel, but even if we had St. Manning and Adrian P. on our team , we would find a way to find fault with their performance.

I can say it is a lot more fun to be a fan these past two weeks hearing all my pals saying "How 'bout those Chiefs" instead of "What is wrong with the Chiefs, are they ever going to win? My college team could beat them."

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:03 PM
Here is what we faced in the Cleveland game...

3rd 6, punt
3rd 4, FG
3rd 6, punt
3rd 6, punt
3rd 2, punt
3rd 1, FG
3rd 1, punt
3rd 5, punt
3rd 2, punt


Those are the 3rd downs we could not convert. Nothing past 6 yards.

And lets just assume we convert then go 3 and out after the conversion. Right there, with 2 carries per series Cassel cost us 12 (14 including his self-induced sack) carries alone.

Let me even break it down further for you, GB

3rd 6, punt Cassel inc
3rd 4, FG Cassel inc
3rd 6, punt Cassel sacked
3rd 6, punt Cassel comp for 5 yards
3rd 2, punt Cassel inc
3rd 1, FG Charles tackled for -2
3rd 1, punt Castille no gain
3rd 5, punt Cassel inc
3rd 2, punt Cassel inc


Seems we see a lot of Cassel inc on short passes. 5 inc's and 1 too short on passes 6 yards or less.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 08:04 PM
Yeah, all that stacking the box last year - and this year, for that matter - is really shutting down Jamaal.

The only change this year?

He's not getting the ball as much.

I agree he is not getting the ball much and he should be getting 15-20 carries a game.

But I think you are going to see defenses selling out to stop the run because they don't respect the QB or our passing game.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 08:07 PM
Let me even break it down further for you, GB

3rd 6, punt Cassel inc
3rd 4, FG Cassel inc
3rd 6, punt Cassel sacked
3rd 6, punt Cassel comp for 5 yards
3rd 2, punt Cassel inc
3rd 1, FG Charles tackled for -2
3rd 1, punt Castille no gain
3rd 5, punt Cassel inc
3rd 2, punt Cassel inc


Seems we see a lot of Cassel inc on short passes

All you did was prove one of my points, re: playcalling

Why the fuck are we throwing the ball on 3rd and short?

Why the fuck are we giving Castille a carry?

3rd and less than 4 is a great spot to be in, because you're entire playbook should be open. The defense can't key specifically on run or pass.

Mecca
09-22-2010, 08:08 PM
I can't imagine how much Chiefs fans would complain IF we ever won the SB.

I can see it now,

(CP) QB only threw for 175 yards and one TD. RB's had only had 20 carries the whole game.

(Rest of the NFL) Congrats on your SB win, it has been a long time coming, you deserved this win

(CP) Yeah whatever, did see our stats, we SUCKED @$$

I am thrilled that we have started out 2-0, I don't care how we got there, a win is a win no matter how you slice it. We only have to win 4 more games to match our win total for the last 2 years COMBINED, and 8 (yes that is a stretch) to match our win total for the last 3 years combined. Yes we have problems, but we are in much better shape than when DV and Herm have left us in this mess. I agree that QB will be our Achilles heel, but even if we had St. Manning and Adrian P. on our team , we would find a way to find fault with their performance.

I can say it is a lot more fun to be a fan these past two weeks hearing all my pals saying "How 'bout those Chiefs" instead of "What is wrong with the Chiefs, are they ever going to win? My college team could beat them."

Is this a joke post?

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 08:08 PM
I agree he is not getting the ball much and he should be getting 15-20 carries a game.

But I think you are going to see defenses selling out to stop the run because they don't respect the QB or our passing game.

People respected the QB/Passing game LAST year?

beach tribe
09-22-2010, 08:08 PM
Is petegz28 starting enough threads? That's the real question here.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:09 PM
All you did was prove one of my points, re: playcalling

Why the **** are we throwing the ball on 3rd and short?

Why the **** are we giving Castille a carry?

3rd and less than 4 is a great spot to be in, because you're entire playbook should be open. The defense can't key specifically on run or pass.

While I don't diagree, I don't think running the ball 3 times in a row is a good strategy. That being said I won't really argue that he shouldn't be throwing on 3rd and 1 and 3rd and 2. But the fact is, he is throwing and cannot complete a 6 yard pass or shorter. Playcalling is one thing, not completing passes that short is a bigger problem.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 08:14 PM
People respected the QB/Passing game LAST year?

I think more than this year so far because Cassel was coming off a good season albeit with a different team. Also when they decided to throw last year they were somewhat successful. The Cowboys and Steelers games comes to mind.

Fritz88
09-22-2010, 08:14 PM
When you get down to it, regardless of who is carrying the ball, the fact we have a total of 55 carries between our 2 backs is pathetic.
.
spelling. irregardless.
Posted via Mobile Device

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:15 PM
spelling. irregardless.
Posted via Mobile Device

Is this a joke? Did you not read my sig?????

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 08:15 PM
I think more than this year so far because Cassel was coming off a good season albeit with a different team. Also when they decided to throw last year they were somewhat successful. The Cowboys and Steelers games comes to mind.

Did you watch the last 7 games of the season?

Teams stacked the box.

Cassel was awful.

Charles was awesome.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:17 PM
I think more than this year so far because Cassel was coming off a good season albeit with a different team. Also when they decided to throw last year they were somewhat successful. The Cowboys and Steelers games comes to mind.

Last year it was Cassel could only complete a 6 yard pass. This year he can't even do that.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 08:18 PM
chickens lay eggs

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:19 PM
Did you watch the last 7 games of the season?

Teams stacked the box.

Cassel was awful.

Charles was awesome.

How may of those games did we win? Answer? 2

And Cassel was top passer in 4 of those games.

JC was the top rusher in 3.

Pioli Zombie
09-22-2010, 08:19 PM
The Chiefs should draft a left tackle and move Albert to right tackle.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 08:22 PM
How may of those games did we win? Answer? 2

Knew this was coming.

The "We're 2-0 so we're doing something right" argument.

There's no doubt in my mind your naive enough to think we'll score a defensive or ST TD every week to bail the offense out, but I'm not.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:23 PM
Knew this was coming.

The "We're 2-0 so we're doing something right" argument.

There's no doubt in my mind your naive enough to think we'll score a defensive or ST TD every week to bail the offense out, but I'm not.

I never said that. I just pointed out in the 7 games you are bragging about we only won 2 games and JC was the top rusher in only 3 of which we won only 1, Denver where he ran for 259.

He ain't going to run for 259 every game.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 08:24 PM
I never said that. I just pointed out in the 7 games you are bragging about we only won 2 games and JC was the top rusher in only 3.

So Charles' accomplishment - gaining 1000 yards in 8 games - is null and void because our run defense was shitty?

Now I've heard everything.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:25 PM
So Charles' accomplishment - gaining 1000 yards in 8 games - is null and void because our run defense was shitty?

Now I've heard everything.

Stats are for losers, as they say.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 08:28 PM
Did you watch the last 7 games of the season?

Teams stacked the box.

Cassel was awful.

Charles was awesome.

Of course. My point is the NFL is a passing league and you have to make plays in the passing game to be successful over the long haul. Our running game is going to suffer if we don't start passing better.

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 08:28 PM
The elephant in the room is that Jones was the more effective back last week.

People around here act like Charles is already an elite talent. He's had a handful of amazing games and a few good ones and done little else in 2 + years. Not saying he can't be elite but to act like he's just gonna automatically produce if he's in the game might be a little wishful thinking. He's a marked man now and he's never had to deal with that. It's different.

For all we know he could be a flash in the pan like dozens of other running backs that hit the scene in the last decade.

I really don't think Charlie Weis would sit there and play a guy who wasn't gonna give the Chiefs the best chance to win.

In any case it will be pretty clear if Charles is being shortchanged in a few games. It's too early to complain about this.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:28 PM
So Charles' accomplishment - gaining 1000 yards in 8 games - is null and void because our run defense was shitty?

Now I've heard everything.

And in those 8 games you talk about we did have some bad defense, 2 blow outs and one shootout. Other than that we lost by 1 score or less. And out of the 8 games, since we have now gone from 7-8, JC was still only top rusher in 3.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 08:28 PM
Stats are for losers, as they say.

Just quit, you are severely embarrassing yourself.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 08:30 PM
I never said that. I just pointed out in the 7 games you are bragging about we only won 2 games and JC was the top rusher in only 3 of which we won only 1, Denver where he ran for 259.

He ain't going to run for 259 every game.

In reality Charles last 4 games of the season were phenomenal the other 3 were average.

Steelers - 17-58
Chargers - 14-93
Donkeys - 18- 56

Then he exploded

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:31 PM
Just quit, you are severely embarrassing yourself.

Hardly. I can't help it if you guys don't like the numbers. But they are what they are. I would like to see Charles get the ball more as well. The fact is, until Cassel can throw a 6 yard pass he won't. Period. End of story, even.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 08:31 PM
The elephant in the room is that Jones was the more effective back last week.

