PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs We have the #1 running game in the NFL.


Count Alex's Losses
09-26-2010, 08:15 PM
#1 in yards
#2 in rushing attempts
#7 in YPC
#8 in rushing first downs
#10 in rushing touchdowns
#1 in runs over 20 yards (*cough* Charles needs more carries)
0 fumbles

Charles has 238 yards and Jones has 217 yards.

Can they both get to 1,000 yards?

Boy, Herm would love this. Too bad he's not here anymore. :evil:

Bane
09-26-2010, 08:17 PM
Sure they can.

kysirsoze
09-26-2010, 08:17 PM
They might both get close, but that sounds a little overboard. How many times has that ever happened?

kysirsoze
09-26-2010, 08:17 PM
Sure they can.

Oh they can. But "will" is a pretty bold statement.

petegz28
09-26-2010, 08:18 PM
They might both get close, but that sounds a little overboard. How many times has that ever happened?

How many times has Charles and Jones been on a team before?

InChiefsHell
09-26-2010, 08:18 PM
well, with 13 games left, I'm going with yes...

Count Alex's Losses
09-26-2010, 08:18 PM
Guess who leads all running backs in YPC?

http://chiefschatter.com/files/2009/12/JamaalCharles8.jpg

OnTheWarpath58
09-26-2010, 08:20 PM
Guess who leads all running backs in YPC?

http://chiefschatter.com/files/2009/12/JamaalCharles8.jpg

I'm just going to STFU

FRCDFED
09-26-2010, 08:20 PM
They might both get close, but that sounds a little overboard. How many times has that ever happened?
It seems like that has happened twice...once with Byner/Mack in Cleveland....and I don't recall the other time but possibly the Dolphins??? I could be way off but I've heard it discussed before.

Bane
09-26-2010, 08:20 PM
Oh they can. But "will" is a pretty bold statement.

I wouldn't bet any $ on it but I think if they continue to split carries as they are now then yes they will.

-King-
09-26-2010, 08:21 PM
They might both get close, but that sounds a little overboard. How many times has that ever happened?

Williams and Stewart did it in Carolina last year.

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 08:22 PM
I'm just going to STFU

Good, because we're 3-0, and you're not a HC or GM.

KChiefs1
09-26-2010, 08:22 PM
Didn't the 72 Dolphins have two 1000 yd rushers in Csonka & Morris?

OnTheWarpath58
09-26-2010, 08:22 PM
Good, because we're 3-0, and you're not a HC or GM.

LMAO

Bane
09-26-2010, 08:23 PM
They might both get close, but that sounds a little overboard. How many times has that ever happened?

I'm reading 5.Still looking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFL_teams_with_multiple_1000_yard_rushers

philfree
09-26-2010, 08:23 PM
Okoye/Word ?

PhilFree:arrow:

milkman
09-26-2010, 08:23 PM
It seems like that has happened twice...once with Byner/Mack in Cleveland....and I don't recall the other time but possibly the Dolphins??? I could be way off but I've heard it discussed before.

Csonka and Morris.

Marcellus
09-26-2010, 08:25 PM
Say what you want, there is a lot of football left but yes JC is explosive but TJ is running well too.

Great combo. At some point I think the roles reverse.

Rain Man
09-26-2010, 08:25 PM
Okoye/Word ?

PhilFree:arrow:


That's what I was thinking.


The funny thing is that we only have the gas pedal halfway to the floor right now. McCluster is only now making his debut.

Count Alex's Losses
09-26-2010, 08:26 PM
I'm just going to STFU

Obviously his YPC would dip if he got 20 carries a game.

milkman
09-26-2010, 08:31 PM
Okoye/Word ?

PhilFree:arrow:

Okoye had over 1000 yards in '89 and '91.
Word had over 1000 yards in '90.

Bane
09-26-2010, 08:32 PM
Okoye had over 1000 yards in '89 and '91.
Word had over 1000 yards in '90.

I'm still coming up with 5 teams and KC wasn't one of them.


The first team to have two 1000 yard rushers was the 1972 Miami Dolphins.[1] Fullback Larry Csonka rushed for 1117 yards and Mercury Morris, who split the halfback position with Jim Kiick, rushed for exactly 1000.[2][3] Miami won the Super Bowl that season. During the three postseaon games, Csonka rushed for an additional 212 yards and Morris rushed for an additional 182 yards.[1]

The second team with two 1000 yard rushers was the 1976 Pittsburgh Steelers.[4] Fullback Franco Harris rushed for 1128 yards and halfback Rocky Bleier rushed for 1036.[5] Although the Steelers were the 2-time defending Super Bowl champions going into the 1976 season, they did not reach the Super Bowl after the 1976 season. They were defeated in the AFC Championship Game by the Oakland Raiders, when both Harris and Bleier had to miss the game due to injuries.[4] In the one postseason game they did play, Harris gained 132 yards and Bleier lost a yard.[4] Since the NFL moved from a 14 game regular season schedule to a 16 game schedule in 1978, the 1972 Dolphins and the 1976 Steelers are the only NFL teams to have multiple 1000 yard rushers in 14 game season.[6]

The third team with two 1000 yard rushers was the 1985 Cleveland Browns.[7] Fullback Kevin Mack rushed for 1104 yards and halfback Earnest Byner rushed for 1002.[8] The Browns made the playoffs in 1985 but were defeated in the opening round by the Miami Dolphins.[7] In that game Byner rushed for 161 yards and Mack rushed for 56.[7]

In 2006, Michael Vick of the Atlanta Falcons became the first quarterback to rush for over 1000 yards, with 1039.[9][10] Atlanta running back Warrick Dunn rushed for 1140 yards that season, making Vick and Dunn the only 1000 yard rushing tandem to include a quarterback.[11] The Falcons did not make the 2006 playoffs.[12]

The 2008 New York Giants became the fifth team to have two players with 1000 rushing yards and the fourth to have two running backs with 1000 rushing yards.[13][14] Brandon Jacobs finished the season with 1089 yards and Derrick Ward finished with 1025.[14][15] The 2008 Giants played one playoff game, in which Jacobs rushed for 92 yards and Ward rushed for 46.[16]

The 2009 Carolina Panthers became the sixth team to have two players with 1000 rushing yards with Jonathan Stewart rushing for 1133 yards and DeAngelo Williams rushing for 1117.[17][18] Stewart and Williams also became the first pair of teammates to rush for 1100 yards apiece in a single season.[18]

OnTheWarpath58
09-26-2010, 08:33 PM
Obviously his YPC would dip if he got 20 carries a game.

Yeah, just like it did last year.

the Talking Can
09-26-2010, 08:34 PM
jones was a hell of a pickup for what 3 mill...

Count Alex's Losses
09-26-2010, 08:34 PM
Yeah, just like it did last year.

I can live with 5.9 YPC, I guess.

Marcellus
09-26-2010, 08:35 PM
Yeah, just like it did last year.

