ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs 9 carries (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=240003)

jjjayb 01-09-2011 03:44 PM

9 carries
 
9 carries is what Charles had today. So much for the "we were resting him for the playoffs" theory. Why in the hell did we completely abandon the run game in the 2nd half? We had 100 yards rushing in the fist half then decided to come out and go pass happy in the 2nd half?

Our first play in the second half was an empty backfield? Seriously?!? If we wanted to put the ball in Cassel's hands, why didn't we use play action passing? I'm definitely glad Weiss is leaving. With that gameplan, if he wasn't leaving, he should've been fired.

Deberg_1990 01-09-2011 03:45 PM

IM pretty sure he got dinged up at the end of the 1st half.

Dave Lane 01-09-2011 03:46 PM

I've never been a big fan of his. Crennel yes, him not so much.

suds79 01-09-2011 03:48 PM

Dinged up, we got behind. Also seemed like to me that the Ravens were doing a better job at containing him & daring the Chiefs to pass.

They just couldn't do it.

jjjayb 01-09-2011 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suds79 (Post 7339758)
Dinged up, we got behind. Also seemed like to me that the Ravens were doing a better job at containing him & daring the Chiefs to pass.

They just couldn't do it.

We got behind? We were down 10-7 at the start of the 2nd half when we came out pass happy. Contained him? Really?!? At what point? I can't believe if we were going to get pass happy we didn't use play action to help open it up.

milkman 01-09-2011 03:55 PM

I've called the play calling today pathetic numerous times already.

GloryDayz 01-09-2011 03:57 PM

Yep, dinged... But Bowe, not sure about that deal!!

milkman 01-09-2011 04:02 PM

Curtis, one catch today, Bowe 0?

KCrockaholic 01-09-2011 04:04 PM

It was ****in stupid to just abandon the run. The defense was gassed, and the offense just kept going 3 and out when we passed. Charles should have had more like 20 carries. **** you Weis.

threebag 01-09-2011 04:07 PM

Did Charles get Hurt?

ShowtimeSBMVP 01-09-2011 04:15 PM

getnickwright nick wright
So Jamaal Charles was too injured to run, but not too injured to be asked to pick up blitz pickups? OK. Makes perfect sense.

KCrockaholic 01-09-2011 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haydenchiefs101 (Post 7339943)
getnickwright nick wright
So Jamaal Charles was too injured to run, but not too injured to be asked to pick up blitz pickups? OK. Makes perfect sense.

That's why the theory of him being dinged up doesn't hold water.

jjjayb 01-09-2011 04:27 PM

Dinged up my ass. It's the same thing we saw all year. I was just hoping they wouldn't pull this crap in the playoffs when it's do or die.

Pioli Zombie 01-09-2011 04:40 PM

That's why Charles gets 6 yards a carry. The defense is totally shocked when he gets the ball.

jjjayb 01-09-2011 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie (Post 7340059)
That's why Charles gets 6 yards a carry. The defense is totally shocked when he gets the ball.

LMAO

Thanks for that. Needed a good laugh after freezing my ass off to watch that big 'ol pile of fail at Arrowhead.

tk13 01-09-2011 04:52 PM

I think some of it was situational. We just didn't have that many offensive plays in the 1st half... couldn't get their offense off the field. 2nd possession of the 2nd half started with that grounding penalty that killed us, then the next drive had the INT right off the bat... and that sent the game out of control.

Superbowltrashcan 01-09-2011 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haydenchiefs101 (Post 7339943)
getnickwright nick wright
So Jamaal Charles was too injured to run, but not too injured to be asked to pick up blitz pickups? OK. Makes perfect sense.

That block on Suggs ( i think) was massive....yeah why that but no carries....

jjjayb 01-09-2011 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 7340125)
I think some of it was situational. We just didn't have that many offensive plays in the 1st half... couldn't get their offense off the field. 2nd possession of the 2nd half started with that grounding penalty that killed us, then the next drive had the INT right off the bat... and that sent the game out of control.

Go back and look at the play by play on nfl.com. Look what consistently happened when we ran with Charles on 1st down. Look what consistently happened when we passed on 1st down.

And again. With the run game working, why no play action passing!?!

Dartgod 01-09-2011 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjayb (Post 7340169)
Go back and look at the play by play on nfl.com. Look what consistently happened when we ran with Charles on 1st down. Look what consistently happened when we passed on 1st down.

And again. With the run game working, why no play action passing!?!

Because we are and idiot.

HonestChieffan 01-09-2011 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by threebag02 (Post 7339894)
Did Charles get Hurt?

yes

MichaelH 01-09-2011 05:04 PM

I think Charles didn't get many carries because Weis is now in Florida eating pork rinds and could give a shit about KC.

Reerun_KC 01-09-2011 05:05 PM

Wish he would learn to hold on to the ball...

RJ 01-09-2011 05:06 PM

Charles had how many touches out of how many total plays?

I think the problem was not having the ball.

KCBOSS1 01-09-2011 05:06 PM

Sad thing is that he had 9 carries and had the ball more than anybody else. They didn't have the ball!....hardly at all.

jspchief 01-09-2011 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjayb (Post 7340169)
Go back and look at the play by play on nfl.com. Look what consistently happened when we ran with Charles on 1st down. Look what consistently happened when we passed on 1st down.