The guy who averaged 3.82 yards per touch was more effective than the guy that averaged 6.33?

That's.......interesting.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 08:32 PM
Just quit, you are severely embarrassing yourself.

He won't listen, which makes it even more enjoyable to watch.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:35 PM
In reality Charles last 4 games of the season were phenomenal the other 3 were average.

Steelers - 17-58
Chargers - 14-93
Donkeys - 18- 56

Then he exploded

May be true. But we only won 1 of those 4. We lost the other 3 by less than one score, granted one was a shootout.

My point is, and the entire point of the thread is, it doesn't matter how good Charles is or isn't. What matters is our QB cannot extend drives to give him the chance.

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 08:36 PM
The guy who averaged 3.82 yards per touch was more effective than the guy that averaged 6.33?

That's.......interesting.

Charles averaged 2.9 yards per carry.

His 20-yard burst against a prevent defense, with 70 seconds on the clock in the first half, and the Chiefs on their own 7, really shouldn't be factored into the equation. Come on.

In fact, if you really want to eliminate meaningless plays, his 9-yard run before halftime with 14 seconds left on the clock should be tossed out, too.

That leaves 9 carries for 20 yards. Effective?

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:37 PM
The guy who averaged 3.82 yards per touch was more effective than the guy that averaged 6.33?

That's.......interesting.

Yes, once again you go to this stat that can be and is misleading at times.

If a guy runs a run for 60 yards then runs the ball 5 more times for 2 yards he has 70 yards in 6 carries. Aside from the 20 yard run and the 9 yard meaningless run at the end of the half, Charles longest run was for 7 yards against Cleveland. The rest were all for 1-3 yards.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 08:38 PM
The elephant in the room is that Jones was the more effective back last week.

People around here act like Charles is already an elite talent. He's had a handful of amazing games and a few good ones and done little else in 2 + years. Not saying he can't be elite but to act like he's just gonna automatically produce if he's in the game might be a little wishful thinking. He's a marked man now and he's never had to deal with that. It's different.

For all we know he could be a flash in the pan like dozens of other running backs that hit the scene in the last decade.

I really don't think Charlie Weis would sit there and play a guy who wasn't gonna give the Chiefs the best chance to win.

In any case it will be pretty clear if Charles is being shortchanged in a few games. It's too early to complain about this.

Dude, if there is an elephant in the room, its Charles not getting enough touches (until all these threads started)...not Jones being a better back last week.

Also, your point you are throwing out there about Charles being a possible flash in the pan is somewhat valid, but the guy has rushed for over 100 yards in almost every game he has started in the NFL when given decent touches. He has averaged:
5.3 08
5.9 09
6.4 10

That is a guy that deserves to carry the damn rock and have someone else play the complimentary role.

I think his shoulder got a little re-injured when he fell on it awkwardly during the Philly PS game and that they are covering it up by limiting his touches, but that is just a conspiracy theory.

We wont know one way or the other if he doesn't get more opportunities.

I'm kinda surprised that you haven't developed a man crush on him as you have with previous backs.

I guess there is still time.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 08:40 PM
Hardly. I can't help it if you guys don't like the numbers. But they are what they are. I would like to see Charles get the ball more as well. The fact is, until Cassel can throw a 6 yard pass he won't. Period. End of story, even.

"last year never happened"

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 08:40 PM
May be true. But we only won 1 of those 4. We lost the other 3 by less than one score, granted one was a shootout.

My point is, and the entire point of the thread is, it doesn't matter how good Charles is or isn't. What matters is our QB cannot extend drives to give him the chance.

Your "point" was refuted many posts ago, and now you're on a tangent about losing last year.

Had the offense of late 2009 had the benefit of playing with the defense of 2010, what the fuck would you be hanging your hat on then?

Christ, this should be as clear as fucking day. When have I EVER passed up a chance to bash Cassel?

Yes, he sucks. But he'd look a lot better if:

a.) We weren't always in 3rd and long
b.) We gave our playmaker the fucking ball more than 12 times a game
c.) The situational playcalling wasn't so shitty.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 08:41 PM
May be true. But we only won 1 of those 4. We lost the other 3 by less than one score, granted one was a shootout.

My point is, and the entire point of the thread is, it doesn't matter how good Charles is or isn't. What matters is our QB cannot extend drives to give him the chance.

I am agreeing with you.

This could be a coincidence but go look at Chris Johnson stats. He didn't explode until Vince Young became the QB and was having success.

I would make the argument that they helped each other. In the Chiefs case Charles performing well didn't help Cassel.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:42 PM
"last year never happened"

Don't care about last year. I care about this year. And when Cleveland wanted to, they shut him down. That being said, when Cassel learns to throw a 6 yard pass Charles will get more playing time.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 08:42 PM
Yes, once again you go to this stat that can be and is misleading at times.

If a guy runs a run for 60 yards then runs the ball 5 more times for 2 yards he has 70 yards in 6 carries. Aside from the 20 yard run and the 9 yard meaningless run at the end of the half, Charles longest run was for 7 yards against Cleveland. The rest were all for 1-3 yards.

Yeah, the 60 yarder shouldn't count.

It's like, too long, or something.

Guess we should take out all of Jones' long runs to be fair.

Oh, wait.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:43 PM
Your "point" was refuted many posts ago, and now you're on a tangent about losing last year.

Had the offense of late 2009 had the benefit of playing with the defense of 2010, what the **** would you be hanging your hat on then?

Christ, this should be as clear as ****ing day. When have I EVER passed up a chance to bash Cassel?

Yes, he sucks. But he'd look a lot better if:

a.) We weren't always in 3rd and long
b.) We gave our playmaker the ****ing ball more than 12 times a game
c.) The situational playcalling wasn't so shitty.

Your first point is irrelevant. We never had 3rd and long against Cleveland. Was the playcalling shitty? Yea. But that is still no excuse. You can't have your QB throw incomplete on passes less that 5 yards 5 times a game on 3rd down.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 08:44 PM
Yes, he sucks. But he'd look a lot better if:

a.) We weren't always in 3rd and long
b.) We gave our playmaker the fucking ball more than 12 times a game
c.) The situational playcalling wasn't so shitty.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

I would submit on point A they need to be throwing on First down so this offense should be P-R-P or R depending on down and distance.

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 08:45 PM
I'm kinda surprised that you haven't developed a man crush on him as you have with previous backs.

I guess there is still time.

Dude I have a huge man crush on Jamaal Charles.

But there really isn't enough evidence to condemn the coaching staff for this yet. Especially a few days after Charles couldn't run for shit in a game we won.

For the record I was screaming at the sideline at Arrowhead on Monday and at my TV screen on Sunday over Charles not getting the ball.

But I got pretty quiet during the second half in Cleveland.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:46 PM
Yeah, the 60 yarder shouldn't count.

It's like, too long, or something.

Guess we should take out all of Jones' long runs to be fair.

Oh, wait.

I didn't say it shouldn't count. I said the stat can be misleading. Quit reading what you want to read. And against the Browns save his 1-20 yard run and a meaningless 9 yard run at the end of the half he was stuffed and stuffed well. Longest carry was 7 yards. The rest were nothing.

Now if he were getting 5 yards a carry on those other runs I'd say you have something. But he didn't. He couldn't get the edge because of the defense and he was dancing around in the backfield otherwise.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 08:47 PM
Your first point is irrelevant. We never had 3rd and long against Cleveland. Was the playcalling shitty? Yea. But that is still no excuse. You can't have your QB throw incomplete on passes less that 5 yards 5 times a game on 3rd down.

Thanks for making my point, again.

You're right, we shouldn't be calling that many pass plays on 3rd and short.

But the shitty playcalling is no excuse.

:spock:

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:49 PM
Thanks for making my point, again.

You're right, we shouldn't be calling that many pass plays on 3rd and short.

But the shitty playcalling is no excuse.

:spock:

Shitty playcalling aside, you can't tell me a QB in the NFL can't complete those short passes more times than not, regardless of how bad of a playcall it was. We should have ran more on 3rd and short I agree. But we didn't and it isn't like you are asking the world for Cassel to convert a 3rd and 2. Then again, maybe it is.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:50 PM
We won't see it with the 9'rs pass rush, but it would be nice to see Charles start Sunday and bust a big game. Once again though I think Cassel's immense amount of suckitude will prevent him from being able to do that.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-22-2010, 08:51 PM
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
09-22-2010, 08:52 PM
I didn't say it shouldn't count.

Really?

Make up your mind.

When you "take away" something, it doesn't exist.

How about we petition the league to disregard all long runs when they compute AVERAGE yards per carry.

I swear, I've never seen someone so retarded.

Big plays, bad. Skew average.

Dear God.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 08:54 PM
Really?

Make up your mind.

When you "take away" something, it doesn't exist.

How about we petition the league to disregard all long runs when they compute AVERAGE yards per carry.

I swear, I've never seen someone so retarded.

