PDA

View Full Version : National Media starts the bashing. It's Trent's fault now.


BigRedChief
09-21-2004, 11:15 AM
From cbssportline:


Green hit eight of his first nine, then was 9 of 25 the rest of the way. For the second straight week he completed only half of his passes. For the second straight week he didn't have 200 yards in completions. For the second straight week he had no touchdowns.
You can look it up: In two weeks he's 23 of 66 for 361 yards, no TDs and two interceptions, and you want to know what's wrong with the defense?

The link:
http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/7698339

Claynus
09-21-2004, 11:18 AM
33 of 66 actually, but still pretty bad.

7 drops in two games haven't helped, but Trent has not played well. You can throw in that 23-yard sack as a bonehead play too.

Taco John
09-21-2004, 11:19 AM
It was only a matter of time before the real Green started showing his true face.

Unfortunately, your offensive line is no longer looking like the best in football. It appears that Roaf is slow off the blocks, and Welbourn is a virnstile with elbows...

HolmeZz
09-21-2004, 11:20 AM
The pick by Champ ended up acting like a punt, since the Donks got flagged 15 yards after the play. And the second INT was late in the Panthers game. He was trying to force the ball.

Our offense will be fine, IMO. The numbers produced early by Trent are just the side effect of having to play from behind way too much early on. Why? Because our defense has trouble holding the opposing offense scoreless for one friggin' possession.

If our defense was even half decent, Trent's numbers would be considerably better.

BigRedChief
09-21-2004, 11:21 AM
Here's ESPN saying we are getting our last rites?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1885617

Mr. Laz
09-21-2004, 11:24 AM
oh christ... let the green crying start again :doh!:



the WHOLE team didn't play well against carolina.





dam man ... let it go

Claynus
09-21-2004, 11:25 AM
It was only a matter of time before the real Green started showing his true face.

Unfortunately, your offensive line is no longer looking like the best in football. It appears that Roaf is slow off the blocks, and Welbourn is a virnstile with elbows...

Now you're just being mean. Green has started each of the last two seasons off slowly in the first month. He has a breakout game and then hits his stride for the rest of the season.

I don't think Roaf has lost anything, either. He had a fine game against Denver and got beat on a few plays against the Panthers. He WAS going up against Mike Rucker for crying out loud.

At least we know Trent Green is never going to throw any left-handed interceptions. ROFL

donkhater
09-21-2004, 11:33 AM
Other than that sack in Denver, I don't think Trent's played badly. He could play better for sure, but he is what he is. With a good running game, O-Line and practice with his receivers, he'll play as well as anyone.

Unfourtunately, if Saunders doesn't call for Priest to get the ball, Welborn or Roaf struggle a bit in pass protection and no receiver other than Hall and an undrafted rookie is healthy for a whole month he will play poorly. I do think that is a surprise to anyone here.

Gaz
09-21-2004, 11:37 AM
There are many factors contributing to our lack of Offense so far:
• [2] good Defenses [Denver & Carolina]. Houston does not have a Denver/Carolina-caliber Defense. A ray of hope for our struggling Offense.

• Decimated WR corps. We must find a way to get Hall and young Mr. Smith involved. Young and raw he may be, but Smith still has the speed we lose with Kennison out of the game.

• Disappointing efforts from Welbourn [game #1] & Roaf [game #2] [See item #1]. Welbourn was better in game #2. hopefully Roaf will be better in game #3.

• Questionable play-calling. Saunders was prone to being overly-tricky on occasion last season. After the first drive against Carolina, the play-calling disappointed me.

Except for the bonehead 23-yard sack he took against Denver, I cannot fault Green’s play all that much.

xoxo~
Gaz
Disressed to see so many independent variables in the equation.

BigRedChief
09-21-2004, 11:39 AM
Trent is still DA MAN! :thumb:

Chief Fanatic
09-21-2004, 11:42 AM
Hey Taco, you saw the Real Green last year with a healthy group of receivers, a solid line, and he was looking very comfortable back there, This year he has no one to throw too, so he forces almost all his throws. Take Priest and Tony G and you have got our receivers shut down. NO one else can get seperation, or wants to catch the ball in the rough spots(Morton with alligator arms down the middle again.)

