Whitlocks Gambling advice: Take the Browns minus-2
 

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/c...hitlock-091610



Kansas City’s victory over the Chargers was a total fluke. Todd Haley and Scott Pioli refuse to showcase Jamaal Charles solely because Herm Edwards drafted him. KC’s front seven can’t pressure the quarterback. The rain and the sloppiness of Arrowhead Stadium’s grass stopped the Chargers. The Chiefs have no No. 1 receiver or quarterback

JFC

ROFL

This dude is a ****ing idiot still to this day...

Yeah, that is probably the only part, that isn't true, well except that the front seven played very well.

Rabble rabble rabble
Posted via Mobile Device

Wow the whole idea that Pioli has anything to do with the playcalling is beyond reeruned. The weather wasn't even a factor the entire game. Another example of Whitlocks bitterness against Pioli getting in the way of having a common sense take.

Whitlock really needed Carl Peterson to make his act work. Now he's just Sonny with no Cher

It sounds more like Jilted lovers syndrome, than any football analysis...

But then again, it is Whitlock, He has nothing against the Chiefs...

Shut up, Jason.

The part about Haley not playing Charles as much as he should could easily be said about Mangini playing Hillis over Jerome Harrison as well.

Funny Whitlock didn't mention that.

So the article was only 70% complete bullshit?

What???????

GTFO.

he has a point...

why in god's name is Jamaal Charles not on the field???

HE SHOULD BE ON THE FIELD 85% OF THE TIME...NOT 50...NOT 40...

Funny thing.

Flopnuts, Clay and I stopped by SportzNutz before I went to the airport.

They had copies of Whitlocks book on sale......for $2.00. I told the guy they'd have to pay me $2.00 to take a copy off of their hands.

Now that he's no longer w/ the Star his words really have no meaning anymore, if they ever did. Regardless his columns in the sports section would make people talk, and that's what he was paid to do. Like what was previously posted, I think a lot of it was that he needed Carl Peterson around to fuel the fire, generally because the whole town was against Carl because he had worn out his welcome here in KC after Marty left. No Carl, No Whitlock at the Star, he's pretty much irrelevant now that he left the Star's sports page. Most people around KC (not counting this site) don't look around on the internet to read his blogs or other publications he may have.

I agree, but he is right about the weather and the Chiefs lack of a QB. I had to double check the link on where he is was writing for now, and make sure it wasn't Warpaint/Athan.

I just hope Cassel proves all of us haters woefully wrong, soon.

85%? he'll no. 70% max.
Posted via Mobile Device

It was raining cats and dogs and JC does have a fumbling problem and we were ahead. 1 fumble would have changed the game.

See the Mathews play for example.

We need to see him more moving forward.

I can think of a dozen plausible (though not necessarily defensible) reasons why that hasn't happened yet. I don't need to pull some bullshit grassy-knoll theory out of my ass.

butt-hurt much? jeez

Yeah, 70 to 80% would be about right.

The reason charles wasnt on the field was that he has been known to fumble the ball and the rain would have made it worse so they went with the sure hands of jones even though they werent picking up the first downs.

He even said that they were blatantly trying to protect their lead and play as conservatively as they'll play all year. The offense will be very different Sunday. Maybe not better, but different for sure.

ROFL True story.

85%? No way. I'd like him to play past the age of 25. 65-70% would be ideal. He's definitely not getting enough touches. No ****ing doubt about that. And I read an article that said Thomas Jones beat him out in camp, which isn't surprising considering the Chiefs have Jones as 1st on the depth chart. That's a mind **** game if I've ever seen one. It better ****ing work if you're going to go there with the best player on your team.

Why? I don't see the problem with the speculation.

The dude more than proved himself last year. Still, we hear bullshit about "he's starting to get it."

And when he doesn't get a single touch until the very end of the first quarter = stupidity on the part of the coaching staff. And I don't care that we hadn't sustained drives. More reason to get your best offensive player on the field.

Again, the fact that JC is not starting is mind-bottlingly (CP) stupid.

It's a little early to be freaking out about that.

I'm sure that's how the Titans use Chris Johnson...70%

NO WAY

AND GUESS WHAT

IF CHRIS JOHNSON AND JAMAAL CHARLES TRADED UNIS NO FAN IN EITHER CITY WOULD NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE

They are the same player.

That is a good point, but I also think they are trying to avoid doing to Charles, what Herm did to Lj.

People can rail on Mecca a lot, but he called that at the time, and he was right as rain.