Big plays, bad. Skew average.

Dear God.

I said the stat can be misleading. What part of misleading do you not get? So fuck you and your retarded. 1-20 yard run and a bunch of -2 to 3 yard runs is not what I would paint as impressive.

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 08:55 PM
OK, let's assume Haley is a buffoon and doing the wrong thing.

Why would he put Jones in the game and feature him? Just because of their Chicago connection?

I don't think there's anything political about this. I think the Chiefs legitimately believe Jones gives them a better chance to win as the starter, especially because he's a better blocker on third down.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-22-2010, 09:01 PM
OK, let's assume Haley is a buffoon and doing the wrong thing.

Why would he put Jones in the game and feature him? Just because of their Chicago connection?

I don't think there's anything political about this. I think the Chiefs legitimately believe Jones gives them a better chance to win as the starter, especially because he's a better blocker on third down.

This is the obvious answer. It's not political. They honestly believe he's the better player. It's not obstinacy, it's stupidity.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:01 PM
I said the stat can be misleading. What part of misleading do you not get? So fuck you and your retarded. 1-20 yard run and a bunch of -2 to 3 yard runs is not what I would paint as impressive.

It's not misleading, dumbass.

That's why they call it AVERAGE yards per carry.

You total up ALL his rushing yards.

Then divide by the number of carries.

YPC.


Over 6 yards a carry tells me one of two things:

The guy consistently runs for 6 yards per carry. (which doesn't happen in this league)

Or the guy has serious big play potential.

Under 4 yards a carry tells me something as well.

That the guy has zero big play potential, and consistently runs for shit.


You keep backing 3.6.

I'll keep backing the potential gamebreaker.

After all, in your world, 20 carries at 3.6 is more impressive than 11 carries at 6.6.


Hint: I know a way to make the 6.6 guy even more impressive.

Give him the fucking ball more often.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:03 PM
Really?

Make up your mind.

When you "take away" something, it doesn't exist.

How about we petition the league to disregard all long runs when they compute AVERAGE yards per carry.

I swear, I've never seen someone so retarded.

Big plays, bad. Skew average.

Dear God.

JC's stellar game against Cleveland

4 yds
1 yd
2 yds
3 yds
20 yds
9 yds
2 yd
1 yd
-2 yds
7 yds
1 yd

Over half his carries went for less than 3 yards.

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 09:03 PM
This is the obvious answer. It's not political. They honestly believe he's the better player. It's not obstinacy, it's stupidity.

How stupid would it have been last week to force feed a back who wasn't producing, just because of what he did last season?

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 09:03 PM
OK, let's assume Haley is a buffoon and doing the wrong thing.

Why would he put Jones in the game and feature him? Just because of their Chicago connection?

I don't think there's anything political about this. I think the Chiefs legitimately believe Jones gives them a better chance to win as the starter, especially because he's a better blocker on third down.

If I was going to speculate it would be concerns about his health or durability especially coming off shoulder surgery or limiting his carries until the stretch run to make a push for the playoffs.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 09:03 PM
Barry Sanders was total and complete garbage if you take out the big runs.

I bet it would drop his average to 3 or less if you take out all runs over 20 yards.

Some of the shit you read here at times....

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 09:05 PM
If I was going to speculate it would be concerns about his health or durability especially coming off shoulder surgery or limiting his carries until the stretch run to make a push for the playoffs.

I think the first part of your post makes the most sense.

There's something else going on here.

Normally we might apply Occam's razor (if it sounds stupid, it's because it IS stupid), but I don't think Haley's stupidity has been fully proven yet. :evil:

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:05 PM
Barry Sanders was total and complete garbage if you take out the big runs.

I bet it would drop his average to 3 or less if you take out all runs over 20 yards.

Some of the shit you read here at times....

I know. Fucking unreal, innit?

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 09:06 PM
Barry Sanders was total and complete garbage if you take out the big runs.

I bet it would drop his average to 3 or less if you take out all runs over 20 yards.

Some of the shit you read here at times....

Well, I can't really comment for others, but I'm just talking about the Cleveland game.

Charles was ineffective. His "productive" runs were meaningless. Completely.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-22-2010, 09:07 PM
How stupid would it have been last week to force feed a back who wasn't producing, just because of what he did last season?

Why is that when Thomas Jones runs for 3.8 yards a carry he's producing and when Jamaal Charles runs for 4.5 he's not?

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:10 PM
Jones's carries

10 yds
3 yd
1 yd
5 yds
2 yds
5 yds
3 yds
11 yds
5 yds
4 yds
7 yds
2 yds
3 yds
2 yds
3 yds
0 yds
4 yds
7 yds
3 yds
4 yds
2 yds
1 yd

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:13 PM
Why is that when Thomas Jones runs for 3.8 yards a carry he's producing and when Jamaal Charles runs for 4.5 he's not?

I think for the YPC to be taking at full face value you would have to have both RB's with the same or at least within 2 carries of each other.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 09:13 PM
I think the first part of your post makes the most sense.

There's something else going on here.



Possibly. I guess we will see as the season moves along.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:15 PM
Possibly. I guess we will see as the season moves along.

If drives can start getting extended and we get rid of the 3 and out we will see more Charles. That is the key though. We don't have the ball, Charles don't have a chance to get the ball.

tk13
09-22-2010, 09:15 PM
What is going to happen, because this is the Chiefs, and we are married to irony... is after all this hoopla... Charles will get 20 carries, Jones will get 10, and we will end up losing a game or blowing a lead due to our offense.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:15 PM
I think for the YPC to be taking at full face value you would have to have both RB's with the same or at least within 2 carries of each other.

ROFL

Good idea.

I mean, it's completely unfair that Charles gains the same amount of yardage as Jones in fewer carries.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-22-2010, 09:16 PM
I think for the YPC to be taking at full face value you would have to have both RB's with the same or at least within 2 carries of each other.

So 190 is too small of a sample size?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-22-2010, 09:16 PM
What is going to happen, because this is the Chiefs, and we are married to irony... is after all this hoopla... Charles will get 20 carries, Jones will get 10, and we will end up losing a game or blowing a lead due to our offense.

It's really unfair that you can't bet on things like this.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:19 PM
If drives can start getting extended and we get rid of the 3 and out we will see more Charles. That is the key though. We don't have the ball, Charles don't have a chance to get the ball.

Yep.

We only had the ball 33 minutes in the Cleveland game, and Charles got the same number of carries as he did in the SD game - where we had the ball 22 minutes.

Good job, Sherlock. Mystery solved.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 09:21 PM
If drives can start getting extended and we get rid of the 3 and out we will see more Charles. That is the key though. We don't have the ball, Charles don't have a chance to get the ball.

But their point would be they would have less 3 and outs if Charles was getting the ball.

What is going to happen, because this is the Chiefs, and we are married to irony... is after all this hoopla... Charles will get 20 carries, Jones will get 10, and we will end up losing a game or blowing a lead due to our offense.

word

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:21 PM
So 190 is too small of a sample size?

I was referring to Jones vs. Charles this year.

Charles had a higer YPC Sunday because of 1 run. Down for down Jones was gaining more. Not much but more. Charles had a 20 yard run. The rest went for little if anything. It isn't like he was running for 4-7 yards a carry on top of his 20 yard run. That's called breaking down the numbers, guys. I analyze averages daily. And you have to look at what is making the average what it is? Is it consistent data or is it effected by spikes? Charles YPC this year so far has been effected by spikes, 2 big runs in 2 games. Jones's is more of a consistent average. I am not saying Jones is better than Charles. I am just breaking down the numbers as to why they are what they are.

tk13
09-22-2010, 09:23 PM
It's really unfair that you can't bet on things like this.

It's probably coming, because now everybody has screamed down Haley's neck and now we're going to shove Charles in everyone's face just to take the heat off. Although I agree he needs to get more touches. In reality we're talking about one game so far. First game both him and Jones had what? 11 carries. Not nearly enough for either guy. But in my world Cassel would be at least mediocre and we'd give both RB's 20 touches a game and have a devastating running attack.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 09:23 PM
What is going to happen, because this is the Chiefs, and we are married to irony... is after all this hoopla... Charles will get 20 carries, Jones will get 10, and we will end up losing a game or blowing a lead due to our offense.

sad, yet spot on.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:24 PM
I was referring to Jones vs. Charles this year.

Charles had a higer YPC Sunday because of 1 run. Down for down Jones was gaining more. Not much but more. Charles had a 20 yard run. The rest went for little if anything. It isn't like he was running for 4-7 yards a carry on top of his 20 yard run. That's called breaking down the numbers, guys. I analyze averages daily. And you have to look at what is making the average what it is? Is it consistent data or is it effected by spikes? Charles YPC this year so far has been effected by spikes, 2 big runs in 2 games. Jones's is more of a consistent average. I am not saying Jones is better than Charles. I am just breaking down the numbers as to why they are what they are.