Sure-Oz
09-21-2004, 11:45 AM
It was only a matter of time before the real Green started showing his true face.

Unfortunately, your offensive line is no longer looking like the best in football. It appears that Roaf is slow off the blocks, and Welbourn is a virnstile with elbows...
Yeah Jake plummer is such a stud as well, it would help if the WR's don't drop half the shit and get open. I think green will turn it around.

ROYC75
09-21-2004, 11:45 AM
The pick by Champ ended up acting like a punt, since the Donks got flagged 15 yards after the play. And the second INT was late in the Panthers game. He was trying to force the ball.

Our offense will be fine, IMO. The numbers produced early by Trent are just the side effect of having to play from behind way too much early on. Why? Because our defense has trouble holding the opposing offense scoreless for one friggin' possession.

If our defense was even half decent, Trent's numbers would be considerably better.


The flipside of that coins says that if our offense was up to par our defense would be much better not having to be on the field over half of the game.

2 way street for this team so far .

Claynus
09-21-2004, 11:48 AM
It's funny how things change. Back in the Marty days we'd have all been thrilled if our passing game produced 361 yards in the first two games of the season.

jspchief
09-21-2004, 11:50 AM
It was only a matter of time before the real Green started showing his true face.

Unfortunately, your offensive line is no longer looking like the best in football. It appears that Roaf is slow off the blocks, and Welbourn is a virnstile with elbows...

Oh please. Am I hearing a donkey fan talk about a QB showing their true self? Will the real Jake Plummer please stand up?

GreatBarryWordFire
09-21-2004, 12:01 PM
Grossman had a mediocre day and won. Boller threw for 98 yards and won. Leftwich threw for 120 and won. Hasselbeck threw for 140 and won. Carson Palmer threw for less than 150 and won.

They're just looking for a new story. Green isn't far from the problem. No matter which way you slice it, it's still the defense.

Claynus
09-21-2004, 12:03 PM
Grossman had a mediocre day and won. Boller threw for 98 yards and won. Leftwich threw for 120 and won. Hasselbeck threw for 140 and won. Carson Palmer threw for less than 150 and won.

They're just looking for a new story. Green isn't far from the problem. No matter which way you slice it, it's still the defense.

None of those guys (except Hasselbeck) are expected to lead an offense to high-scoring days.

How many turnovers did those guys commit? Trent had two on Sunday.

Our defense wasn't really a problem until the fourth quarter. They damn near kept the offense in the game for three quarters.

GreatBarryWordFire
09-21-2004, 12:09 PM
And Green really isn't supposed to be leading them either. When people think of the Chiefs, they think of Priest Holmes. Then Tony Gonzalez. Then Dante Hall. Then Trent Green.

The supposed big guns aren't doing much either -- Bledsoe couldn't find his ass with two hands and a map, Hasselbeck sucked last week, Brett Favre choked, McNair didn't hit anybody in the red zone, even Delhomme turned the ball over twice.

I'm not pleased with Green's performance, but when you consider that his premier threat in the receiving corps can't even be seen 20 yards downfield, it's going to be tough going.

I can see your points, though, and we're going to see what Green is really made out of if Priest is out.

Claynus
09-21-2004, 12:15 PM
Green's the freaking quarterback. It's his job to lead.

Hopefully we beat the Texans and then he breaks out against the Ravens the following week. That would be the perfect recipe for 2-2.

philfree
09-21-2004, 12:15 PM
Trent's not checking down as much. He's sticking with his 1st and 2nd reads to long and forcing the ball to the WRs. I think he'll snap out of it. This also not at all the game plan we were planning on using this year either. Bo and Wilson were gonna be huge in our O this year.


PhilFree :arrow:

Gaz
09-21-2004, 12:16 PM
Blaming the Defense for Sunday’s debacle is wrong, IMO.