Well, FWIW I don't think you could do that for 16 games. He did that for basically 8 games.

That's why I think they are being cautious and will rely on him more down the stretch.

Jones is no slouch so giving him carries isn't hurting the team.

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 08:36 PM
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.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/article-2/QA-with-Todd-Haley-%E2%80%93-824/a8289fd5-f935-4e55-854e-df5757226733

keg in kc
09-26-2010, 08:37 PM
If today is what they're trying to do, then it's hard to find any fault with it. They have a lot of bullets in the chamber, and they fired them all. Charles made big plays, Jones made big plays, McCluster made big plays, Moeaki and Bowe made big plays.

It was sort of like watching the Chiefs from 6 or 7 years ago, but with a lot more speed and a wider variety of weapons.

dirk digler
09-26-2010, 08:39 PM
If today is what they're trying to do, then it's hard to find any fault with it. They have a lot of bullets in the chamber, and they fired them all. Charles made big plays, Jones made big plays, McCluster made big plays, Moeaki and Bowe made big plays.

It was sort of like watching the Chiefs from 6 or 7 years ago, but with a lot more speed and a wider variety of weapons.

Yep. I don't see how anyone can complain after starting 3-0 and having the #1 rushing attack in the NFL. Whatever they are doing with Charles and Jones it is working

-King-
09-26-2010, 08:39 PM
Wow, some of you guys crack me up. Both guys had great games and we're still bitching about carries.

kstater
09-26-2010, 08:40 PM
Yep. I don't see how anyone can complain after starting 3-0 and having the #1 rushing attack in the NFL. Whatever they are doing it with Charles and Jones is working

CHARLES NEEDS MORE CARRIES DAMNIT

Marcellus
09-26-2010, 08:40 PM
Yep. I don't see how anyone can complain after starting 3-0 and having the #1 rushing attack in the NFL. Whatever they are doing it with Charles and Jones is working

Yea but we can still complain right? LMAO

jsmax
09-26-2010, 08:40 PM
Based on current statistics, JC is on pace for 1269 yds and TJ for 1157......But, I think it can get even better.

If the passing game comtinues to step up, and becomes respectable, then that will open it up for the run game.

OnTheWarpath58
09-26-2010, 08:41 PM
If today is what they're trying to do, then it's hard to find any fault with it. They have a lot of bullets in the chamber, and they fired them all. Charles made big plays, Jones made big plays, McCluster made big plays, Moeaki and Bowe made big plays.

It was sort of like watching the Chiefs from 6 or 7 years ago, but with a lot more speed and a wider variety of weapons.

I can think of 3 or 4 times today where after a Jones run, my buddy would turn to me, or I'd turn to him and say:

"Charles would have picked up 15 there" (Jones ran for like 5)

"Charles might have broke that" (Jones ran for like 9)

"Charles would have scored."


There are going to be games where the difference in yardage or the difference in getting held to a FG attempt instead of getting in the EZ is going to be the difference.

Count Alex's Losses
09-26-2010, 08:42 PM
By the way, anyone know the record for YPC in one year for a RB who gets at least, say....150 carries?

It's gotta be around 6 YPC I'm thinking. With the way they are using Charles he might threaten that record.

dirk digler
09-26-2010, 08:43 PM
Yea but we can still complain right? LMAO

Of course this is CP. People would complain if we would win the SB.

FRCDFED
09-26-2010, 08:43 PM
Yep. I don't see how anyone can complain after starting 3-0 and having the #1 rushing attack in the NFL. Whatever they are doing with Charles and Jones it is working
Complain no....look for areas of improvement *cough QB* then yes. A team cannot stagnate or it will be left behind. We all know that the QB position doesn't seem to be pulling his weight. To refuse to acknowledge that would be ridiculous; homerism; and extremely short sighted.

OnTheWarpath58
09-26-2010, 08:43 PM
Of course this is CP. People would complain if we would win the SB.

Easy there, Pete.

-King-
09-26-2010, 08:44 PM
I can think of 3 or 4 times today where after a Jones run, my buddy would turn to me, or I'd turn to him and say:

"Charles would have picked up 15 there" (Jones ran for like 5)

"Charles might have broke that" (Jones ran for like 9)

"Charles would have scored."


There are going to be games where the difference in yardage or the difference in getting held to a FG attempt instead of getting in the EZ is going to be the difference.

So your whole argument is based on 3 or 4 "what if" plays?

Bane
09-26-2010, 08:44 PM
Of course this is CP. People would complain if we would win the SB.

That would definitely run a few of the trolls off for a while.

Marcellus
09-26-2010, 08:45 PM
I can think of 3 or 4 times today where after a Jones run, my buddy would turn to me, or I'd turn to him and say:

"Charles would have picked up 15 there" (Jones ran for like 5)

"Charles might have broke that" (Jones ran for like 9)

"Charles would have scored."


There are going to be games where the difference in yardage or the difference in getting held to a FG attempt instead of getting in the EZ is going to be the difference.

Charles isn't a 25 carry a game back for 16 games. He isn't. We just handed one of the best run defenses an ass whoppin.

Deal with it and realize having TJ is a good thing as long as the carries are managed well like today.

dirk digler
09-26-2010, 08:45 PM
By the way, anyone know the record for YPC in one year for a RB who gets at least, say....150 carries?

It's gotta be around 6 YPC I'm thinking. With the way they are using Charles he might threaten that record.

Good question. The year Barry Sanders broke the 2000 mark he averaged 6.1

OnTheWarpath58
09-26-2010, 08:46 PM
Charles isn't a 25 carry a game back for 16 games. He isn't. We just handed one of the best run defenses an ass whoppin.

Deal with it and realize having TJ is a good thing as well as long as the carries are managed well like today.

Why do people keep claiming that I, or anyone else is advocating 25-30 carries?

Marcellus
09-26-2010, 08:48 PM
Why do people keep claiming that I, or anyone else is advocating 25-30 carries?

Well if you keep complaining about the yards Jones is getting what else would you be advocating?

dirk digler
09-26-2010, 08:48 PM
Complain no....look for areas of improvement *cough QB* then yes. A team cannot stagnate or it will be left behind. We all know that the QB position doesn't seem to be pulling his weight. To refuse to acknowledge that would be ridiculous; homerism; and extremely short sighted.

I didn't say anything about the QB I was talking about the RB situation.

I am all for bitching and complaining about the QB :D

Easy there, Pete.

Thanks Guardian

Brock
09-26-2010, 08:49 PM
By the way, anyone know the record for YPC in one year for a RB who gets at least, say....150 carries?

It's gotta be around 6 YPC I'm thinking. With the way they are using Charles he might threaten that record.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/rush_yds_per_att_single_season.htm

milkman
09-26-2010, 08:49 PM
Good question. The year Barry Sanders broke the 2000 mark he averaged 6.1

Jim Brown avaeraged 6.4 in 1963.