And again. With the run game working, why no play action passing!?!

Yes, the play-calling was horrible. It reminded me of the Vermeil days when we'd get away from what we did best in an effort to "outsmart" the opponent. Let the team play to their strengths, and if that doesn't work, then get cute.

Extra Point 01-09-2011 05:16 PM

We got there, we just didn't effectively call and execute plays, relative to skill level and formations.

That first challenge was a loser. We did not hasten our offense. Fat Albert jumped, as we were so out of rhythm getting in the plays. No quick slant, no chance.

No middle help on defense, no chance.

A better team beat us, today. We need a smash mouth coordinator, and we need some line help to do the smashing.

JD10367 01-09-2011 05:38 PM

Wanker
Eating
Incestuous
Scumbag

FAX 01-09-2011 06:16 PM

I think you need to be on offense in order to run the ball.

FAX

TheGuardian 01-09-2011 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX (Post 7340589)
I think you need to be on offense in order to run the ball.

FAX

This.

Agree that Charles did not get enough carries, but the defensive plan today blew chunks. You CANNOT let a team hold the ball that long. And Romeo never made any adjustments to the gaping holes in the middle of the field the entire day. That's why they converted 3rd and long over and over again.

grey redstar 01-09-2011 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjayb (Post 7339729)
9 carries is what Charles had today. So much for the "we were resting him for the playoffs" theory. Why in the hell did we completely abandon the run game in the 2nd half? We had 100 yards rushing in the fist half then decided to come out and go pass happy in the 2nd half?

Our first play in the second half was an empty backfield? Seriously?!? If we wanted to put the ball in Cassel's hands, why didn't we use play action passing? I'm definitely glad Weiss is leaving. With that gameplan, if he wasn't leaving, he should've been fired.

I didn't get it either. If you're picking averaging 9 yards a carry why wouldn't you keep pounding it? I think we would have adjusted if they kept up the run, but I think it would have kept us honest. Its like they lost confidence in cahrles after the fumble. A lot about the Chiefs coaching, and gameplan confused me. Hey I'm glad to come out with the win, but was looking for something completely different out of Weis and Crennel.

chiefzilla1501 01-09-2011 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX (Post 7340589)
I think you need to be on offense in order to run the ball.

FAX

Agreed. Thought it was pretty clear that the offensive gameplan centered around Charles today.

And judging by Haley's press conference, it sounded like he was dinged up really good in the second half.

jjjayb 01-09-2011 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 7340952)
Agreed. Thought it was pretty clear that the offensive gameplan centered around Charles today.

And judging by Haley's press conference, it sounded like he was dinged up really good in the second half.

That's complete bullshit. You don't keep the ball from your best player because he's "dinged" in the playoffs. And if he's "dinged" why was it okay for him to be in there to block in the 2nd half?

nascher 01-09-2011 08:23 PM

Maybe he didn't got more plays because we only had limited plays and the Ravens had the ball almost the entire game. You guys are really strange !

chiefzilla1501 01-09-2011 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjayb (Post 7339809)
We got behind? We were down 10-7 at the start of the 2nd half when we came out pass happy. Contained him? Really?!? At what point? I can't believe if we were going to get pass happy we didn't use play action to help open it up.

Look at the context. There was nothing wrong with the first drive--we got to a makeable 3rd and 2 and then 4th and 1 and failed to convert. But lack of using Charles in that situation was a non-factor. On the second drive, an intentional grounding call forced a 2nd and 20. In that long-yardage territory, hard to ask Charles to be the go-to guy. On the third drive, we INT'd on the second play. That put the score to 23-7 and Charles could not be a part of the gameplan.

So really, you're talking about first down on the second drive of the second half and 1st down (carry went to Jones) and second down on the third drive of the second half. You're talking about three plays where we should have given the ball to Charles and didn't.

The Chiefs lost for a lot of reasons. I don't know how anyone could say not giving the ball to Charles was one of them.

ThaVirus 01-09-2011 08:43 PM

Charles did need more carries. While I agree that we didn't have the ball enough for him to get 25 of them, it made me sick to see Jones toting the rock. I understand you need a change up back and a guy that can spell your star runner, but DAMN! How many times do you need to see a guy go for 1.8 YPC while you're other guy, who's averaging 9 YPC, is riding pine? Whatever, it's over now and we'll just have to move on. Hopefully the next OC can come in here and work some magic (judging by today's game he's gonna need to be Merlin).

But on a side note, HOT DAMN did Charles look good running today!? On that first run of the game when he took it left, put his head down and bulled forward for a couple extra yards, I knew it was gonna be a big day for him. It's obvious he's a primetime player and, sadly, he's probably our only one on offense.

Chiefnj2 01-09-2011 10:16 PM

Where is Jimmy Raye when you need him?

notorious 01-09-2011 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2 (Post 7341625)
Where is Jimmy Raye when you need him?

He probably would have did a better job today.

:facepalm:

Weis is a ****ing joke.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.