PDA

View Full Version : Losing Kris Wilson....


DenverChief
09-12-2004, 11:03 PM
Really hurt our O since he was the best "WR" upgrade we had....congrats to Denver....I can't wait for the rematch already

suds79
09-12-2004, 11:23 PM
What really upsets me is that you're right about Wilson being our biggest WR upgrade.

That's pathetic.

DenverChief
09-13-2004, 01:00 AM
What really upsets me is that you're right about Wilson being our biggest WR upgrade.

That's pathetic.

:shrug: maybe we should get Smith and Parker MORE involved in the 1st string offesne

TEX
09-13-2004, 01:02 AM
My concern going in was that we lost our two biggest chances for improvements on offense in Boe and Wilson. Our Punt coverage suffered as well as it was below average.

Chief Fanatic
09-13-2004, 01:10 AM
I've said it all week. To everyone that says we didn't have Bo effective last year or didn't have Kris Wilson Period. You don't get better staying with the same offense. To have two big receivers going across the middle would be huge for us. I can't wait for Wilson to come back and hating the fact that we don't get Bo for the season.

Phobia
09-13-2004, 01:13 AM
Wilson wouldn't have changed a damn thing tonight. IMO

go bowe
09-13-2004, 01:16 AM
Wilson wouldn't have changed a damn thing tonight. IMOwell, i don't know...

if he could have played on defense, maybe...

DenverChief
09-13-2004, 01:17 AM
Wilson wouldn't have changed a damn thing tonight. IMO

I disagree...I think the lack of options for Green was a glaring problem...

Phobia
09-13-2004, 01:19 AM
I disagree...I think the lack of options for Green was a glaring problem...

Really? We're still running 3 and 4 WR sets with a RB out of the backfield and he doesn't have options? Maybe Al can entice Joe Valerio out of retirement....

Frazod
09-13-2004, 01:26 AM
It probably wouldn't have mattered. Even if he was healty, he probably wouldn't have seen any more playing time than Smith did. :banghead:

the Talking Can
09-13-2004, 01:27 AM
unless this Wilson guy is a run stuffing DE, it wouldn't have mattered

PastorMikH
09-13-2004, 01:30 AM
I disagree...I think the lack of options for Green was a glaring problem...



I think you are right. More options would have helped Trent out tonight a lot. Perhaps a 5 WR set with 2 TEs, Priest and TR in there would have made a difference. The only trick is keeping the refs from noticing that we have 15 players on the field.

DenverChief
09-13-2004, 01:35 AM
you guys kill me...it was not the Defense' fault the offense couldn't move the ball.... they aren't the greatest D but I mean for cripes sake 3 and outs don't do any favors for an avg D

PastorMikH
09-13-2004, 01:37 AM
you guys kill me...it was not the Defense' fault the offense couldn't move the ball.... they aren't the greatest D but I mean for cripes sake 3 and outs don't do any favors for an avg D



The D still gave up 34 points and was full of holes tonight. To me that is still unacceptable.

tommykat
09-13-2004, 01:38 AM
The D still gave up 34 points and was full of holes tonight. To me that is still unacceptable.:hmmm: DUH...........

Frazod
09-13-2004, 01:40 AM
you guys kill me...it was not the Defense' fault the offense couldn't move the ball.... they aren't the greatest D but I mean for cripes sake 3 and outs don't do any favors for an avg D

I realize that. They did force three turnovers, two punts and two field goals. That's an undeniable step up.

The offense absolutely shares equally in this mess.

DenverChief
09-13-2004, 01:43 AM
The D still gave up 34 points and was full of holes tonight. To me that is still unacceptable.
because they spent more time on the field than they should have!

Offensive drive TOP
#1 - 3:27
#2 - 2:24
#3 - :49
#4 - :39
#5 - 1:47
#6 - 2:36
HALF
#7 - :57
#8 - :7
#9 - 3:54
#10 - :46
#11 - 2:31
#12 - :28

UNACCEPTABLE!!!

PastorMikH
09-13-2004, 01:48 AM
because they spent more time on the field than they should have!

Offensive drive TOP
1 3:27
2 2:24
3 :49
4 :39
5 1:47
6 2:36
HALF
7 :57
8 :7
9 3:54
10 :46
11 2:31
12 :28

UNACCEPTABLE!!!


DC, go back and read what I had to say in my first post tonight on Rainman's thread. The offense blew their share too.

However, if the D hadn't bit on every fake and gotten burned, and if they had been able to tackle, they would have had more stops and not been on the field as much. Also, there was only 3 minutes the entire game difference in time of possesion so that doesn't appear to be as out of balance as you are implying.