Bane
09-26-2010, 08:50 PM
By the way, anyone know the record for YPC in one year for a RB who gets at least, say....150 carries?

It's gotta be around 6 YPC I'm thinking. With the way they are using Charles he might threaten that record.


8.45 Michael Vick, Atlanta, 2006 (123-1,039)
8.44 - Beattie Feathers, Chi. Bears, 1934 (119-1,004)
7.98 Randall Cunningham, Philadelphia 1990 (118-942)

Wait you said 150 carries.....FUCK!!!

keg in kc
09-26-2010, 08:53 PM
I can think of 3 or 4 times today where after a Jones run, my buddy would turn to me, or I'd turn to him and say:

"Charles would have picked up 15 there" (Jones ran for like 5)

"Charles might have broke that" (Jones ran for like 9)

"Charles would have scored."


There are going to be games where the difference in yardage or the difference in getting held to a FG attempt instead of getting in the EZ is going to be the difference.You can "if" and "but" yourself until your head explodes. Say you shift a half dozen carries to Charles, so it's an 18/13 split in his favor. How do you know that those carries you give Charles end up being the ones where you and your buddy thought he would have broken it? The only way you can guarantee anything is to dump Jones from the roster and have Charles run the ball for all 35 attempts that he, Jones and Battle got today.

Maybe that's a good idea. Maybe it's not.

OnTheWarpath58
09-26-2010, 08:53 PM
Well if you keep complaining about the yards Jones is getting what else would you be advocating?

Jamaal getting 6 more carries a game means more total yardage, plus 6 more opportunities to score on the play.

I still can't believe that our record has blinded people to the fact that we have a guy that can score from anywhere on the field, and they're OK with him giving up 6 or so carries a game to someone that can't.

Whatever. I'm enjoying 3-0, but don't feel that things can't be, or don't need to be better.

I'll quit.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 08:54 PM
While it's not exactly 1,000 / 1,000, Mike Alstott and Warrick Dunn... that's a combo that came pretty damn close. Alstott with 846 yards in 1998, DUnn with 1,026.

Rausch
09-26-2010, 08:56 PM
#1 in yards
#2 in rushing attempts

:eek:


Are you fucking kidding me?

The Steelers still play in this league and we're 2nd in attempts?

Fucking awesome. Perhaps I don't give Haley and co. enough credit...

stevieray
09-26-2010, 08:59 PM
Jamaal getting 6 more carries a game means more total yardage, plus 6 more opportunities to score on the play.

I still can't believe that our record has blinded people to the fact that we have a guy that can score from anywhere on the field, and they're OK with him giving up 6 or so carries a game to someone that can't.

Whatever. I'm enjoying 3-0, but don't feel that things can't be, or don't need to be better.

I'll quit.

cmon man, you''ll give yourself an ulcer on the what if's....

..I find it hard to believe that you don't think that Haley and Co share the thought that they need to keep improving also...both backs will work just fine if the scheme and playcalling/adjustments continues to exploit opposing defenses..

Marcellus
09-26-2010, 09:00 PM
Jamaal getting 6 more carries a game means more total yardage, plus 6 more opportunities to score on the play.

I still can't believe that our record has blinded people to the fact that we have a guy that can score from anywhere on the field, and they're OK with him giving up 6 or so carries a game to someone that can't.

Whatever. I'm enjoying 3-0, but don't feel that things can't be, or don't need to be better.

I'll quit.

We are in week 3 and JC got more carries today (Than previous). Keeping him fresh and ready for the long haul isn't bad.

I want to see JC every damn down but that doesn't mean I don't understand why he doesn't play every down.

If it were last year where LJ was getting shit, I would understand the frustration. TJ isn't getting LJ yards and he is keeping JC fresh.

dirk digler
09-26-2010, 09:01 PM
Jamaal getting 6 more carries a game means more total yardage, plus 6 more opportunities to score on the play.

I still can't believe that our record has blinded people to the fact that we have a guy that can score from anywhere on the field, and they're OK with him giving up 6 or so carries a game to someone that can't.

Whatever. I'm enjoying 3-0, but don't feel that things can't be, or don't need to be better.

I'll quit.

Things can always be better but I think we got an ideal RB situation. I would like Charles to get more carries but so far I can't complain about the carry situation because it has worked great so far.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 09:02 PM
Jamaal getting 6 more carries a game means more total yardage, plus 6 more opportunities to score on the play.

I still can't believe that our record has blinded people to the fact that we have a guy that can score from anywhere on the field, and they're OK with him giving up 6 or so carries a game to someone that can't.

Whatever. I'm enjoying 3-0, but don't feel that things can't be, or don't need to be better.

I'll quit.

Yeah, but you also assume that the only football strategy is to light up the scoreboard. I get that you need to score more points to win.

The Chiefs' #1 objective this year, so far, has been to win the Time of Possession game. And I don't think it's a stretch to say a lot of our defensive improvements and our second half energy has been due to our offensive gameplan keeping them fresh.

And I would argue that Jones is MUCH more suitable for that type of a game.

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 09:06 PM
Yeah, but you also assume that the only football strategy is to light up the scoreboard. I get that you need to score more points to win.

The Chiefs' #1 objective this year, so far, has been to win the Time of Possession game. And I don't think it's a stretch to say a lot of our defensive improvements and our second half energy has been due to our offensive gameplan keeping them fresh.

And I would argue that Jones is MUCH more suitable for that type of a game.

You take TOP; I'll take points.

And we're still talking about a ****ing RB, so the chance of scoring on "quick" drives is slim. But what if we did? I guess I remember all those posts from a few Mondays ago when everyone was pissed that Charles had the audacity to score from 56 yards out. Selfish mother****er.

cdcox
09-26-2010, 09:07 PM
Of the statistics in the OP, YPC is the one that correlates most strongly with winning. We are only 7th in that because we don't give Charles enough carries.

Marcellus
09-26-2010, 09:09 PM
Of the statistics in the OP, YPC is the one that correlates most strongly with winning. We are only 7th in that because we don't give Charles enough carries.

You do realize YPC will go down when you have the lead and are running out the clock right?

RJ
09-26-2010, 09:10 PM
Of course this is CP. People would complain if we would win the SB.


I think that might be the only scenario where we would see no complaining at all........for about a week.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 09:15 PM
You take TOP; I'll take points.

And we're still talking about a ****ing RB, so the chances of scoring on "quick" drives is slim. But what if we did? I guess I remember all those posts from a few Mondays ago when everyone was pissed that Charles had the audacity to score from 56 yards out. Selfish mother****er.

Of course you would. And that's probably why the formula worked so well for us last year. Or during the Vermeil years. Or during the Tyler Thigpen era. Your basically supporting an offense that gets off the field within 5 or 6 plays and eats up about 2 or 3 minutes of clock. Let's go for the home run or a few 10-yard gains or else settle for a three and out.

Let's be satisfied that Charles on most drives will set Cassel up for a 3rd and 8, where he'll probably take a sack and then force a punt.