The Defense gave the ball to the Offense several times. The Offense gave it right back to the Enemy. They did this enough times that the Defense broke down and finally collapsed entirely. Vermeil pointed out in his post-game conference that if you keep the D on the field that much, they are going to break down. The Offense kept the Defense on the field and the Defense broke down.

The Offense lost the game against Carolina.

xoxo~
Gaz
Sorry to report that the high-powered KC Offense ain’t so high-powered this season.

Chief Fanatic
09-21-2004, 12:52 PM
Green IS supposed to lead, the QB is always your leader, not a running back not a TE and definitely not a kick returner. He's trying, but who does he have to work with other than Priest and Tony!!!

memyselfI
09-21-2004, 01:21 PM
I made the sam observation last evening...I don't think it's bashing. I think it's a legit question since the guy was a PB QB last season.

KC Dan
09-21-2004, 01:30 PM
OK, I'll say it. Maybe we should have kept Gannon...:rolleyes:

siberian khatru
09-21-2004, 01:36 PM
Two very good posts by Gaz.

the Talking Can
09-21-2004, 01:40 PM
cool, we can pretend its Green's fault and not worry about the defense is which is as bad as its ever been....I'll get Rotunda Moss to ask Mr. Hicks if has any comment on throwing Trent under the bus....Imagine how bad we'd be if didn't have our defense....oh, wait, just hit the rewind button

HolmeZz
09-21-2004, 01:44 PM
The flipside of that coins says that if our offense was up to par our defense would be much better not having to be on the field over half of the game.

2 way street for this team so far .

You're blaming the offense for the defense being out there so long?

In the Carolina game, the D let the Panthers convert on like 4 3rd and 7's on the SAME drive. That's got 0 to do with the offense. That's got everything to do with our defense not being clutch on 3rd and long.

Of course the offense could and should play better. But we can't rely on them putting up 30 every week.

WilliamTheIrish
09-21-2004, 01:48 PM
Blaming the Defense for Sunday’s debacle is wrong, IMO.

The Defense gave the ball to the Offense several times. The Offense gave it right back to the Enemy. They did this enough times that the Defense broke down and finally collapsed entirely. Vermeil pointed out in his post-game conference that if you keep the D on the field that much, they are going to break down. The Offense kept the Defense on the field and the Defense broke down.

The Offense lost the game against Carolina.

xoxo~
Gaz
Sorry to report that the high-powered KC Offense ain’t so high-powered this season.


Who the hell is he supposed to throw the ball to? Morton? You saw his true color (yellow) on the ball to him over the middle. The SOB didn't even give an effort.

The defense played a decent HALF!! For once. They gave up the 9 minute TD drive. Just like last week. The offense had the ball for all 3 minutes in the 3rd quarter. The game was decided then.

Another thing I'm sick of regarding this defense is the excuse, "Well, they got tired." Who has the responsibility of conditioning this bunch of fat-azz underachievers?

I sure as heck didn't see Carolina switching DLineman out like we did. They were missing Jenkins for almost a half and still owned the LOS.

I know what the offense is capable of. It hasn't performed up to standards. I also know what I saw out of this defense - AGAIN - and I'm sick of the excuses from the coaches and the players.

WilliamTheIrish
09-21-2004, 01:53 PM
It was only a matter of time before the real Green started showing his true face...


This from the fan of the team with the QB who threw a left handed underhand toss from his own goal line for an INT?

I"ll be over here laughing... ROFL

InChiefsHell
09-21-2004, 02:11 PM
And Green really isn't supposed to be leading them either. When people think of the Chiefs, they think of Priest Holmes. Then Tony Gonzalez. Then Dante Hall. Then Trent Green.

No offense, but this must be one of the silliest things I've read in a long time. It all starts with Trent, dude. He went to the Pro Bowl. He lead the team to victories, made blocks and ran the ball when he had to, has been excellent in ball handling, blah blah blah...

...sure, others might think of Holmes, Gonzo, Hall then Green, but those people don't know the game very well. And they sure don't know our Chiefs.

Hall is not a leader BTW. Hall is an excellent weapon, but nobody thinks of a punt\kick returner as a leader. No, before Trent, Gonzo was the leader. Trent is the leader of this team, make no mistake...