Charles is about 30 lbs. lighter than Lj was.

well I don't know...

If it doesn't change...

I'm going to have to root for an injury to Thomas Jones...

nothing against the guy...he runs the ball hard and is a good player

but when he's keeping our gamebreaker on the sideline it's MORE THAN A LITTLE frustrating

the Chiefs should use Jamaal Charles like the Titans use Chris Johnson...

PERIOD.

Nope. Every game is crucial, as you know.

This "saving Jamaal Charles" bullshit is just that....bullshit.

It's common knowledge that RBs don't survive in this league. All it takes is one freak hit and their done.....so ****ing use them while you can. Give Charles 20 carries a game and let him get those yards.....it's what we're paying him for.

You don't have to use extremes, though. No one is advocating this. But I'm shocked that there's this much discussion about playing our best players.

Obvious decision is, well, ...

Flowers shouldn't start. I have no ****ing clue why we aren't using him only in nickel packages.

Yes, Haley has a vendetta over Herman Edwards drafted players.

That's the ticket.

That might be one of the most off-base things Whitlock has ever said.

I kind of wonder if Whitlock would not still be a the Star if Peterson still had his job. Whitlock burned bridges with espn, the star, 810, 610, and probably everyone else, but he worked in the star as long as he had his nemesis.

With Carl gone and without a front office that would play petty Tom and Jerry games with the media, he lost his edge.

Jamaal Charles can not carry the ball 20-25 times a game. He's just not built for that type of abuse.

I'm fine with a 60-40 split of carries because over the long haul, it will save Jamaal.

No one is saying that we should give Charles over 400 carries in a season.

You give him 20 carries a game...and that equals out to 320 carries. You could cut that down to 15 a game if you're going to involve him in the passing game more.

He should be out on the field more than Thomas Jones though.

He needs 20 touches per game.

And if we're already worried about "the long haul" with Charles, it's a pretty safe bet that he won't see this, no matter the bubble we try to place around him.

Turn and burn with RBs. It's not like we can magically stop the clock on the period of time of when he'll be elite, which I think Charles can be.

He averaged 20 carries a game over the last 8 games of the season....and seemed just fine to me.

Off to the races we go! A paragraph from Whitlock touches off a 20 page thread.

that's bullshit about Charles not "being built" a certain way...

HE'S CHRIS JOHNSON

WE HAVE A CHRIS JOHNSON ON OUR TEAM

we should use him as one

He signed a three-year deal in '08, right? If that's the case, I'm completely in favor of using him wisely in '10, and then abusing the shit out of him in '11, and then throwing him away.

I wouldn't give a RB a ridiculously lucrative deal. If we could sign him to a two-year extension after this year, that would be great. If not, toss 'em.

Save Charles (youth/talent) until this team actually has a QB and all the pieces that can succeed.

In the mean time use Thomas Jones like a rental car, as he is about done.

Makes sense to me.

save Charles?

what are we saving him for?

THE NFL IS A TODAY SPORT...not a tomorrow

We're never going to win shit with that plan.

Let's save Brandon Flowers until we have a pass rush. We wouldn't want to use him up.

I picked up an SI in the Dr's office on Monday and the cover story was on RBs and how quickly they are burned out.

I can see both sides. With Charles, we have a bird in hand. We might as well use him while we know he's good.

However, he's so dynamic that using him up now rather than sparing him so that we can get 7 years of productivity instead of 3 seems a bit foolish, especially given the fact that we aren't yet a contender.

This is disanalogous. CBs have a very long shelf life in comparison to RBs.

Let's say we draft a QB this Spring. LMAO. Ok, let's just say.

At best, we'd be two years away from making a legit push for a SB with a n00b, and that's if he's ****ing great from the start. Could be 3 years, most likely.

And Charles might be out of the league.

Use RBs when you have them because they don't last.

I can live with that...

screens, passes, runs... 15-20 would be nice...

That's fine and true enough. But I made it with the intention of trying to equal the absurd. For this, I believe the point works well.

I am thinking it was more about the conditions and Jamal's habit of fumbling more than anything else.

Now this Sunday if the conditions are fine and he doesn't play then we might have problem.

Not with the 12th man in action.

I don't know if that is the reason, although they do need to give him the ball more.

I thought they did a decent job against the chargers... unlucky for them, Rivers is a great QB with excellent pocket presence and a great eye for finding open receivers and getting them the ball quickly. Seneca Wallace nor Dake Delhomme are near this good.