Charles had a great 56-yard run against San Diego, but let's face it. The team nearly let the Chargers climb back because neither RB was capable of extending drives out. We had way too many three and outs.

Of course I love the home run play. But when you're not hitting home runs, what are you doing? And does that make your defense worse or better?

Coach
09-26-2010, 09:16 PM
And in other news, the reason why the Chiefs couldn't draft Clausen was this shocking video.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78/nursetpd/Notre%20Dame/Clausen_Attacked.gif

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 09:17 PM
Of course you would. And that's probably why the formula worked so well for us last year. Or during the Vermeil years. Or during the Tyler Thigpen era. Your basically supporting an offense that gets off the field within 5 or 6 plays and eats up about 2 or 3 minutes of clock. Let's go for the home run or a few 10-yard gains or else settle for a three and out.

Let's be satisfied that Charles on most drives will set Cassel up for a 3rd and 8, where he'll probably take a sack and then force a punt.

Charles had a great 56-yard run against San Diego, but let's face it. The team nearly let the Chargers climb back because neither RB was capable of extending drives out. We had way too many three and outs.

Of course I love the home run play. But when you're not hitting home runs, what are you doing? And does that make your defense worse or better?

Last year? LMAO. Our HR offense of last year?

I love it how the best players on shit teams are always the ones that fans point to for blame. Yes, Charles was one of the reasons why we sucked in '09. He's a HR threat, nothing else. 20 yards or nothing.

LMAO.

Brock
09-26-2010, 09:19 PM
Of course you would. And that's probably why the formula worked so well for us last year. Or during the Vermeil years. Or during the Tyler Thigpen era. Your basically supporting an offense that gets off the field within 5 or 6 plays and eats up about 2 or 3 minutes of clock. Let's go for the home run or a few 10-yard gains or else settle for a three and out.

Let's be satisfied that Charles on most drives will set Cassel up for a 3rd and 8, where he'll probably take a sack and then force a punt.

Charles had a great 56-yard run against San Diego, but let's face it. The team nearly let the Chargers climb back because neither RB was capable of extending drives out. We had way too many three and outs.

Of course I love the home run play. But when you're not hitting home runs, what are you doing? And does that make your defense worse or better?

Wow, that's a bunch of garbage.

cdcox
09-26-2010, 09:20 PM
You do realize YPC will go down when you have the lead and are running out the clock right?

Yes. And despite this, it correlates positively with winning.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 09:21 PM
Last year? LMAO. Our HR offense of last year?

I love it how the best players on shit teams are always the ones that fans point to for blame. Yes, Charles was one of the reasons why we sucked in '09. He's a HR threat, nothing else. 20 yards or nothing.

LMAO.

Yes, because that's exactly what I'm saying. Shame on Jamaal Charles for losing all of our games in the second half of last season.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 09:22 PM
Wow, that's a bunch of garbage.

What's a bunch of garbage.

Against San Francisco and Cleveland, we won the time of possession game by SEVEN MINUTES.

SEVEN MINUTES.

SEVEN MINUTES.

And here we are bitching about Yards Per Carry. You don't think seven minutes of Peyton Hillis and Frank Gore ramming their shoulder into our defenders is a pretty big fucking deal?

Brock
09-26-2010, 09:23 PM
What's a bunch of garbage.

Against San Francisco and Cleveland, we won the time of possession game by SEVEN MINUTES.

SEVEN MINUTES.

SEVEN MINUTES.

And here we are bitching about Yards Per Carry.

I'm not bitching about anything, I'm saying that your comment that playing Charles more will result in 3rd and 8 is garbage.

OnTheWarpath58
09-26-2010, 09:24 PM
You take TOP; I'll take points.

And we're still talking about a ****ing RB, so the chance of scoring on "quick" drives is slim. But what if we did? I guess I remember all those posts from a few Mondays ago when everyone was pissed that Charles had the audacity to score from 56 yards out. Selfish mother****er.

No shit.

TOP is a nice stat.

Points win games.

OnTheWarpath58
09-26-2010, 09:26 PM
Of course you would. And that's probably why the formula worked so well for us last year. Or during the Vermeil years. Or during the Tyler Thigpen era. Your basically supporting an offense that gets off the field within 5 or 6 plays and eats up about 2 or 3 minutes of clock. Let's go for the home run or a few 10-yard gains or else settle for a three and out.

Let's be satisfied that Charles on most drives will set Cassel up for a 3rd and 8, where he'll probably take a sack and then force a punt.

Charles had a great 56-yard run against San Diego, but let's face it. The team nearly let the Chargers climb back because neither RB was capable of extending drives out. We had way too many three and outs.

Of course I love the home run play. But when you're not hitting home runs, what are you doing? And does that make your defense worse or better?

:facepalm:

Marcellus
09-26-2010, 09:26 PM
Yes. And despite this, it correlates positively with winning.

So being 7th in YPC isn't bad?

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 09:27 PM
I'm not bitching about anything, I'm saying that your comment that playing Charles more will result in 3rd and 8 is garbage.

How many times do you remember Matt Cassel operating out of third and long this year? How many times do you remember him doing that in the second half of last season?

All I know is that when we put Cassel in that situation, he's shit his pants. This season, we've put Cassel into a LOT more manageable situations. THomas Jones may not get credit for that, but he absolutely, positively should. And the drives that weren't extended in the first half today were the result of Cassel being unable to convert on a third and short, which is unacceptable.

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 09:28 PM
Of course you would. And that's probably why the formula worked so well for us last year. Or during the Vermeil years. Or during the Tyler Thigpen era. Your basically supporting an offense that gets off the field within 5 or 6 plays and eats up about 2 or 3 minutes of clock. Let's go for the home run or a few 10-yard gains or else settle for a three and out.

Let's be satisfied that Charles on most drives will set Cassel up for a 3rd and 8, where he'll probably take a sack and then force a punt.

Charles had a great 56-yard run against San Diego, but let's face it. The team nearly let the Chargers climb back because neither RB was capable of extending drives out. We had way too many three and outs.

Of course I love the home run play. But when you're not hitting home runs, what are you doing? And does that make your defense worse or better?

Yes, because that's exactly what I'm saying. Shame on Jamaal Charles for losing all of our games in the second half of last season.

That formula? When our only weapon was Charles?

Points bad. This is like Mitch Holthus blasting and mocking the arena ball of Grandpa. Guess what? Scoring points wasn't the fucking problem. Having a clown running the fucking defense was the fucking problem.

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 09:32 PM
I don't know why anyone gives a fuck about our defensive improvements. That worked so well for us under Marty.

Gonzo
09-26-2010, 09:32 PM
Personally, (and this may be a popular opinion) I think they'll keep banging Jones until week 9 or 10 then hand the keys over to Charles for a playoff push.
Posted via Mobile Device

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 09:33 PM
That formula? When our only weapon was Charles?