BigRedChief
09-21-2004, 02:15 PM
I think Trent has led the team. He's not a fiery speech maker. You can't make him one but he is leading by example. When Priest cuts back the other way and he needs to throw a block on some 6'9" 330 lb DE he sticks his head and body in there. Players respect that. He did it against Julius Peppers last week. Elvis would have been backing out of the play. Trent's going to be fine.

J Diddy
09-21-2004, 02:16 PM
No offense, but this must be one of the silliest things I've read in a long time. It all starts with Trent, dude. He went to the Pro Bowl. He lead the team to victories, made blocks and ran the ball when he had to, has been excellent in ball handling, blah blah blah...

...sure, others might think of Holmes, Gonzo, Hall then Green, but those people don't know the game very well. And they sure don't know our Chiefs.

Hall is not a leader BTW. Hall is an excellent weapon, but nobody thinks of a punt\kick returner as a leader. No, before Trent, Gonzo was the leader. Trent is the leader of this team, make no mistake...


I'm seeing flashes of the leader trying to do to much again.

tk13
09-21-2004, 02:56 PM
People (and opposing fans) just look at this at face value with stats and say Green isn't playing well. I think he was very sharp against the Broncos... very sharp. Lesser QB's would've had 3 or 4 INT's considering just how good Denver's man coverage was. Seriously, after Kennison's big play to start the game, how many other times did Trent throw to a guy that was really open? Anyone? They were all over our recievers... I fail to see how you can blame him for guys not being open, but we've got people in this thread who are trying to prop up Plummer and Gannon as the best QB in this division, so mindless criticism comes with the territory.

KC Kings
09-21-2004, 03:02 PM
• Decimated WR corps. We must find a way to get Hall and young Mr. Smith involved. Young and raw he may be, but Smith still has the speed we lose with Kennison out of the game.




You can tell who already bought the Star Wars DVD release. Gaz is starting to sound like Yoda. ROFL

Gaz
09-21-2004, 03:47 PM
htismaqe summed it up in another thread, but I will repeat the salient points here.

Our Defense is new. No one should have expected them to dominate anyone right off the bat [if our roster allows them to dominate at all].

Even so, the Defense showed signs of improvement. The forced some punts, stopped several runs for negative yardage, got [2] turnovers and even returned one of them into a touchdown [which, by the way, matched the TD production of the “high-octane” Offense]. They are not as good now as they will be later in the season. The incremental improvement will continue. Certainly not as fast as we would like, but it would be foolish to expect anything else.

The Offense, on the other hand, has taken several giant steps backwards. It is essentially the same Offense that tore up the NFL last season. And yet they have done nothing [with the glaring exception of a heroic individual performance from Holes in week #1]. Ten points from the hottest Offense in the NFL? They repeatedly gave the ball to the Panthers, sending the Chiefs D back onto the field. No wonder the Carolina front four was fresh. They did not have to play all that much. Our O would run four or five plays and then give up the ball again. The Chiefs Offense ran a grand total of [4] plays in the entire 3rd quarter.

There is only one segment of the Chiefs team that hideously under-performed last Sunday. The Offense. Something is hard-broke there. That is where our concern should be.

xoxo~
Gaz
Putting the blame squarely where it belongs.

whoman69
09-21-2004, 05:32 PM
Not to start a Grbac comparison, but Trent isn't the one that can't get open and can't catch the ball once it gets there.

WilliamTheIrish
09-21-2004, 05:38 PM
Respectfully Gaz, I'll disagree on the D. The Panthers were minus their two best players. Still the Panthers tore this D a new chute.

The O got 4 plays in the 3rd because the D failed miserably in that quarter. Yes I realize that Warfield got the INT for a score.

But what happened on the ensuing Carolina possesion? After a real (expletive) excessive celebration call, Carolina went 56 yards in 8 plays for the TD and the lead. Game over. The D gave us a lead, then gave it right back, through no fault of the O.