Bullshit. The front 7 stopped the run game, and Rivers was still completing passes all over the field. This was the most ignorant statement of the article.

They have #1's.... they just happen to suck. =P

To me there's just no way you can excuse it. There's no reason that makes sense. Jamaal routinely out performs everybody else on a weekly basis and the guy just can't get any love from Todd.

I think Jason is probably right with his assessment on what the deal is.

here's my gambling advice:

go put all of your money on the Pats (-3) before the move the line up...

and they will

so hurry while it's still a good line

Might as well get used to it. Whitlock is going to try and discredit any success the Chiefs have because of his bitterness toward Pioli.

Uh... What game were you watching? If it was perfect weather. we get our asses handed to us.

This.

I can't believe some of you people actually think this guy is a good writer.
He rewords the same stupid shit over, and over, and you eat it up.
Whitlock has true fans.

/Thread over!

If the weather was perfect, maybe Hali gets a better jump.
If the weather was perfect Maybe Bowe doesn't drop passes.
IF, IF, IF, Maybe, Maybe.
We won the game with 68 yards passing FFS.
To say we would have been stomped is pure speculation. Not saying it wouldn't have happened but if, and maybe are pointless. We won.

What I meant to say was that toward the end of the game the rain had let up. Weather conditions were at some points in the game better than at other points. It wasn't just shitty conditions the whole time.

Great Post. We should use him of course. But giving him the ball 20-25 time a game at this juncture IS foolish IMO.

Oh, I agree the "drafting a QBOTF" horse is out of the barn, for the immediate future.

I don't think many people were screaming louder than me about having three top 5 picks in a row (something this team has NEVER had) and not taking a QB.

They still need to take one soon, but they have to find someone that can handle the duties well in the short term. I don't think that person is on this team right now, but hope like hell I am wrong.

Brandon Flowers is not an undersized speed back with an injury history who gets hit by guys twice his size 20 times a game.

Dude... I see you've never thrown a wet football... That's one of the hardest things to do accurately, Let alone catch one.

Hence the drop by Nanee on the 3rd and long play he had to jump for Rivers floated a tad high from the wet ball.

Bowe's drop wasn't because of wet ball... that ball hit him hard as shit on the back shoulder. He should've caught it. Bad concentration not a slipped ball tho.

Like I said... we get our asses handed to us and Rivers possibly has 400 yds passing that game.

How about just giving him at least 15 carries a game?

He got 11 last. Exact same as Thomas Jones and don't forget that Castille got some touches.

There's just no justifying that.

I agree with your overall point about the "if" game.

What we definitely know, however, is that we totaled about 200 yards of offense, while giving up over 400. Those aren't good odds.

Didn't matter last Monday, but this cannot remain the norm if this team is to have success.

Had to trump Wright's "informed speculation" that Pioli was behind the Thum resignation.

River's gets rid of the ball as fast as Manning.
Bowe's drop was from lack of concentration. Not weather related.
We won because of the weather ST's and crowd... However ugly it was WE WON!

But weather was HUGE (most important) in the win.

You wont win many games that way for sure.

We were on the opposite end of one of those games week 2 last year.

How many times during the DV years we would roll up 500 yards of offense and lose to a team that only had 200 or less....

So KC becomes more talented in the rain and SD becomes less talented in the rain?

Both teams play under the same conditions right?

Before it started pouring it was 7-7 correct?

Had KC lost a close one in those conditions and people here blamed it on the rain it would be blood bath.

For ****'s sake, the guy (Charles) touched the ball on 24.489795918367346938775510204082% of the offensive plays. WTF do you want?

Off the top of my head, I'd guess 0. You think the 32 Defense earned its name by allowing too many sub-200-yard games?

We weren't getting beat on ST and defensive TDs, elements that, by the way, were critical in last Monday's win.

But there IS justification.
I have no problem with giving 11 carries to a guy who had SHOULDER SURGERY in the off-season in his first game back.

Between 15-20 carries a game sounds great for now.

Not trying to sound like a dick. Just making a point.

What a bunch of speculative bullshit. There's a world of difference between conditions when it's wet while raining and wet while it's not raining. When it's wet and not raining you can dry off the ball between plays.

I'm not going to place a lot of confidence in the regularity of ST TDs and defensive plays that lead almost directly to points.

This game, in many ways, reminds me of the Ravens game from last year. Only this time, we won. Should be interesting to see how we build on this. If we can stop the run in CLE, for example, we should win.

Actually I played 22 games at QB in HS.
More speculation is not helping you.