Points bad. This is like Mitch Holthus blasting and mocking the arena ball of Grandpa. Guess what? Scoring points wasn't the ****ing problem. Having a clown running the ****ing defense was the ****ing problem.

Dude, when did I ever say that points are bad? I'm saying that right now our team is much better equipped to do whatever it takes to give up less points rather than do everything they can to score more points.

You are asking the Chiefs to play shootout football. Do whatever it takes to score more points. Nevermind if that puts your defense on the field for 7 more minutes (possibly more). Nevermind if that means you put Matt Cassel in a lot more 3rd and long situations, which he has consistently blown.

Nevermind that when you ask your defense to play 7 more minutes, you can't expect them to play great 4th quarter defense. Because we all want the ball in Matt Cassel's hands in the 4th quarter when our defense is incapable of holding our lead.

Marcellus
09-26-2010, 09:34 PM
Personally, (and this may be a popular opinion) I think they'll keep banging Jones until week 9 or 10 then hand the keys over to Charles for a playoff push.
Posted via Mobile Device

I agree totally. Roles reverse. It will happen unless Jones just tears it up.

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 09:35 PM
Dude, when did I ever say that points are bad? I'm saying that right now our team is much better equipped to do whatever it takes to give up less points rather than do everything they can to score more points.

You are asking the Chiefs to play shootout football. Do whatever it takes to score more points. Nevermind if that puts your defense on the field for 7 more minutes (possibly more). Nevermind if that means you put Matt Cassel in a lot more 3rd and long situations, which he has consistently blown.

Nevermind that when you ask your defense to play 7 more minutes, you can't expect them to play great 4th quarter defense. Because we all want the ball in Matt Cassel's hands in the 4th quarter when our defense is incapable of holding our lead.

Why in the world are you associating playing the better RB with "shootout football"? Why would Cassel be in MORE third-and-long situations with a RB who averages more YPC?

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 09:35 PM
I don't know why anyone gives a **** about our defensive improvements. That worked so well for us under Marty.

Whoa....

For serious?

cdcox
09-26-2010, 09:36 PM
So being 7th in YPC isn't bad?

It isn't bad.

There are about half a dozen stats that matter. To have a reasonable chance to win a SB you probably need to be top 10 in all of them or top 3 in a couple of them and not terrible in any of them.

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 09:38 PM
Whoa....

For serious?

:facepalm:

When you play lock-down defense, it places more pressure on the offense to score, and this can be counter-productive.

OnTheWarpath58
09-26-2010, 09:38 PM
Why in the world are you associating playing the better RB with "shootout football"? Why would Cassel be in MORE third-and-long situations with a RB who averages more YPC?

He wouldn't, which is why you, me and others think his argument is garbage.

dirk digler
09-26-2010, 09:38 PM
I don't know why anyone gives a fuck about our defensive improvements. That worked so well for us under Marty.

:spock:

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 09:40 PM
LMAO.

That scoring points thing worked SO WELL for us under Grandpa.

dirk digler
09-26-2010, 09:41 PM
:facepalm:

When you play lock-down defense, it places more pressure on the offense to score, and this can be counter-productive.

Now I know you are just fucking around

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 09:45 PM
Why in the world are you associating playing the better RB with "shootout football"? Why would Cassel be in MORE third-and-long situations with a RB who averages more YPC?

Because Charles is not built to be a grinder whose role is to nickel and dime the interior and wear the interior down. He is meant to be an outside runner who can absolutely violate you on tosses, sweeps, and off-tackles. Those outside runs tend to be a lot more inconsistent in terms of gaining yardage and it's certainly not the kind of smashmouth football that typically wears a defense down.

If you want an eat-the-clock, wear the defense down offense, almost every team in the league would rather do that on the interior.

While you're so obsessed with YPC, you're failing to see that TJ has consistently over the past two games put Cassel in manageable third down situations. That's something we rarely ever did with any kind of consistency last season.

jjjayb
09-26-2010, 09:53 PM
Guess who leads all running backs in YPC?

http://chiefschatter.com/files/2009/12/JamaalCharles8.jpg

Yes, but what about after you take away all of his big runs? Then what is his ypc? You're not supposed to count those big runs for Chiefs running backs named Jamal Charles.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 09:55 PM
He wouldn't, which is why you, me and others think his argument is garbage.

Here's today in the first half:
3rd and 4
3rd and 3
3rd and 20 (all 3 were passes)
3rd and 5
4th and 1
3rd and 1
3rd and 5 (Charles)
3rd and 2

And I believe on all of these, Jones was the primary back leading to those. Jamaal Charles is lightning in a bottle. He'll get you a big gain first down and is a threat to take it to the house. But Thomas Jones is a guy who can very effectively march the team down the field in a 12+ play drive by forcing a defense to play all downs and CONSISTENTLY putting our offense in 3rd and short situations. If we had a legit game manager QB, those 3rd and shorts are absolute gifts.

-King-
09-26-2010, 09:55 PM
Yes, but what about after you take away all of his big runs? Then what is his ypc? You're not supposed to count those big runs for Chiefs running backs named Jamal Charles.

Who the fuck is Jamal Charles?

OnTheWarpath58
09-26-2010, 09:57 PM
Here's today in the first half:
3rd and 4
3rd and 3
3rd and 20 (all 3 were passes)
3rd and 5
4th and 1
3rd and 1
3rd and 5 (Charles)
3rd and 2

And I believe on all of these, Jones was the primary back leading to those. Jamaal Charles is lightning in a bottle. He'll get you a big gain first down and is a threat to take it to the house. But Thomas Jones is a guy who can very effectively march the team down the field in a 12+ play drive by forcing a defense to play all downs and CONSISTENTLY putting our offense in 3rd and short situations. If we had a legit game manager QB, those 3rd and shorts are absolute gifts.

Interesting that you ignore all the 3rd and 8 and longer we were in on MNF that I posted a day or so ago.

Same game that Jones got the majority of carries on 1st down.

Shogun
09-26-2010, 09:59 PM
I don't know why anyone gives a fuck about our defensive improvements. That worked so well for us under Marty.

You're completely right, we should just not play Defense at all and pray the idiots can't find the end zone

Brock
09-26-2010, 09:59 PM
How many times do you remember Matt Cassel operating out of third and long this year? How many times do you remember him doing that in the second half of last season?

They've been in 3rd and long quite a bit, with the exception of 1 game. Probably no more or less than they were in the second half of last year. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Shogun
09-26-2010, 10:01 PM
Jamaal Charles needs more Defensive plays.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 10:01 PM
Interesting that you ignore all the 3rd and 8 and longer we were in on MNF that I posted a day or so ago.

Same game that Jones got the majority of carries on 1st down.

They got an equal carry load. In that game, neither back was particularly effective consistently. But yes, thank god for Charles breaking a big one away.

jjjayb
09-26-2010, 10:02 PM
Of course this is CP. People would complain if we would win the SB.