In the 4th Quarter The Chiefs had drives of 7 plays (punt), 1 play (fumble) 10 plays (INT) 4 plays (lost on downs) and 1 play (game over). 7 minutes of total possesion.

Forgive me for expecting better out of defense that was playing AT HOME in the season opener, against a team that was without it's two best players.

I'm discouraged.

On the offensive side, I feel the game swung on 2 decisions.

1) to not try for a first down on 4th and 1 late in the 2nd with the best player in the league in the backfield. Could have had 3 more shots to get it in the EZ or shortened the kick.

2) failing to give Holmes more touches overall.

Just plain stupid IMO.

OK, I'm done. On to the Texans.

38yrsfan
09-21-2004, 06:10 PM
Poor decisions by Green didn't help either. Throwing into multiple coverage, overthrowing, and not having much to work with are contributing. It's my fault though, I said he'd return to the Pro Bowl.

Claynus
09-21-2004, 06:14 PM
Poor decisions by Green didn't help either. Throwing into multiple coverage, overthrowing, and not having much to work with are contributing. It's my fault though, I said he'd return to the Pro Bowl.

This is the norm for Green early in the season. The reason it is being magnified is because of the level of competition we are facing. That and our defense is playing like garbage. At the beginning of the season last year our defense played quite well.

BigRedChief
09-22-2004, 06:31 AM
I still believe in Trent. That the "real" QB is the one from the last two seasons and no the one from the first season here.

InChiefsHell
09-22-2004, 08:34 AM
I'm seeing flashes of the leader trying to do to much again.

Agreed, but I'm seeing flashes of the leader HAVING to do to much again. He needs some help from the team, 's all there is too it...

milkman
09-22-2004, 08:39 AM
Respectfully Gaz, I'll disagree on the D. The Panthers were minus their two best players. Still the Panthers tore this D a new chute.

The O got 4 plays in the 3rd because the D failed miserably in that quarter. Yes I realize that Warfield got the INT for a score.

But what happened on the ensuing Carolina possesion? After a real (expletive) excessive celebration call, Carolina went 56 yards in 8 plays for the TD and the lead. Game over. The D gave us a lead, then gave it right back, through no fault of the O.

I agree William.
However, if the O had peformed at the high level that we had come to expect in the first half, and they had put some points on the board, then that drive in the 3rd Qtr would have been meaningless

If the Chiefs O had put some points on the board in the 1st half, the Panthers might have had to come out in a different mindset on O, and maybe that drive doesn't happen.

I would expect where we would see marked improvement on D quickly would be in situations where the opposition has to play catch up, and Gun can let loose the hounds.

Gaz
09-22-2004, 09:00 AM
The pertinent question is: Which part of the team did you expect to carry the team?

I expected the Defense to struggle. It is only game #2 under a new scheme. I see improvement [negative yardage on runs, for example], but I do not think anyone rightfully expected the Chiefs Defense to dominate anyone at this point in the season [if at all].

I expected the Offense to move the ball. This is essentially the same Offense that tore up the NFL last season and the Defense matched them TD for TD. They had one good drive that ended in a FG [bad choice, DV]. The Offense’s TD came on the heels of a PI call that put them at the 1-yard line. A gift. Other than that, all the Offense did was hand the ball back to The Enemy and put our D back on the field.

I am not saying that our Defense is great. Our Defense is still rebuilding and will only get better in small chunks. However, the Offense has not lived up to its reputation and is hanging our Defense out to dry.

xoxo~
Gaz
Finds one segment of the team falling WAY below expectations.

BigMeatballDave
09-22-2004, 09:11 AM
I know our D isn't great, but if our O was producing like last season, we'd be 2-0...

Coogs
09-22-2004, 09:12 AM
but I do not think anyone rightfully expected the Chiefs Defense to dominate anyone at this point in the season [if at all].


I suspect that, even though it was the pre-season, the defense Gun unleashed on the Rams at Arrowhead maybe led a few of us astray. I know it did me. I had visions of the Gun defense from years gone by dancing in my head. And as a GR basher that faulted the scheme instead of the players, that preseason game left me saying "I knew it"!