DenverChief
09-13-2004, 01:52 AM
DC, go back and read what I had to say in my first post tonight on Rainman's thread. The offense blew their share too.

However, if the D hadn't bit on every fake and gotten burned, and if they had been able to tackle, they would have had more stops and not been on the field as much. Also, there was only 3 minutes the entire game difference in time of possesion so that doesn't appear to be as out of balance as you are implying.


hey I agree the D had its moments but IIRC they had 3 stops and 2 turnovers in the 2nd half and the O scored 2 times


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/drivechart?gameId=240912007

PastorMikH
09-13-2004, 01:55 AM
hey I agree the D had its moments but IIRC they had 3 stops and 2 turnovers in the 2nd half and the O scored 2 times


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/drivechart?gameId=240912007



OK, fine, this is the best Defense we have ever put on the field. This Defense is far better than ANY D we had in the 90s.


I'll concede and see it your way because I'm tired of arguing about it.

go bowe
09-13-2004, 01:58 AM
hey I agree the D had its moments but IIRC they had 3 stops and 2 turnovers in the 2nd half and the O scored 2 times


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/drivechart?gameId=240912007 did denver punt three times?

i musta missed that part when i went to fridge for beer...

or are you counting the fg's as "stops" too?

DenverChief
09-13-2004, 01:59 AM
because they spent more time on the field than they should have!

Offensive drive TOP
#1 - 3:27
#2 - 2:24
#3 - :49
#4 - :39
#5 - 1:47
#6 - 2:36
HALF
#7 - :57
#8 - :7
#9 - 3:54
#10 - :46
#11 - 2:31
#12 - :28

UNACCEPTABLE!!!

TD
Punt
Punt
Punt
INT
MFG
FG
TD
TD
Punt
Punt
Downs


Compared to Denver

5:08 - FG
12:18 - TD
2:19 - TD
:35 - Punt
:36 - Punt
HALF
:00 - INT
:36 - INT
:29 - TD
:43 - Fumble
14:10 - FG
7:59 - TD
1:59 - EOG

DenverChief
09-13-2004, 02:01 AM
did denver punt three times?

i musta missed that part when i went to fridge for beer...

or are you counting the fg's as "stops" too?

:LOL:

I had it bassakwards

and Mike I'm not saying its the best defense and its not the worst...it is certainly not the same D from last year...the biggest chunk of blame should fall at the feet of the offense tonight

go bowe
09-13-2004, 02:03 AM
:LOL:

I had it bassakwards

and Mike I'm not saying its the best defense and its not the worst...it is certainly not the same D from last year...the biggest chunk of blame should fall at the feet of the offense tonightok, you've had too much to drink... :p

DenverChief
09-13-2004, 02:06 AM
ok, you've had too much to drink... :p

5 punts an INT and downs? stopped 7 of 11 times in Denver?

PastorMikH
09-13-2004, 02:22 AM
I just did a little looking and this interesting tidbit. Take a look at last year at Denver compared to this year. The time of possesion is exactly the same - and many of the other stats are VERY close to the same.


Take a look at ESPN's website for the stats

This year (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=240912007)


last season (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=231207007)

go bowe
09-13-2004, 02:25 AM
I just did a little looking and this interesting tidbit. Take a look at last year at Denver compared to this year. The time of possesion is exactly the same - and many of the other stats are VERY close to the same.


Take a look at ESPN's website for the stats

This year (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=240912007)


last season (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=231207007) well, at least we held griffin to less than 5 td's... :(

PastorMikH
09-13-2004, 02:28 AM
and Mike I'm not saying its the best defense and its not the worst...it is certainly not the same D from last year...the biggest chunk of blame should fall at the feet of the offense tonight



DC, you are the one trying to claim that the Loss tonight wasn't the D's fault. I say I think they have a LONG LONG way to go and indeed are to blame in part for tonight's loss. Even our offense can't put up enough points week in and week out to cover 34 points a game given up by the D. Once again our tackling (or lack thereof) made a rookie RB look like an all pro - just like last year. Once again our DBs were lit up for huge passing gains - just like last year. Once again we failed to mount consistent presure on the QB - just like last year. The D has got to play better - A LOT BETTER.

PastorMikH
09-13-2004, 02:29 AM
well, at least we held griffin to less than 5 td's... :(



we also had 2 turnovers that we didn't get last year so who knows.:shrug::)

go bowe
09-13-2004, 02:34 AM
we also had 2 turnovers that we didn't get last year so who knows.:shrug::)now you're making way too much sense for this time of night!!

PastorMikH
09-13-2004, 02:37 AM
now you're making way too much sense for this time of night!!



ROFL


I really should go to bed. I'm supposed to have tommorow off but had a couple of things happen today and will probably have some people stopping off tommorow morning to talk about their situations. It's just that here the last week or so I've been too busy to post much and am enjoying letting off some steam.