I remember in 2003 people said the same thing you are saying about our _efense. Why complain, we're winning games with this shitty _efense? You remember what happened in the playoffs right? No punts by the Colts. Knocked out in the first round of the playoffs in a game at Arrowhead. Yep. It was stupid to worry about the _fense then, just like it's stupid to worry about not getting the best player the ball now right?

milkman
09-26-2010, 10:02 PM
Here's today in the first half:
3rd and 4
3rd and 3
3rd and 20 (all 3 were passes)
3rd and 5
4th and 1
3rd and 1
3rd and 5 (Charles)
3rd and 2

And I believe on all of these, Jones was the primary back leading to those. Jamaal Charles is lightning in a bottle. He'll get you a big gain first down and is a threat to take it to the house. But Thomas Jones is a guy who can very effectively march the team down the field in a 12+ play drive by forcing a defense to play all downs and CONSISTENTLY putting our offense in 3rd and short situations. If we had a legit game manager QB, those 3rd and shorts are absolute gifts.

Jones had some very nice holes to run through today, and has been pointed out, the Chiefs were in numerous third and longs with Jones featured in those forst two games.

Your argument is disengenuous, as many of your arguments are.

FRCDFED
09-26-2010, 10:05 PM
And the drives that weren't extended in the first half today were the result of Cassel being unable to convert on a third and short, which is unacceptable.Then why don't you say that our QB sucks ass because he can't convert a fucking 3rd down instead of blaming the RB's? TOP is good but I think someone else got it right when they said points win games.

jjjayb
09-26-2010, 10:05 PM
Who the **** is Jamal Charles?

I'll give him more A's when he gets more carries. ;)

Marcellus
09-26-2010, 10:08 PM
I remember in 2003 people said the same thing you are saying about our _efense. Why complain, we're winning games with this shitty _efense? You remember what happened in the playoffs right? No punts by the Colts. Knocked out in the first round of the playoffs in a game at Arrowhead. Yep. It was stupid to worry about the _fense then, just like it's stupid to worry about not getting the best player the ball now right?

Here is the difference.

You can give JC more carries. You can't fix a retarded defense half way through the year.

Got it? Ok.

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 10:09 PM
Because Charles is not built to be a grinder whose role is to nickel and dime the interior and wear the interior down. He is meant to be an outside runner who can absolutely violate you on tosses, sweeps, and off-tackles. Those outside runs tend to be a lot more inconsistent in terms of gaining yardage and it's certainly not the kind of smashmouth football that typically wears a defense down.

If you want an eat-the-clock, wear the defense down offense, almost every team in the league would rather do that on the interior.

While you're so obsessed with YPC, you're failing to see that TJ has consistently over the past two games put Cassel in manageable third down situations. That's something we rarely ever did with any kind of consistency last season.

Yeah, Charles cannot run between the tackles. No way. Incapable of picking up yards there.

Someone notify TN that they're using their similarly built, similarly electric RB entirely wrong.

If you want to make a halfway credible argument, at least claim that Jones is the more effective RB. "Sensible"ChiefsFan is at this point. He's wrong, but at least it's a viable position.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 10:24 PM
They've been in 3rd and long quite a bit, with the exception of 1 game. Probably no more or less than they were in the second half of last year. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Here's a summary of the Browns game. Sorry, the notes are sloppy. But the point to take away is that in series within drives where Charles was the feature back, the Chiefs were typically thrown into 3rd and 6 or more type situations (in the event that he didn't stretch a 5+ yard run for a first down). And actually, apart from the first series, Charles was really the guy that was getting the most touches. But you'll see that apart from the first drive, Jones very typically took the series to a 3rd and 3 or shorter (when they were 2-carry series).


First half of Browns game:
JONES Series 1: 7 plays, 4:06. One passing first down (no runs). One Jones first down. Jones forces a 3rd and 6
NEITHER Series 2: 3 passes no first downs
CHARLES Series 3: (6 plays, 2:20) 2 passing first downs (no runs). Charles forces a 3rd and 6.
CHARLES Series 4: (3 plays, 1:30): Charles forces a 3rd and 6
CHARLES Series 5: 2 plays (INT + Charles 2-yrd run)
JONES Series 6: 6 plays, 2:19, 3rd and 3, 3rd and 2
CHARLES Series 7: Charles -- 20 yard run (from KC 7 yard line) + INT
CHARLES Series 8: 9 yard run (half over)

Second half:
CHARLES/JONES Series 1 (11 plays, 6:15) Charles = 3rd and 6, 3 passes = first down, Jones run for first down, Jones = 3rd and 1
JONES Series 2 (4 plays, 2:33) Jones = 3rd and 1
JONES/CHARLES Series 3 (14 plays, 6:31) 2nd down pass first down, Jones/pass = 3rd and 6, McCluster/pass = 3rd and 7, Jones/pass = first down,
Jones = 3rd and 5
JONES Series 4: Jones/pass = first down, Jones = 3rd and 2

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 10:30 PM
Jones had some very nice holes to run through today, and has been pointed out, the Chiefs were in numerous third and longs with Jones featured in those forst two games.

Your argument is disengenuous, as many of your arguments are.

Go ahead and look at the Browns game summary.

Unlike most people on this subject, I'm backing mine up with actual information.

For as much shit as the Chiefs got for being absent in the first half of the Browns game, few people will point out that after the first series, Thomas Jones didn't touch the ball again until 9 minutes into the second quarter. And on that drive, Jones set up a 3rd and 2 and the Chiefs couldn't convert.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 10:39 PM
Yeah, Charles cannot run between the tackles. No way. Incapable of picking up yards there.

Someone notify TN that they're using their similarly built, similarly electric RB entirely wrong.

If you want to make a halfway credible argument, at least claim that Jones is the more effective RB. "Sensible"ChiefsFan is at this point. He's wrong, but at least it's a viable position.

Why do you keep exaggerating every argument? Who was a more effective RB? Jerome Bettis? Or Willie Parker? Warrick Dunn or Mike Alstott?

I think Charles is a far better back than Thomas Jones. But I'm not going to take away the fact that Thomas Jones has been extremely effective executing the gameplan objective of putting the team in the position to control the clock and wearing down the defense.

I don't think this is the strategy you want against a Houston or an Indy. But against a bad passing team that you know is going to hammer you with Hillis and Gore? Then yes, your primary objective should be to win the TOP battle. And clearly, it was the right strategy.

Reaper16
09-26-2010, 10:46 PM
You do realize YPC will go down when you have the lead and are running out the clock right?
Sounds like perfect Thomas Jones territory to me.

Valiant
09-26-2010, 10:48 PM
It seems like that has happened twice...once with Byner/Mack in Cleveland....and I don't recall the other time but possibly the Dolphins??? I could be way off but I've heard it discussed before.

Never mind already answered.

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 10:52 PM
Why do you keep exaggerating every argument? Who was a more effective RB? Jerome Bettis? Or Willie Parker? Warrick Dunn or Mike Alstott?