Now I am comming back to the reality that it may take a while. Perhaps even a year or two to aquire a bit more talent to make the thing fly.

Gaz
09-22-2004, 09:16 AM
I know our D isn't great, but if our O was producing like last season, we'd be 2-0...

Exactly.

xoxo~
Gaz
Could not have been as succinct.

Gaz
09-22-2004, 09:21 AM
Coogs-

I understand. This season is for evaluation as to which players fit Gunther’s scheme and which do not. I read lots of complaining about us not adding players in the off-season, but it made sense to me that we evaluate the players with Gunther at the helm before diving into FA.

I think the prior Defense was mostly scheme but it would be the epitome of blind homerism to say that we have top-tier talent on that side of the ball. Now we have [IMO] a better scheme, but we still do not have many players who would be starters on the average NFL team.

xoxo~
Gaz
Loves Gunther’s ‘tude, but realizes this is an ongoing process.

BigRedChief
09-22-2004, 09:22 AM
Now I am comming back to the reality that it may take a while. Perhaps even a year or two to aquire a bit more talent to make the thing fly.

We may have one more year. But right now our ol is looking old. Our LB are below average. We are desperate at WR. Priest might retire. Trwnt will be 37 after next year. Tony G 31. We can't fix everything in one year.

Chiefnj
09-22-2004, 09:29 AM
The pertinent question is: Which part of the team did you expect to carry the team?



I expected the offense to carry the team. I also expected management not to sit on their thumbs while 4 of the "receivers" the team expected to rely upon were out for almost the entire preseason and/or lost for the regular season.

As far as making this an evaluation year, I think it is a huge mistake when you look at the age, and in Priest's case his quirkiness, of key offensive players - Green, Richardson, Roaf, Shields and Morton.

InChiefsHell
09-22-2004, 09:32 AM
We may have one more year. But right now our ol is looking old. Our LB are below average. We are desperate at WR. Priest might retire. Trwnt will be 37 after next year. Tony G 31. We can't fix everything in one year.
Trent just turned 34 this summer, and Gonzo just turned 28. (No, I don't have a poster of them in my bedroom). They've got a few more years left. Priest is 31 this October. Unless he pusses out or gets injured, one would think that he could run for a couple more years. That's up to him of course, but that's also what LJ is for. I don't think we'd be fixing EVERYTHING in one year. Next season, our rookies of the last 2 years will either get it or be gone. It just takes time.

My biggest concern is the injury bug. I fear it will bite and bite hard this year...
:(

Coogs
09-22-2004, 09:32 AM
This season is for evaluation as to which players fit Gunther’s scheme and which do not. I read lots of complaining about us not adding players in the off-season, but it made sense to me that we evaluate the players with Gunther at the helm before diving into FA.


I agree totally. I thought the players we already had/have needed a one year grace period to prove themselves. And up to this point, a couple of them have. Fujita and Warfield have earned their keep. I'm anxious to see Fox when he gets healthy. And believe it or not, I want to see Bartee when he gets healthy. I suspect he could man the CB spot opposite of Warfield as well as McCleon did Sunday.

Coogs
09-22-2004, 09:34 AM
We may have one more year. But right now our ol is looking old. Our LB are below average. We are desperate at WR. Priest might retire. Trwnt will be 37 after next year. Tony G 31. We can't fix everything in one year.

I'm not throwing in the towel just yet, but I am starting to come to grips with the fact that last year was our year.

htismaqe
09-22-2004, 11:31 AM
I expected the offense to carry the team. I also expected management not to sit on their thumbs while 4 of the "receivers" the team expected to rely upon were out for almost the entire preseason and/or lost for the regular season.

As far as making this an evaluation year, I think it is a huge mistake when you look at the age, and in Priest's case his quirkiness, of key offensive players - Green, Richardson, Roaf, Shields and Morton.

Good post.

BigRedChief
09-22-2004, 02:55 PM
Now Fox Sports is jumping on Trent. Ranking him 31st out of 34 QB's in "clutch" performance. Behind Ken Dorsey, Kyle Boller etc
The link:
http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3028654