Chiefs "Preaching to the CP Choir, or, The Day We Saw Marty Die"

Sully · 12-23-2012, 07:34 PM

I think the majority of CP is well aware of this, so I'm not treading new ground. But there are still some holdouts, and I thought today was a perfect illustration of the fact that you cannot win in today's NFL the way the Chiefs did in the 90s.

Apart from a couple of things, today's game was a Schottenheimer wet dream. An absolutely dominant running game, and a defense that made the other team uncomfortable the entire day. The only thing that would've kept Marty from PE about this game were the penalties and turnovers (no small caveat).

However, the turnovers were a result of a game managing QB trying to do more than he's capable of, and a fumble by a guy who everyone is keying on due to the limitations of the former.

I think of all the people on this forum, milkman (a guy I respect, but have had disagreements in the past with) has the best definition of a franchise QB. With apologies for paraphrasing, and this is from a poor memory, but he has said that being a franchise QB isn't about huge numbers and flashy games, but simply about being the man when the need arises. Andrew Luck had 10 straight incompletions today. Although he does have the flashy stats, and made some superhuman throws today, he wasn't "great" today. But ultimately, when his team needed it, he made plays, and got the win for his team.

Conversely, I believe that, by definition, a "game managing" QB is one who is simply expected to facilitate the game, not lose it, but can at best be relied upon VERY rarely to make plays when needed.

Due to today's passing offenses, the running game is only good for two things; To set up the pass (and not even that mostly), and to run some clock. Ask Mr Peterson up north how well it does in winning games. Ask Mr. Johnson down south. Ask Mr Foster in the playoffs. I don't like this fact. I prefer the football of my younger years. I prefer the 1990 Giants over the 1999 Rams. But the game is what it is.

So today, you'd have to be blind to still be on the bandwagon of running game/ defense winning games. What wins is a strong, or clutch passing attack, with a little running peppered in.

12-23-2012, 07:34 PM	Topic Starter
Sully It Goes On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Lees Summit Casino cash: $10026331	"Preaching to the CP Choir, or, The Day We Saw Marty Die" I think the majority of CP is well aware of this, so I'm not treading new ground. But there are still some holdouts, and I thought today was a perfect illustration of the fact that you cannot win in today's NFL the way the Chiefs did in the 90s. Apart from a couple of things, today's game was a Schottenheimer wet dream. An absolutely dominant running game, and a defense that made the other team uncomfortable the entire day. The only thing that would've kept Marty from PE about this game were the penalties and turnovers (no small caveat). However, the turnovers were a result of a game managing QB trying to do more than he's capable of, and a fumble by a guy who everyone is keying on due to the limitations of the former. I think of all the people on this forum, milkman (a guy I respect, but have had disagreements in the past with) has the best definition of a franchise QB. With apologies for paraphrasing, and this is from a poor memory, but he has said that being a franchise QB isn't about huge numbers and flashy games, but simply about being the man when the need arises. Andrew Luck had 10 straight incompletions today. Although he does have the flashy stats, and made some superhuman throws today, he wasn't "great" today. But ultimately, when his team needed it, he made plays, and got the win for his team. Conversely, I believe that, by definition, a "game managing" QB is one who is simply expected to facilitate the game, not lose it, but can at best be relied upon VERY rarely to make plays when needed. Due to today's passing offenses, the running game is only good for two things; To set up the pass (and not even that mostly), and to run some clock. Ask Mr Peterson up north how well it does in winning games. Ask Mr. Johnson down south. Ask Mr Foster in the playoffs. I don't like this fact. I prefer the football of my younger years. I prefer the 1990 Giants over the 1999 Rams. But the game is what it is. So today, you'd have to be blind to still be on the bandwagon of running game/ defense winning games. What wins is a strong, or clutch passing attack, with a little running peppered in.
Posts: 18,295