I think Charles is a far better back than Thomas Jones. But I'm not going to take away the fact that Thomas Jones has been extremely effective executing the gameplan objective of putting the team in the position to control the clock and wearing down the defense.

I don't think this is the strategy you want against a Houston or an Indy. But against a bad passing team that you know is going to hammer you with Hillis and Gore? Then yes, your primary objective should be to win the TOP battle. And clearly, it was the right strategy.

Because I think your point that Jones is a better "grinder" is therefore more apt to put us in third and manageable is nonsense.

Give the best RB the majority of the touches. Common sense is always the best strategy.

60-40 split and/or 20 touches per game for Charles. This is the ideal situation.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 10:52 PM
To shorten up the Cleveland story, here's how all our 3rd downs looked: When Jones was used on a 2-run series, he forced a 3rd and 3 or shorter 6 out of 8 times. Charles forced 3rd and 6 both times.

Jones: 2 first downs, first drive = 3rd and 6. Other drives: 3rd and 3, 3rd and 2, 3rd and 1, 3rd and 1, 3rd and 5, 3rd and 2, 3rd and 3
Charles: ran for 1 first yard, two 3rd and 6 (one involved 1 pass)

Valiant
09-26-2010, 10:53 PM
Because Charles is not built to be a grinder whose role is to nickel and dime the interior and wear the interior down. He is meant to be an outside runner who can absolutely violate you on tosses, sweeps, and off-tackles. Those outside runs tend to be a lot more inconsistent in terms of gaining yardage and it's certainly not the kind of smashmouth football that typically wears a defense down.

If you want an eat-the-clock, wear the defense down offense, almost every team in the league would rather do that on the interior.

While you're so obsessed with YPC, you're failing to see that TJ has consistently over the past two games put Cassel in manageable third down situations. That's something we rarely ever did with any kind of consistency last season.


They can run him inside and cut outside.. He does not have to just run it straight up the gut..

kysirsoze
09-26-2010, 10:54 PM
Because I think your point that Jones is a better "grinder" is therefore more apt to put us in third and manageable is nonsense.

Give the best RB the majority of the touches. Common sense is always the best strategy.

60-40 split and/or 20 touches per game for Charles. This is the ideal situation.

While it's hard to nitpick a dominating win like today's, if Charles got a few more touches we would have scored even more. There were several plays where Jones got a handful and Charles clearly had the speed to break a big one. Hard to ignore that.

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 10:54 PM
This isn't a large enough sample size in this game to prove shit. And as Reaper repeatedly said, the limited touches Charles received could very easily have contributed to lesser production.

6/8. 0/2.

As we all know, Charles was ready for a 6/6 streak. What? We can't do that? The logic is faulty? Oh, how ironic.

teedubya
09-26-2010, 10:55 PM
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/rush_yds_per_att_single_season.htm

Good Lord. Vick on this team would be sick.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 10:56 PM
Because I think your point that Jones is a better "grinder" is therefore more apt to put us in third and manageable is nonsense.

Give the best RB the majority of the touches. Common sense is always the best strategy.

60-40 split and/or 20 touches per game for Charles. This is the ideal situation.

That depends on what your strategy is. If you know you have to compete in a high scoring game like against Indy or Houston, then okay.

If you're talking about a team that you know is going to try to run it down your throat, then a guy like Thomas Jones who can effectively put you in very favorable drive-extending situations is very ideal. Nothing kills a team like that more than a 10-play, 4+ minute drive. And as I just showed you, if you've got Thomas Jones as your primary back, over 90% of the time this season he's put the Chiefs in a situation where they've had a 3rd and <5 situation. That's very, very impressive. If only we had a QB that was able to consistently take advantage of those gifts.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 10:58 PM
This isn't a large enough sample size in this game to prove shit. And as Reaper repeatedly said, the limited touches Charles received could very easily have contributed to lesser production.

6/8. 0/2.

As we all know, Charles was ready for a 6/6 streak. What? We can't do that? The logic is faulty? Oh, how ironic.

I didn't go through the second half of the 49ers game (not cherrypicking... just don't feel like doing it). So I apologize for leaving that out.

But Jones left a 3rd and <5 situation 6/8 times against Cleveland and 6/6 times against SF in the first half.

That's a pretty sample size when you're talking about 14 series and you're talking about something like an 86%.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 11:01 PM
They can run him inside and cut outside.. He does not have to just run it straight up the gut..

I get what his skill set is. I know he does both very well.

But if your objective is to wear the defense out, that usually happens between the tackles. And if you want to play smashmouth football, that typically starts first between the tackles. And not only do I think it's not worth subjecting Charles' body to consistent smashmouth football, I also think Jones does it well enough that it makes saving Charles' body that much easier.

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 11:03 PM
That depends on what your strategy is. If you know you have to compete in a high scoring game like against Indy or Houston, then okay.


Are we obligated to concede points?

ForeverChiefs58
09-26-2010, 11:03 PM
Rushing Defense
Yds game
1 Chicago Bears 28.0
2 New York Jets 50.5
3 Houston Texans 54.3
4 Pittsburgh Steelers 59.7
5 Seattle Seahawks 67.7
6 Kansas City Chiefs 75.0

BossChief
09-26-2010, 11:04 PM
I think the two backs complement each other quite well and having Jones will help keep Charles fresh for when we need him...you know, FOR OUR PLAYOFF RUN!!!

Valiant
09-26-2010, 11:04 PM
I get what his skill set is. I know he does both very well.

But if your objective is to wear the defense out, that usually happens between the tackles. And if you want to play smashmouth football, that typically starts first between the tackles. And not only do I think it's not worth subjecting Charles' body to consistent smashmouth football, I also think Jones does it well enough that it makes saving Charles' body that much easier.


You can have your lineman play smashmouth.. Your running back does not have to LJ it to be smashmouth football.. Denver has decimated teams over the years running the ball and their backs have never been smashmouth..

ForeverChiefs58
09-26-2010, 11:05 PM
Total Defense

Yds/ game
15 Kansas City Chiefs 313.0

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 11:07 PM
You can have your lineman play smashmouth.. Your running back does not have to LJ it to be smashmouth football.. Denver has decimated teams over the years running the ball and their backs have never been smashmouth..

You're still going to get hit quite a bit and it's very often going to be from a 290+ lb. lineman. If you have another guy who's doing it well, why subject your playmaker to that kind of potential abuse?

DeezNutz
09-26-2010, 11:08 PM
You're still going to get hit quite a bit and it's very often going to be from a 290+ lb. lineman. If you have another guy who's doing it well, why subject your playmaker to that kind of potential abuse?

Save him.

Valiant
09-26-2010, 11:17 PM
You're still going to get hit quite a bit and it's very often going to be from a 290+ lb. lineman. If you have another guy who's doing it well, why subject your playmaker to that kind of potential abuse?

5'11" 199lbs JC
5'10" 212lbs TJ

No one is saying run him 25times a game.. Or give him LJ plays for 2yards right at a defensive tackle..