Damn, there's that pesky 20 yard run again that shouldn't count because it's unfair to the guy that can't break off runs like that.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:25 PM
But their point would be they would have less 3 and outs if Charles was getting the ball.



word

I know and at least as far as Sunday went I would disagree. When you analyze what was happening Jones was gaining more per touch. Charles had his 1 run of 20 yards when a defense was in a very soft defense. Other than that his numbers were really poor. I know some here don't want to accept it but that is how it is. They just want to look at it and say "Charles is better give him the ball more". When we did give him the ball he rushed for less than 3 yards a carry and broke 1 for 20. So if you extrapolate that sure, he may run for another 20 but the numbers show on Sunday anyway, he is also going to have a 10 carries of 3 yards or less between that one 20 yard run.

Which boils down to that Cassel has to perform so we can absorb those 2 and 3 yard carries to give him the chance to break the 20's.

FAX
09-22-2010, 09:27 PM
I think that Mr. chiefzillabunchanumbers' piggy bank idea is still viable.

FAX

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:27 PM
Damn, there's that pesky 20 yard run again that shouldn't count because it's unfair to the guy that can't break off runs like that.

And again, you are just being emotional about it. No one said it shouldn't count. But that is ALL he had that was worthy of note. And that 1 run is the only reason his numbers Sunday looked the way he did. That is the part you don't want to accept. You don't want to accept that the 9 other times (no I will not count the 9 yard run at the end of the half) that he ran for less than 3 yards a carry.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-22-2010, 09:28 PM
The Chiefs should draft a left tackle and move Albert to right tackle.

LMAO

tk13
09-22-2010, 09:28 PM
I think that Mr. chiefzillabunchanumbers' piggy bank idea is still viable.

FAX

I say, when I'm the offensive coordinator. I'm putting Jones and Charles on the field as decoys and handing it to Castille 28 times a game.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-22-2010, 09:31 PM
I say, when I'm the offensive coordinator. I'm putting Jones and Charles on the field as decoys and handing it to Castille 28 times a game.

Move Battle to Tight End.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 09:33 PM
I say, when I'm the offensive coordinator. I'm putting Jones and Charles on the field as decoys and handing it to Castille 28 times a game.

Derek Lokey FTMFW

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 09:34 PM
I know and at least as far as Sunday went I would disagree. When you analyze what was happening Jones was gaining more per touch. Charles had his 1 run of 20 yards when a defense was in a very soft defense. Other than that his numbers were really poor. I know some here don't want to accept it but that is how it is. They just want to look at it and say "Charles is better give him the ball more". When we did give him the ball he rushed for less than 3 yards a carry and broke 1 for 20. So if you extrapolate that sure, he may run for another 20 but the numbers show on Sunday anyway, he is also going to have a 10 carries of 3 yards or less between that one 20 yard run.

Which boils down to that Cassel has to perform so we can absorb those 2 and 3 yard carries to give him the chance to break the 20's.

To play devils advocate I don't think it is accurate or fair to judge Charles on his performance because RB's need to be fed the ball and giving Charles 12 sporadic carries means he can't get into the rhythm of the game. It is akin to taking the quarterback in and out.

But I do agree with you that the more Cassel stinks the more our running game is going to suffer and the team as a whole will suffer.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:35 PM
And again, you are just being emotional about it. No one said it shouldn't count. But that is ALL he had that was worthy of note. And that 1 run is the only reason his numbers Sunday looked the way he did. That is the part you don't want to accept. You don't want to accept that the 9 other times (no I will not count the 9 yard run at the end of the half) that he ran for less than 3 yards a carry.

I'm not accepting the other nine times?

I'm accepting every carry he had.

You're the clown trying to take away his big runs to try to prove that, wow, shocking, if you take away a RB's big runs, there isn't much left.

Let's take away Chris Johnson's big runs. Bet he's a big piece of shit.

FAX
09-22-2010, 09:36 PM
I agree with Mr. dirk digler on this point.

Running backs need to get a feel for the game. They need to get the timing of the o-line under their belt, get a sense of how the defense is reacting, take some hits ... all that stuff.

That's one of the reasons I was never a huge fan of the RBBC concept.

FAX

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:37 PM
To play devils advocate I don't think it is accurate or fair to judge Charles on his performance because RB's need to be fed the ball and giving Charles 12 sporadic carries means he can't get into the rhythm of the game. It is akin to taking the quarterback in and out.

But I do agree with you that the more Cassel stinks the more our running game is going to suffer and the team as a whole will suffer.

I agree the more carries he has the more chance he has for a rythm. Again, and I know you already agreed, he isn't going to get us a 1st down every time he touches the ball, which is why we need Cassel to convert. If the opportunities get there and Charles still doesn't get the ball much we have a problem, Houston. I don't buy that if Charles got the ball more we would extend drives on its face. He had less than 10 yards in his 1st 5 carries. So that means, even when we did feed him the ball that Cassel is at times going to have to extend the drive.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:38 PM
I agree with Mr. dirk digler on this point.

Running backs need to get a feel for the game. They need to get the timing of the o-line under their belt, get a sense of how the defense is reacting, take some hits ... all that stuff.

That's one of the reasons I was never a huge fan of the RBBC concept.

FAX

Couldn't agree more, Mr. FAX.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:39 PM
I'm not accepting the other nine times?

I'm accepting every carry he had.

You're the clown trying to take away his big runs to try to prove that, wow, shocking, if you take away a RB's big runs, there isn't much left.

Let's take away Chris Johnson's big runs. Bet he's a big piece of shit.

I never said take it away, for the 5th time now. You keep saying that cause you know I am right and you are trying to spin your little emotional web. Great he ran for 20 yards on 1 carry. He ran for less than 3 for the most part on the rest of them. Happy? Does that make you happy?

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:40 PM
I agree with Mr. dirk digler on this point.

Running backs need to get a feel for the game. They need to get the timing of the o-line under their belt, get a sense of how the defense is reacting, take some hits ... all that stuff.

That's one of the reasons I was never a huge fan of the RBBC concept.

FAX

Can't say I disagree. It would be nice if we chose one back and had a 3rd down back. At this point though I think that back would be Jones for whatever reason. Thus OTWP and others would still be throwing a fit.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:42 PM
I never said take it away, for the 5th time now. You keep saying that cause you know I am right and you are trying to spin your little emotional web. Great he ran for 20 yards on 1 carry. He ran for less than 3 for the most part on the rest of them. Happy? Does that make you happy?

Yeah, I am happy.

Because he averaged over 6 yards every time he touched the ball. That's gamebreaking ability. Properly used, he can do some damage.

Unlike the consistent guy. Who gets 3 yards - consistently.

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 09:44 PM
Here's what's interesting to me...and this may not be a good comparison but it's halfway decent.

When the Chiefs were splitting time between Holmes and LJ in 05, it was pretty clear LJ was the more effective running back, and in fact he had averaged more YPC the year before.

BUT, you never heard ANYONE around here complaining because the whole damn forum was in love with Priest.

This whole place is in love with Jamaal Charles. So it's a lot easier for them to complain.

cdcox
09-22-2010, 09:45 PM
So if we slide Jones over to QB it would 1) mean that Cassel is benched and 2) open the RB slot for Charles.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:48 PM
Here's what's interesting to me...and this may not be a good comparison but it's halfway decent.

When the Chiefs were splitting time between Holmes and LJ in 05, it was pretty clear LJ was the more effective running back, and in fact he had averaged more YPC the year before.

BUT, you never heard ANYONE around here complaining because the whole damn forum was in love with Priest.

This whole place is in love with Jamaal Charles. So it's a lot easier for them to complain.

Yeah, I have no idea why people here would want the playmaker to get more carries.

It takes Back A 20 carries to gain 60 yards.

It takes Back B 10 carries to gain 60 yards.


It would be downright CRAZY to give back B more carries.

Absolute lunacy.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:49 PM
Yeah, I am happy.

Because he averaged over 6 yards every time he touched the ball. That's gamebreaking ability. Properly used, he can do some damage.

Unlike the consistent guy. Who gets 3 yards - consistently.

Yea, he sure did, but not really. Again, I am talking about Sunday and I think anyone who does statistics would look at his numbers and call the 20 yard run an anomaly. At the least they would analyze why or what happened for him to have 1 20 yard run and the rest for less than 3 on average. And you would come to the objective result that he got his 20 yard run from deep in our zone against a very soft, prevent defense. It counts, sure. But he wasn't really gainin 6 a carry. He was gaining less than 3 a carry with 1 longer run out of 11 that infated the numbers. That is called analyzing the numbers, OTWP. I am not trying to shortchange him, but I am also being real about why his numbers were what they were.

J Diddy
09-22-2010, 09:49 PM
Here's what's interesting to me...and this may not be a good comparison but it's halfway decent.

When the Chiefs were splitting time between Holmes and LJ in 05, it was pretty clear LJ was the more effective running back, and in fact he had averaged more YPC the year before.

BUT, you never heard ANYONE around here complaining because the whole damn forum was in love with Priest.