BTW, check your smokes

tk13
09-13-2004, 02:42 AM
The D has to play a lot better, there's no doubt about it... but they helped gift wrap 10 of the offense's 24 points with those two turnovers. If that doesn't happen I think the offense is getting slammed a little harder because they probably would've only scored 14 points (which would've been less points than we scored in any one game all of last year). The only times our offense actually moved the ball decently and got a score was the first drive of the game, and the one drive where we did nothing but run the ball and Priest gashed the Bronco defense....

go bowe
09-13-2004, 02:47 AM
ROFL


I really should go to bed. I'm supposed to have tommorow off but had a couple of things happen today and will probably have some people stopping off tommorow morning to talk about their situations. It's just that here the last week or so I've been too busy to post much and am enjoying letting off some steam.


BTW, check your smokesgood night, mike... :) :) :)

go bowe
09-13-2004, 02:50 AM
The D has to play a lot better, there's no doubt about it... but they helped gift wrap 10 of the offense's 24 points with those two turnovers. If that doesn't happen I think the offense is getting slammed a little harder because they probably would've only scored 14 points (which would've been less points than we scored in any one game all of last year). The only times our offense actually moved the ball decently and got a score was the first drive of the game, and the one drive where we did nothing but run the ball and Priest gashed the Bronco defense....you're absolutely right about the turnovers contributing to the puny point total that we had...

14 points without the turnovers sounds about right, but didn't tynes hit a fg too? so maybe 17 points is a better guess...

two good drives in a game isn't gonna get it...

but the d allowed a kazillion points, which hurt even more, imo...

DenverChief
09-13-2004, 10:57 PM
you're absolutely right about the turnovers contributing to the puny point total that we had...

14 points without the turnovers sounds about right, but didn't tynes hit a fg too? so maybe 17 points is a better guess...

two good drives in a game isn't gonna get it...

but the d allowed a kazillion points, which hurt even more, imo...

a 50 yd fg after the offense couldn't move the friggin ball:harumph:

Rausch
09-13-2004, 11:03 PM
DC, you are the one trying to claim that the Loss tonight wasn't the D's fault. I say I think they have a LONG LONG way to go and indeed are to blame in part for tonight's loss. Even our offense can't put up enough points week in and week out to cover 34 points a game given up by the D. Once again our tackling (or lack thereof) made a rookie RB look like an all pro - just like last year. Once again our DBs were lit up for huge passing gains - just like last year. Once again we failed to mount consistent presure on the QB - just like last year. The D has got to play better - A LOT BETTER.

We also had 3 turnovers. The defense GAVE the offense many chances to score, and they didn't.

The Chiefs defense did not play good, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it played BETTER than it did last year, and honestly, that's all I've expected.

The offense, however, took a step back. We knew going in our offense would have to be as good or better than last year, and our defense would have to be better.

From game one, It appeared to me that our defense is improving but not as fast as we would like it to. And for some reason, our offense has taken a step back.

Mile High Mania
09-13-2004, 11:07 PM
We also had 3 turnovers. The defense GAVE the offense many chances to score, and they didn't.

The Chiefs defense did not play good, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it played BETTER than it did last year, and honestly, that's all I've expected.

The offense, however, took a step back. We knew going in our offense would have to be as good or better than last year, and our defense would have to be better.

From game one, It appeared to me that our defense is improving but not as fast as we would like it to. And for some reason, our offense has taken a step back.

Did KC's offense take a step back or was Denver's defense just better than last year?

Holmes did what he does... but the defense shut down the rest of the offense. Special teams took Hall out of the equation, thereby making KC start off from their 20 rather than near midfield like they often did in 2003.

DenverChief
09-13-2004, 11:10 PM
Did KC's offense take a step back or was Denver's defense just better than last year?

Holmes did what he does... but the defense shut down the rest of the offense. Special teams took Hall out of the equation, thereby making KC start off from their 20 rather than near midfield like they often did in 2003.

good point and oh F*&K Micha Knorr:harumph:

PastorMikH
09-13-2004, 11:13 PM
Brad, I expressed my dissapointment with the offense in numerous threads last night - even pointed one of those out to DC in this thread. My point to him was that this D has a LONG way to go and giving up 34 points is still not acceptable. Yes the D did force some turnovers they didn't get last year, but they still got burned on WAAAAYYYY too many plays - oddly they KEPT getting burned on the naked boot play which I would think that after the 20th time they saw it at least a couple of the veterans would have thought that perhaps it could go the other way. He kept putting the blame on the offense saying the D did it's part. I don't think they did. I also don't think the Offense did their part either.