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 11:37 PM
5'11" 199lbs JC
5'10" 212lbs TJ

No one is saying run him 25times a game.. Or give him LJ plays for 2yards right at a defensive tackle..

You don't have to look at pound totals to know that he's a much bigger back. He's taken the physical abuse doing this kind of running for umpteen years in the NFL. Charles did it for a half season and his shoulder kept popping in and out. How often people forget that.

If your gameplan is to wear the defense out by running between the tackles, Thomas Jones does it just fine and it takes unnecessary wear and tear off of Charles. There's no reason to subject Charles to that especially knowing that he's one offseason removed from shoulder surgery.

Short Leash Hootie
09-26-2010, 11:42 PM
Regarding Charles...

this is the first week this season where it has made sense...

and the stat line is skewed...

Jones gets all the carries in obvious running downs...

Charles, a beast who I have a man crush on...gets the easier carries where more yards are there...lets be honest. Please?

Both great...

We are a great, disciplined, well coached team...

Cassel still sucks but damn...

3-0 heading to the BYE?!

No big deal!

Reaper16
09-26-2010, 11:49 PM
Regarding Charles...

this is the first week this season where it has made sense...

and the stat line is skewed...

Jones gets all the carries in obvious running downs...

Charles, a beast who I have a man crush on...gets the easier carries where more yards are there...lets be honest. Please?

You're right about Charles getting the carries where more yards are there. OR he should be, anyway. That's actually the number one reason I don't care for the way in which Charles is being used. I think he should be getting much more 1st and 2nd down carries. Jones gets way too many of those non-running-down carries.

Short Leash Hootie
09-27-2010, 12:02 AM
I was yelling BEAST MODE very loudly at the bar when JamChar broke that long carry on 3rd and 20...

people looked at me like I was an idiot

perhaps I am an idiot...

but it was awesome!

keg in kc
09-27-2010, 12:12 AM
perhaps I am an idiot...I need a smiley that nods.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-27-2010, 02:07 AM
At this point, why the hell not?

GO CHIEFS! :rockon:

Saccopoo
09-27-2010, 02:17 AM
5'11" 199lbs JC
5'10" 212lbs TJ

No one is saying run him 25times a game.. Or give him LJ plays for 2yards right at a defensive tackle..

I'm sorry but Jamaal Charles must be hiding lead plates in his pads to get to 199. He's skinny as shit and not tall. He might have the thinnest legs for a running back in the entire NFL. Not that that is a bad thing as he's fast as greased lightning, but he's not built like a feature back and thank god we got TJ to share the load.

<iframe class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ReqLmIpxf2E" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Valiant
09-27-2010, 05:42 PM
I'm sorry but Jamaal Charles must be hiding lead plates in his pads to get to 199. He's skinny as shit and not tall. He might have the thinnest legs for a running back in the entire NFL. Not that that is a bad thing as he's fast as greased lightning, but he's not built like a feature back and thank god we got TJ to share the load.

<iframe class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ReqLmIpxf2E" frameborder="0"></iframe>

5'11" 191 lbs Chris Johnson.. You do not have to have bulking muscles to be strong..

chiefzilla1501
09-27-2010, 06:00 PM
5'11" 191 lbs Chris Johnson.. You do not have to have bulking muscles to be strong..

I'm not saying he's an injury-prone back by any stretch. But given that he's had a history of shoulder problems, I don't see the harm in reducing his workload between the tackles.

GEAUX SAINTS
09-27-2010, 06:08 PM
(Imagine the Orson Wells clapping .gif here)

How long til I can post urls/images?

bevischief
09-27-2010, 06:55 PM
(Imagine the Orson Wells clapping .gif here)

How long til I can post urls/images?

About a 1000 posts if you are lucky.

ChiefsFanatic
09-28-2010, 11:55 AM
Herm would love this. Too bad he's not here anymore.

WOW

Lzen
09-28-2010, 01:19 PM
I can think of 3 or 4 times today where after a Jones run, my buddy would turn to me, or I'd turn to him and say:

"Charles would have picked up 15 there" (Jones ran for like 5)

"Charles might have broke that" (Jones ran for like 9)

"Charles would have scored."




I was saying the same things.

Count Alex's Losses
11-05-2010, 10:12 PM
OK, so obviously our running game kicks ass.

But something has been bothering me for weeks now.

Charles only has one run over 40 yards all year.

Last year down the stretch it seemed like he broke one off every game.

I was expecting a lot more this year.

Part of me says, damn, what happened? The other part says, dumbass, he's leading the league in YPC, shut your trap.

Is Charles better because he's become more consistent with the type of runs he breaks off - i.e. more 10-15 yard runs than anything - or do we need those quick scores more?

Seemed like last year he was a little feast or famine, this year he's a little more consistent, but less spectacular.

Anyway, I like to jerk it to long runs.

kysirsoze
11-05-2010, 10:17 PM
He got more of the workload last year. Makes sense that he got into a better rhythm and was able to exploit weaknesses in the defense better. Just a guess.

ReynardMuldrake
11-05-2010, 10:33 PM
OK, so obviously our running game kicks ass.

But something has been bothering me for weeks now.

Charles only has one run over 40 yards all year.

Last year down the stretch it seemed like he broke one off every game.

I was expecting a lot more this year.

Part of me says, damn, what happened? The other part says, dumbass, he's leading the league in YPC, shut your trap.

Is Charles better because he's become more consistent with the type of runs he breaks off - i.e. more 10-15 yard runs than anything - or do we need those quick scores more?

Seemed like last year he was a little feast or famine, this year he's a little more consistent, but less spectacular.

Anyway, I like to jerk it to long runs.

Our schedule softens up soon. I expect to see some breakaways against some of the shittier teams coming up.

BigMeatballDave
11-05-2010, 10:37 PM
OK, so obviously our running game kicks ass.

But something has been bothering me for weeks now.

Charles only has one run over 40 yards all year.

Last year down the stretch it seemed like he broke one off every game.

I was expecting a lot more this year.

Part of me says, damn, what happened? The other part says, dumbass, he's leading the league in YPC, shut your trap.

Is Charles better because he's become more consistent with the type of runs he breaks off - i.e. more 10-15 yard runs than anything - or do we need those quick scores more?

Seemed like last year he was a little feast or famine, this year he's a little more consistent, but less spectacular.

Anyway, I like to jerk it to long runs.I predict he'll bust one for 60 Sunday.

Dylan
11-05-2010, 10:40 PM
#1 in yards
#2 in rushing attempts
#7 in YPC
#8 in rushing first downs
#10 in rushing touchdowns
#1 in runs over 20 yards (*cough* Charles needs more carries)
0 fumbles

Charles has 238 yards and Jones has 217 yards.

Can they both get to 1,000 yards?

Awesome! :clap:

Boy, Herm would love this. Too bad he's not here anymore. :evil:

LMAO