This whole place is in love with Jamaal Charles. So it's a lot easier for them to complain.



Hmmm


kcbroncohater?

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:51 PM
Yea, he sure did, but not really. Again, I am talking about Sunday and I think anyone who does statistics would look at his numbers and call the 20 yard run an anomaly. At the least they would analyze why or what happened for him to have 1 20 yard run and the rest for less than 3 on average. And you would come to the objective result that he got his 20 yard run from deep in our zone against a very soft, prevent defense. It counts, sure. But he wasn't really gainin 6 a carry. He was gaining less than 3 a carry with 1 longer run out of 11 that infated the numbers. That is called analyzing the numbers, OTWP. I am not trying to shortchange him, but I am also being real about why his numbers were what they were.


He did, but not really.

LMAO

Nah, you're not trying to take anything away from him.

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 09:51 PM
The 20-yard run IS an anomaly. It's obvious to anyone who is being intellectually honest.

It came:

against a prevent defense
with 70 seconds on the clock
with the chiefs on their own 7

the defense practically conceded that run.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:52 PM
It's a damn shame I have to drive a proposal up to KC tomorrow. I'm going to be in the car all day and miss out on this place.

Maybe I should take the car that gets 20 miles to the gallon instead of the one that gets 35.

LMAO

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 09:52 PM
Yeah, I have no idea why people here would want the playmaker to get more carries.


Thomas Jones is not exactly chopped liver, man.

By the way, it took Charles 9 carries to get 20 yards.

Lunacy?

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 09:53 PM
So if we slide Jones over to QB it would 1) mean that Cassel is benched and 2) open the RB slot for Charles.

No, we slide Charles to QB.

Then we can blame him for not completing passes, too.

J Diddy
09-22-2010, 09:53 PM
It's a damn shame I have to drive a proposal up to KC tomorrow. I'm going to be in the car all day and miss out on this place.

Maybe I should take the car that gets 20 miles to the gallon instead of the one that gets 35.

LMAO


I dunno, will the car that gets 35 have to be in the garage by the time you get back?

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:53 PM
Yeah, I have no idea why people here would want the playmaker to get more carries.

It takes Back A 20 carries to gain 60 yards.

It takes Back B 10 carries to gain 60 yards.


It would be downright CRAZY to give back B more carries.

Absolute lunacy.

Bullshit. How many 3 and outs are you going to have while waiting for the playmaker to bust a big one vs. how many extended drives are you going to have with the consistent runner? It's called risk\reward.

Sure, and I am not saying it will, but if we put Charles in and settle for 1-2 yard runs 9 times then on the 10th he busts a 20-30 yard run, how does that impact the rest of the team? Does it put your defense on the field more? Does it put you in a position to be playing from behind more?

It's like Jim Thome, the guy can murder the ball but he strikes out a lot between HR's. So it comes down to do we have the offense to absorb when Charles strikes out? Right now we don't, I don't think.

I think Sunday was a bad day for him and would expect him to be much better and hopefully get the ball more.

tk13
09-22-2010, 09:54 PM
Here's what's interesting to me...and this may not be a good comparison but it's halfway decent.

When the Chiefs were splitting time between Holmes and LJ in 05, it was pretty clear LJ was the more effective running back, and in fact he had averaged more YPC the year before.

BUT, you never heard ANYONE around here complaining because the whole damn forum was in love with Priest.

This whole place is in love with Jamaal Charles. So it's a lot easier for them to complain.

Plenty of people complained. I remember getting in knock down arguments every week arguing that LJ would be a 6+ yard a carry beast ripping off long TD runs if you kept him at about 15 carries but would wear down like a normal back if we started giving him 30 carries a game. But at the time we had a passing game and an offensive line. But that is exactly what happened.

I wouldn't quite make the same argument now though because Charles is not as physical as LJ was.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:55 PM
Thomas Jones is not exactly chopped liver, man.

By the way, it took Charles 9 carries to get 20 yards.

Lunacy?

Hey, another "that run didn't happen" disciple.

And Jones is exactly what his average says he is. A guy that gets 3.5 yards a carry.

That's not exactly worthy of bumping the only guy on the roster with big-play ability to the pine.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 09:57 PM
I wish I could find a way to look up the total of all the runs Chris Johnson had on all runs over 20 yards when he went over 2000...or Barry Sanders...or hell, any back that has gone past 1700 yards...I bet they all look like average players when you pick and choose which yards "he didnt earn" and which ones he did.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:58 PM
Hey, another "that run didn't happen" disciple.

And Jones is exactly what his average says he is. A guy that gets 3.5 yards a carry.

That's not exactly worthy of bumping the only guy on the roster with big-play ability to the pine.

Now you are just being a tard. No one said the run didn't happen. Just some are objective enough to put it in context of the entire game.

What happened on the rest of JC's runs, OTWP?

the Talking Can
09-22-2010, 09:59 PM
this is a great day on teh planet



Jones is better than Charles...



just



wow

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 09:59 PM
Bullshit. How many 3 and outs are you going to have while waiting for the playmaker to bust a big one vs. how many extended drives are you going to have with the consistent runner? It's called risk\reward.

Sure, and I am not saying it will, but if we put Charles in and settle for 1-2 yard runs 9 times then on the 10th he busts a 20-30 yard run, how does that impact the rest of the team? Does it put your defense on the field more? Does it put you in a position to be playing from behind more?

It's like Jim Thome, the guy can murder the ball but he strikes out a lot between HR's. So it comes down to do we have the offense to absorb when Charles strikes out? Right now we don't, I don't think.

I think Sunday was a bad day for him and would expect him to be much better and hopefully get the ball more.

You're the only dumbfuck that has narrowed his carries down to either 1 yard, or a 20 yard run.

Meanwhile, I can tell you with deadly accuracy what I can narrow Thomas Jones' carries to...

I swear, I've never seen so many ignorant football takes in my life.

Sit the playmaker, and play the plodding 3 YPC guy. The playmaker may not break along one on every play.

Too risky.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 09:59 PM
It's a damn shame I have to drive a proposal up to KC tomorrow. I'm going to be in the car all day and miss out on this place.

Maybe I should take the car that gets 20 miles to the gallon instead of the one that gets 35.

LMAO
good analogy, I have a question though...if the car that gets 35 has a rattling sound in the front end, you would keep yourself to short distances with it wouldnt you?


hmmmm

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 09:59 PM
And Jones is exactly what his average says he is. A guy that gets 3.5 yards a carry.

That's not exactly worthy of bumping the only guy on the roster with big-play ability to the pine.

Marcus Allen averaged around 4 YPC his entire Chiefs career. Yet he was the most effective RB on the roster.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:00 PM
Now you are just being a tard. No one said the run didn't happen. Just some are objective enough to put it in context of the entire game.

What happened on the rest of JC's runs, OTWP?

About what happens on every TJ run?

Oh noes, the kid can't break a long run on every carry. Better bring in the guy who we can count on to get 3 yards.

Waiting for a gamebreaking play is too risky.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 10:01 PM
I wish I could find a way to look up the total of all the runs Chris Johnson had on all runs over 20 yards when he went over 2000...or Barry Sanders...or hell, any back that has gone past 1700 yards...I bet they all look like average players when you pick and choose which yards "he didnt earn" and which ones he did.

Yeah, you mean like when Teahen would come to the plate and hit a HR in the 9th when we were up by 5 runs???


Some of you are just so engulfed with JC that you lose your objectivity at times, imo.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 10:03 PM
About what happens on every TJ run?

Oh noes, the kid can't break a long run on every carry. Better bring in the guy who we can count on to get 3 yards.

Waiting for a gamebreaking play is too risky.

Wrong. Jones actually did better, not by much, but better. Abd he doesn't fumble. And he can pass block better. And yeah, waiting on a big play that may never come can be costly in several ways. Especially for this team.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 10:03 PM
Yeah, you mean like when Teahen would come to the plate and hit a HR in the 9th when we were up by 5 runs???


Some of you are just so engulfed with JC that you lose your objectivity at times, imo.
swing and a miss

look in the mirror, son

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:04 PM
good analogy, I have a question though...if the car that gets 35 has a rattling sound in the front end, you would keep yourself to short distances with it wouldnt you?


hmmmm

You keep pounding that drum, and you're wasting your time.

If Charles shoulder wasn't 100%, he wouldn't have taken snaps in the PS, and he would be playing now.

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 10:05 PM
Some of you are just so engulfed with JC that you lose your objectivity at times, imo.

This.

Until I see Charles just fucking ripping it up in every game this year, I'm not willing to say the coaching staff is stupid.

This is a new year, a new system, a new offensive line....it might take Charles some time to adjust. He did hang his head in frustration last week.

tk13
09-22-2010, 10:05 PM
I do think it's unfortunate that people have started bashing Jones because of all this. He's not washed up LJ, he really doesn't deserve it. He's a solid back coming off a great year. Finished 3rd in the NFL in yards and 3rd in TD's last year. That's not too bad. Clearly not as explosive as Charles, but he runs hard and can still clearly be a productive RB in the NFL. That'll get you ripped, but Charles should be getting 20+ touches a game, no excuses. But we really have too many weapons for the amount of offensive plays we get to run.

Personally I think McCluster should be getting more touches, but nobody is talking about that.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 10:05 PM
swing and a miss

look in the mirror, son

Really? The mirror? When did I hit a homerun??? Fuck, I needs to get paid!!!

petegz28
09-22-2010, 10:07 PM
This.

Until I see Charles just ****ing ripping it up in every game this year, I'm not willing to say the coaching staff is stupid.

This is a new year, a new system, a new offensive line....it might take Charles some time to adjust. He did hang his head in frustration last week.

I wasn't the only one who said it Sunday but he didn't look right. Didn't look comfortable or something. It just wasn't his game.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:09 PM
Wrong. Jones actually did better, not by much, but better. Abd he doesn't fumble. And he can pass block better. And yeah, waiting on a big play that may never come can be costly in several ways. Especially for this team.

Jones did better?

TJ: 23 touches, 88 yards. 3.82 yard per touch.

JC: 12 touches, 76 yards. 6.33 yards per touch.



Hell, we can just look at the rushing totals if you think it's unfair to include receptions:

TJ: 22 carries, 83 yards. 3.77 YPC

JC: 11 carries, 49 yards. 4.45 YPC.


That doesn't look better to me.

Oh, wait. You probably want me to take out any long runs JC had, didn't you?

BossChief
09-22-2010, 10:10 PM
You keep pounding that drum, and you're wasting your time.

If Charles shoulder wasn't 100%, he wouldn't have taken snaps in the PS, and he would be playing now.

His last carry of preseason (iirc) is what the fuck Im talking about though, man. This came just a few months after shoulder surgery to his problematic shoulder. This co0upled with his fumbling problems means that maybe they are resting him for more than just "they're retarded" reasons. Maybe everything together makes it hard for him to grip the ball correctly, not sure, but its not just me pulling shit out of thin air.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ukvqs4T04do?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/ukvqs4T04do?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

second play of the video...

FAX
09-22-2010, 10:10 PM
"The truth must dazzle gradually, or every man be blind."

FAX

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:11 PM
This.

Until I see Charles just fucking ripping it up in every game this year, I'm not willing to say the coaching staff is stupid.

This is a new year, a new system, a new offensive line....it might take Charles some time to adjust. He did hang his head in frustration last week.

There aren't many backs in NFL history that "ripped it up" getting 11 carries a game.

And he's still averaging 6.4 a carry.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 10:12 PM
Jones did better?

TJ: 23 touches, 88 yards. 3.82 yard per touch.

JC: 12 touches, 76 yards. 6.33 yards per touch.



Hell, we can just look at the rushing totals if you think it's unfair to include receptions:

TJ: 22 carries, 83 yards. 3.77 YPC

JC: 11 carries, 49 yards. 4.45 YPC.


That doesn't look better to me.

Oh, wait. You probably want me to take out any long runs JC had, didn't you?

Nope, just simply ask you to analyze why the numbers are what they are.

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 10:14 PM
I don't know why you're being so obstinate about this.

Jamaal's 20-yard run and 9-yard run had 0 impact on the game. They were meaningless.

4.45 YPC is not indicative of the game he had.

He was an ineffective player against the Browns.

FAX
09-22-2010, 10:14 PM
Yeah, I'm leaning toward Mr. BossChief's argument on this part of the debate.

There's more to this deal than "Haley's a moron". And it goes beyond last year's production by Charles, as well. There's something happening behind the scenes ... either Charles is dinged or the shoulder isn't quite ready or he isn't picking up the "game plan" as quickly as he should or something that is minimizing his touches so far.

FAX

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:14 PM
His last carry of preseason (iirc) is what the fuck Im talking about though, man. This came just a few months after shoulder surgery to his problematic shoulder. This co0upled with his fumbling problems means that maybe they are resting him for more than just "they're retarded" reasons. Maybe everything together makes it hard for him to grip the ball correctly, not sure, but its not just me pulling shit out of thin air.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ukvqs4T04do?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/ukvqs4T04do?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

second play of the video...


First, that was reported as his elbow getting dinged. Not shoulder.

Second, if his shoulder wasn't right, he wouldn't be playing at all.

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 10:14 PM
There aren't many backs in NFL history that "ripped it up" getting 11 carries a game.


And yet Charles has done just that in the past.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 10:15 PM
I don't know why you're being so obstinate about this.

Jamaal's 20-yard run and 9-yard run had 0 impact on the game. They were meaningless.

4.45 YPC is not indicative of the game he had.

He was an ineffective player against the Browns.

Agreed. I don't know that I would call the 20 yard meaningless, though, it did get us out of the hole. But it was the fact that every other time he touched the ball he got less than 2.9 a carry. OTWP can pad the stats with what was truly a meaningless run at the end of the half for 9 yards. But that is just what it amounted too, a stat padder on a play the defense was willing to give us all day long in that situation.

FAX
09-22-2010, 10:16 PM
That 20 yard carry was scabrous.

FAX

petegz28
09-22-2010, 10:16 PM
First, that was reported as his elbow getting dinged. Not shoulder.

Second, if his shoulder wasn't right, he wouldn't be playing at all.

So it could be his elbow still? We don't know what the coaches see or know.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:17 PM
Nope, just simply ask you to analyze why the numbers are what they are.

I think it's pretty clear what they are.

One guy averages 6.33 every time he touches the ball, one guy averages 3.82 every time he touches the ball.

Crystal clear.

One guy is a playmaker.

The other isn't.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:17 PM
So it could be his elbow still? We don't know what the coaches see or know.

:facepalm:

BossChief
09-22-2010, 10:18 PM
First, that was reported as his elbow getting dinged. Not shoulder.

Second, if his shoulder wasn't right, he wouldn't be playing at all.

just watch the play and tell me that wouldn't effect his shoulder (that just had surgery) and Ill let it rest...but you would be dead wrong. I am thinking it effected his shoulder AND elbow. Just watch the angle his arm hits the ground...

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:18 PM
That 20 yard carry was scabrous.

FAX

ROFL

You know, if you take out every Jamaal Charles carry over 4 yards, the piece of shit only averages like 2 yards a carry.

Trade his worthless ass, I say.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:19 PM
just watch the play and tell me that wouldn't effect his shoulder (that just had surgery) and Ill let it rest...but you would be dead wrong. I am thinking it effected his shoulder AND elbow. Just watch the angle his arm hits the ground...

And I'm telling you that if it did - months after surgery - that he wouldn't be playing.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 10:21 PM
If you guys are gonna insist that his runs of 9 and 20 yards be taken away because of the situation, wouldnt you have to hold to that same line about his gains of less than 3 because the line didnt do their job on the play, therefore making the stat useless?

What does that leave him with as an average per touch?\

:popcorn:

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:21 PM
I don't know why you're being so obstinate about this.

Jamaal's 20-yard run and 9-yard run had 0 impact on the game. They were meaningless.

4.45 YPC is not indicative of the game he had.

He was an ineffective player against the Browns.

As soon as the NFL lets you decide which plays count and which one's don't, I'll listen.

Christ, there are plays like that in every game, every week. Last I checked, all of those plays count just as much as every other.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:24 PM
If you guys are gonna insist that his runs of 9 and 20 yards be taken away because of the situation, wouldnt you have to hold to that same line about his gains of less than 3 because the line didnt do their job on the play, therefore making the stat useless?

What does that leave him with as an average per touch?\

:popcorn:

Indirectly, this has already been covered.

Why is that when Thomas Jones runs for 3.8 yards a carry he's producing and when Jamaal Charles runs for 4.5 he's not?

stevieray
09-22-2010, 10:24 PM
all this is nitpicking to point a finger at the coach and GM. this was done last year when a player wasn't starting on defense.

and the funny thing is, i'd bet the people complaining the most already declared this a losing team with a shitty record, and no hopes for the playoffs...yet they are clamoring to run the dogpiss out of a RB that they now think what? is going singlehandedly win games that weren't winnable in the first place? "we didn't beat SD, they beat themselves" we didn't beat clevleland, we were lucky"...cmon ..that's playing both sides. I don't want JC to become another LJ due to being overused...especially in a continuing rebuild that won't be a legitimate contender for at least another year.

I've met Jamaal. He's a quiet and humble guy...team player. I'd bet that the drama surrounding him here means squat in the locker room..

chiefzilla1501
09-22-2010, 10:24 PM
And I'm telling you that if it did - months after surgery - that he wouldn't be playing.

Darelle Revis was rushed back and played WAY more snaps than he should have.

And now he's going to miss a game because of it.

Would you have sat Revis out the entire game 1 and 2? No. That would be unnecessary. Would I have underused him until he was back in football shape? Of course.

It's not like Charles is the first guy to ever come back from injury and then get used sparingly in his return.

FAX
09-22-2010, 10:25 PM
Here's an interrogatory for you, Mr. OnTheWarpath58 ...

You are the offensive coordinator of an NFL team. You are judged solely by wins and losses. You have a team that is so bereft of talent that they have to fight and scratch to just stay even with other crappy teams.

You have one running back who has a long track record of gaining 3.5 yards every time he carries the rock. That running back has sufficient experience to learn the game plan quickly, execute it exactly like it's drawn up and can pass block, too.

You have another running back who has a brief track record of busting long runs interspersed with a bunch of 1 yard gains. This running back also has a tendency to freelance on plays as well as a demonstrable difficulty absorbing the game plan each week and problems with pass blocking.

Who do you trust to execute your game plan?

FAX

petegz28
09-22-2010, 10:25 PM
:facepalm:

Oh, I forgot, you have some insight to the coaching staff no one else has.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 10:25 PM
And I'm telling you that if it did - months after surgery - that he wouldn't be playing.

or that they would be overly cautious about, would surely be another decision they could steer towards...something they OBVIOUSLY DID IN THE PAST.

I mean, really, the guy had games last year when his shoulder went totally out and they just threw it back in and he was back out on the field shortly after...then after the season ended, HE HAD SURGERY ON IT...or are you gonna tell me that he injured his shoulder the only time last year in the final game on his final carry?

C'mon, man...be real.

Players play with injuries every game in the NFL.

I think Jamaal is showing Haley how "tough" he is RIGHT NOW.

J Diddy
09-22-2010, 10:25 PM
As soon as the NFL lets you decide which plays count and which one's don't, I'll listen.

Christ, there are plays like that in every game, every week. Last I checked, all of those plays count just as much as every other.



it was a pointless run

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:27 PM
Darelle Revis was rushed back and played WAY more snaps than he should have.

And now he's going to miss a game because of it.

Would you have sat Revis out the entire game 1 and 2? No. That would be unnecessary. Would I have underused him until he was back in football shape? Of course.

It's not like Charles is the first guy to ever come back from injury and then get used sparingly in his return.

What kind of dumbass analogy is this?

Did Revis have surgery on his hamstring in the offseason?

Did he hurt it prior to the Patriots game, and they played him anyway?

You're speculating - and poorly - that Revis was injured because he missed camp.

There is NO WAY to substantiate that claim.

tk13
09-22-2010, 10:27 PM
I don't think you can play the take away carries game. But if you guys want to argue it, you're doing it wrong. I think the only case you can make... if you're taking carries away you do it from Jones. He's the guy they're bringing in there specifically to run a 1 yard smash 'em dive play to win the game or at least move the chains. That's not going to do your YPC any favors. I mean in no way is Jones as explosive as Charles. But I don't buy the argument Jones can't be a 4 ypc back either, at least not yet. I retain the right to change my mind as the wind blows.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 10:28 PM
If my math serves correctly JC's median on his carries was 2-3 yards. Which also equates to his average when the 20 yard run is taken as an anomaly which I think given his total numbers on the day, a statistician would claim it to be just that.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:28 PM
Oh, I forgot, you have some insight to the coaching staff no one else has.

No, I've just grown tired of your ridiculous takes.

For a while, it's fun watching you make an ass of yourself.

I'm bored with it now.

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 10:29 PM
Why don't we talk about Andy Studebaker?

He can't even get a snap on defense, can he?

(thread extended by 5 pages)

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:29 PM
I don't think you can play the take away carries game. But if you guys want to argue it, you're doing it wrong. I think the only case you can make... if you're taking carries away you do it from Jones. He's the guy they're bringing in there specifically to run a 1 yard smash 'em dive play to win the game or at least move the chains. That's not going to do your YPC any favors. I mean in no way is Jones as explosive as Charles. But I don't buy the argument Jones can't be a 4 ypc back either.

Except they aren't using him on those runs, as the play-by-play Pete and I posted earlier shows.

They're throwing the ball, mostly.

Count Zarth
09-22-2010, 10:29 PM
He's the guy they're bringing in there specifically to run a 1 yard smash 'em dive play to win the game or at least move the chains. That's not going to do your YPC any favors.

That's why Marcus Allen had years where he averaged LESS than 4 YPC...but was still quite effective.

cdcox
09-22-2010, 10:33 PM
Except they aren't using him on those runs, as the play-by-play Pete and I posted earlier shows.

They're throwing the ball, mostly.

Or running the option with Castille. :facepalm:

petegz28
09-22-2010, 10:33 PM
By the same token, Jones's media was 3 yards. So when you get down to it, both performed pretty much the same. When it is all said and done, there really was little if any statistical difference between Jones and Charles on Sunday.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:34 PM
Here's an interrogatory for you, Mr. OnTheWarpath58 ...

You are the offensive coordinator of an NFL team. You are judged solely by wins and losses. You have a team that is so bereft of talent that they have to fight and scratch to just stay even with other crappy teams.

You have one running back who has a long track record of gaining 3.5 yards every time he carries the rock. That running back has sufficient experience to learn the game plan quickly, execute it exactly like it's drawn up and can pass block, too.

You have another running back who has a brief track record of busting long runs interspersed with a bunch of 1 yard gains. This running back also has a tendency to freelance on plays as well as a demonstrable difficulty absorbing the game plan each week and problems with pass blocking.

Who do you trust to execute your game plan?

FAX

First, the back that has this "long track record" established it in 2009, running behind the best line in the NFL - not the one he's currently behind in KC.

Second, I don't recall ANYONE complaining about "1 yard runs" last year regarding Charles. Then again, if you disregard his longer runs, as a few not-so-bright folks have done, then sure, you're going to be left with a few short runs.

Finally, to answer your question, I have a choice between a playmaker and a so-called workhorse.

Give me 60-65% playmaker, 35-40% workhorse.

And I definitely quit ignoring the playmaker for the entire 1st quarter.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:34 PM
Or running the option with Castille. :facepalm:

Yeah, that was a real beauty, eh Clark?

petegz28
09-22-2010, 10:35 PM
Or running the option with Castille. :facepalm:

That 3rd and 1 play was stupid, the one where they ran Charles I mean. I hang that squarely on Cassel as well. Weis can only call the play, he can't see how the defense is going to line up. Once Cassel saw they overloaded the side we were going to run too he should of checked off the play to something else.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 10:36 PM
Why don't we talk about Andy Studebaker?

He can't even get a snap on defense, can he?

(thread extended by 5 pages)

Well, you know Im as big a fan of him as well...but I can see Vrabel giving everything hes got on the field this year. I think he is stepping up because of his old coach Romeo.

They should be playing Studebaker more, but Vrabel has been a reason we have won 2 games so far and I think he is doing a fine job of leading by example and that once Studebaker gets his chance, there will be a seamless transition and that he will be fully ready.

Ive also been ok with how they have handled that situation as well.

Truth be told, I think Haley is gonna end up one of the best coaches we have ever had in KC. I think he is a master motivator and is doing a much better job of managing the games.

cdcox
09-22-2010, 10:40 PM
By the same token, Jones's media was 3 yards. So when you get down to it, both performed pretty much the same. When it is all said and done, there really was little if any statistical difference between Jones and Charles on Sunday.

I will agree with you that the median runs are very similar. Given that, I'm going to take the guy who has the better outliers every time. Especially when this team is winning by having better outlier plays that their opposition. If you throw out the outlier plays, this team is 0-2.

FAX
09-22-2010, 10:40 PM
As I expected, Mr. OnTheWarpath58. Now, one more question ...

You are a very horny man. You need to get laid or you will shoot yourself in the temple with the .45 caliber revolver on the table next to you. You have one minute left on your cell phone account. Do you spend that last minute calling ...

1) The girl next door who always comes over when you call, screws your brains out, and makes you coffee and biscuits the next morning?

Or ...

2) The girl you met once at a bar three weeks ago who models for Playboy and has two boyfriends named "Ernie"?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my friggin' case.

FAX

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:41 PM
I will agree with you that the median runs are very similar. Given that, I'm going to take the guy who has the better outliers every time. Especially when this team is winning by having better outlier plays that their opposition. If you throw out the outlier plays, this team is 0-2.

And, boom goes the dynamite.

FAX
09-22-2010, 10:42 PM
I will agree with you that the median runs are very similar. Given that, I'm going to take the guy who has the better outliers every time. Especially when this team is winning by having better outlier plays that their opposition. If you throw out the outlier plays, this team is 0-2.

Excellent point.

And superb use of the term "outlier".

FAX

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:42 PM
As I expected, Mr. OnTheWarpath58. Now, one more question ...

You are a very horny man. You need to get laid or you will shoot yourself in the temple with the .45 caliber revolver on the table next to you. You have one minute left on your cell phone account. Do you spend that last minute calling ...

1) The girl next door who always comes over when you call, screws your brains out, and makes you coffee and biscuits the next morning?

Or ...

2) The girl you met once at a bar three weeks ago who models for Playboy and has two boyfriends named "Ernie"?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my friggin' case.

FAX

The correct answer is:

3) The beautiful and witty Mrs. OTW58.

FAX
09-22-2010, 10:43 PM
That 3rd and 1 play was stupid, the one where they ran Charles I mean. I hang that squarely on Cassel as well. Weis can only call the play, he can't see how the defense is going to line up. Once Cassel saw they overloaded the side we were going to run too he should of checked off the play to something else.

Are they even allowing Mark Castle to check off?

FAX

BossChief
09-22-2010, 10:46 PM
or that they would be overly cautious about, would surely be another decision they could steer towards...something they OBVIOUSLY DID IN THE PAST.

I mean, really, the guy had games last year when his shoulder went totally out and they just threw it back in and he was back out on the field shortly after...then after the season ended, HE HAD SURGERY ON IT...or are you gonna tell me that he injured his shoulder the only time last year in the final game on his final carry?

C'mon, man...be real.

Players play with injuries every game in the NFL.

I think Jamaal is showing Haley how "tough" he is RIGHT NOW.

With no response, I take it this was taken the way it was intended.

Ill let that front rest for the time being then.

doomy3
09-22-2010, 10:51 PM
I'm not reading this ridiculous thread since I couldn't even make it past the thread starter. And I'm not really sure what point Pete is trying to make in that post. I think he is trying to somehow blame Cassel for Charles not getting carries. The funny part about that is the players he then lists who are getting carries. Other than Foster, who has Schaub on his team, the other QBs of the teams these backs play on have been as bad or worse than Cassel so far this year.

Foster (Schaub)
Williams (Matt Moore)
McFadded (Jason Campbell)
Peterson (Brett Favre, who has been horrible)
Mendenhall (Dennis Dixon, Charlie Batch)

That isn't exactly a group of quarterbacks I think would prove whatever point Pete was trying to make.

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:53 PM
I'm not reading this ridiculous thread since I couldn't even make it past the thread starter. And I'm not really sure what point Pete is trying to make in that post. I think he is trying to somehow blame Cassel for Charles not getting carries. The funny part about that is the players he then lists who are getting carries. Other than Foster, who has Schaub on his team, the other QBs of the teams these backs play on have been as bad or worse than Cassel so far this year.

Foster (Schaub)
Williams (Matt Moore)
McFadded (Jason Campbell)
Peterson (Brett Favre, who has been horrible)
Mendenhall (Dennis Dixon, Charlie Batch)

That isn't exactly a group of quarterbacks I think would prove whatever point Pete was trying to make.

If you want funny, take the time to read it.

The only thing he didn't do in this thread was blame the refs.

FAX
09-22-2010, 10:54 PM
The good news is that, if we take away Mark Castle's incompletions and interceptions, his quarterback rating almost doubles.

FAX

BossChief
09-22-2010, 10:56 PM
You don't have to read it...Ill go ahead and boil everything he said down to CP terms:

:facepalm:

OnTheWarpath58
09-22-2010, 10:56 PM
The good news is that, if we take away Mark Castle's incompletions and interceptions, his quarterback rating almost doubles.

FAX

ROFL

Well played.

BossChief
09-22-2010, 11:00 PM
The good news is that, if we take away Mark Castle's incompletions and interceptions, his quarterback rating almost doubles.

FAX

Then of course, you have to take away his touchdown passes too...and hes right back to sub 60...hold on, I meant touchdown PASS. It was wide open, after all.

doomy3
09-22-2010, 11:02 PM
If you want funny, take the time to read it.

The only thing he didn't do in this thread was blame the refs.

That's progress, I guess.

TinyEvel
09-22-2010, 11:30 PM
CASSEL ISN'T GETTING ENOUGH CARRIES!!!

WHY NOT?

BECAUSE HE SUCKS!

:banghead:

aturnis
09-22-2010, 11:47 PM
Why is Chales not getting more carries? The opportunites really are not there...

Top 5 RB's for carries so far in 2 games

Foster 52
Williams 49
McFadded 48
Peterson 47
Mendenhall 45


Jones + Charles = 55
All 5 of the teams with the top 5 RB carries have more ToP than the Chiefs.

When you get down to it, regardless of who is carrying the ball, the fact we have a total of 55 carries between our 2 backs is pathetic.

We are 6 of 26 on 3rd down conversions. We are 30th in 1st downs per game. We are averaging 4.4 yards per play which is 27th.

Cassel has a scant 4.9 yards per pass making him 30th in the league.


What it comes down too is the fact that our QB cannot keep drives moving. We are 15th in 3rd down attempts. We are 9th in YPC at 4.2

Therefore it is clearly obvious, since we can't run the ball every ****ing down, that Cassel is limiting overall touches for both Charles and Jones.

You're an idiot. Your whole argument is nullified by the fact that we would in fact have longer drives if Charles carried the ball more. Last year, Charles averaged 5.9ypc, this year, he's running at 6.4ypc. If Charles was given the ball, between his long runs, good runs and shutdowns, he'd still average out to be the best chance this team has at moving the ball on offense. Give Charles the ball, and he will have a lot more opportunities to carry the ball, ironic huh?

Oh, but if they just give the ball to Charles, the defense will stack the box. Newsflash, they already do, and did last year. Didn't matter much though did it? Dumbfrack.

It would also open up the passing game more too. You see, when Jones is in, they have to respect the run, but not nearly as much as they do Charles. Jones only averages 3.7ypc and has a long of 11yds. While everyone in the NFL knows that Jamaal Charles can break the big one at anytime. Since mid season last year, the only guy with more 40+ yd. runs than Charles is Chris Johnson, and that was by one. Opposing safety's are MUCH more likely to bite on play action if Charles is in the game. B/c if you don't play the run balls out against Jones, what's the worst that will happen? An 11yd. gain? Fuck shoes...

Tribal Warfare
09-23-2010, 12:54 AM
Yeah, I have no idea why people here would want the playmaker to get more carries.

It takes Back A 20 carries to gain 60 yards.

It takes Back B 10 carries to gain 90 yards.


It would be downright CRAZY to give back B more carries.

Absolute lunacy.

FYP

petegz28
09-23-2010, 06:49 AM
You're an idiot. Your whole argument is nullified by the fact that we would in fact have longer drives if Charles carried the ball more. Last year, Charles averaged 5.9ypc, this year, he's running at 6.4ypc. If Charles was given the ball, between his long runs, good runs and shutdowns, he'd still average out to be the best chance this team has at moving the ball on offense. Give Charles the ball, and he will have a lot more opportunities to carry the ball, ironic huh?

Oh, but if they just give the ball to Charles, the defense will stack the box. Newsflash, they already do, and did last year. Didn't matter much though did it? Dumbfrack.

It would also open up the passing game more too. You see, when Jones is in, they have to respect the run, but not nearly as much as they do Charles. Jones only averages 3.7ypc and has a long of 11yds. While everyone in the NFL knows that Jamaal Charles can break the big one at anytime. Since mid season last year, the only guy with more 40+ yd. runs than Charles is Chris Johnson, and that was by one. Opposing safety's are MUCH more likely to bite on play action if Charles is in the game. B/c if you don't play the run balls out against Jones, what's the worst that will happen? An 11yd. gain? **** shoes...

Yep. He had 10 yards total in his 1st 5 carries on Sunday. That is drive extending perfromance there.

mrbiggz
09-23-2010, 07:33 AM
The bottom line is that the QB is suppose to elevate the level of play for the offense but the problem is Cassell is doing the exact opposite. He has hamstrung the offense. Do any of you think if we had any of the top 15 QB's present in the league whomever you think they are, that this team wouldn't be a lot better?

petegz28
09-23-2010, 08:36 AM
I'm not reading this ridiculous thread since I couldn't even make it past the thread starter. And I'm not really sure what point Pete is trying to make in that post. I think he is trying to somehow blame Cassel for Charles not getting carries. The funny part about that is the players he then lists who are getting carries. Other than Foster, who has Schaub on his team, the other QBs of the teams these backs play on have been as bad or worse than Cassel so far this year.

Foster (Schaub)
Williams (Matt Moore)
McFadded (Jason Campbell)
Peterson (Brett Favre, who has been horrible)
Mendenhall (Dennis Dixon, Charlie Batch)

That isn't exactly a group of quarterbacks I think would prove whatever point Pete was trying to make.

Cassel is ranked 30th. Thos other QB's are not as bad as him. Sorry.

Fritz88
09-23-2010, 09:32 AM
stop the fucking insanity, please.
Posted via Mobile Device

dirk digler
09-23-2010, 09:50 AM
Nope, just simply ask you to analyze why the numbers are what they are.

I think your argument has some validity. When DV was coach alot of people bitched about all the meaningless yards they would rack up at then end of the half or games to pad their stats. Probably alot of the same people that are defending Charles performance in Cleveland.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't be getting 20 + carries though. Let's hope that starts happening.