Chiefs "Preaching to the CP Choir, or, The Day We Saw Marty Die" - Page 2

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.

milkman · 12-23-2012, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully

My apologies. I knew going from memory would take away from your thoughts on it.

You got it close enough to convey the thought.

Coogs · 12-23-2012, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully

Given the option, would you want 350 yards rushing and a pedestrian QB, or 350 passing and a pedestrian running game?

I'm an old school guy. I love watching what Charles can do. I watch guys like Stafford thow for 500 and lose too. So given the option, I guess I would choose Charles and a competent QB.

Sully · 12-23-2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

I'm an old school guy. I love watching what Charles can do. I watch guys like Stafford thow for 500 and lose too. So given the option, I guess I would choose Charles and a competent QB.

I prefer the old way too. I mentioned the 1990 Giants. That Super Bowl was one of the top 2 I've enjoyed.
But it's just not today's NFL.

Coogs · 12-23-2012, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully

I prefer the old way too. I mentioned the 1990 Giants. That Super Bowl was one of the top 2 I've enjoyed.
But it's just not today's NFL.

I don't know. You look at the passing leaders and rushing leaders in the NFL, and the teams with a leading rusher are doing just as well in the playoff chase as the ones with the leading passing stats.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/foo...ts/?eref=sinav

Sully · 12-23-2012, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

I don't know. You look at the passing leaders and rushing leaders in the NFL, and the teams with a leading rusher are doing just as well in the playoff chase as the ones with the leading passing stats.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/foo...ts/?eref=sinav

Is the goal making the "tournament," or winning the Super Bowl?

milkman · 12-23-2012, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully

I prefer the old way too. I mentioned the 1990 Giants. That Super Bowl was one of the top 2 I've enjoyed.
But it's just not today's NFL.

We are watching a game between two teams who would be the blueprint for the type of team that I want to build.

Outstanding defense, outstanding RBs, and QBs that might potentially be the franchise QB.

milkman · 12-23-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

I don't know. You look at the passing leaders and rushing leaders in the NFL, and the teams with a leading rusher are doing just as well in the playoff chase as the ones with the leading passing stats.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/foo...ts/?eref=sinav

QBs that can make plays when it matters most are the ones that are winning, and have historically won, SBs.

I want to run the ball, but the QB is far more important.

It ain't even close.

Coogs · 12-23-2012, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully

Is the goal making the "tournament," or winning the Super Bowl?

IMO, today's loss was a fluke. A total absolute fluke. And for that I am thankful. But I would take today's performance on offense, minus very little, every damn Sunday next year and take my chances.

Coogs · 12-23-2012, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

QBs that can make plays when it matters most are the ones that are winning, and have historically won, SBs.

I want to run the ball, but the QB is far more important.

It ain't even close.

No shit.

Deberg_1990 · 12-23-2012, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

The definition is simplistic.

There is more to it than just being clutch, but being clutch is absolutely essential.

In order to be a franchise QB, you must first actually possess QB skills.

Is P Manning a franchise QB IYO? I know how much you love him,

milkman · 12-23-2012, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

IMO, today's loss was a fluke. A total absolute fluke. And for that I am thankful. But I would take today's performance on offense, minus very little, every damn Sunday next year and take my chances.

It wasn't a fluke.

It was perfect illustration of just how incompetence at both coaching and at QB can undermine the efforts of all other aspects of a team's performance.

milkman · 12-23-2012, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Is P Manning a franchise QB IYO? I know how much you love him,

As I said, the definition is simplistic.

I can not, with any credibility, leave Manning out of any list of franchise QBs, except one.

I would not want him as my franchise QB.

Coogs · 12-23-2012, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

It wasn't a fluke.

It was perfect illustration of just how incompetence at both coaching and at QB can undermine the efforts of all other aspects of a team's performance.

Yea it was a fluke. In fact, it was the 1st time in the history of the NFL a team has posted 350 rushing yards and lost.

Deberg_1990 · 12-23-2012, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

IMO, today's loss was a fluke. A total absolute fluke. And for that I am thankful. But I would take today's performance on offense, minus very little, every damn Sunday next year and take my chances.

Seriously? THis team is 2-13. It's what they do. No fluke.

milkman · 12-23-2012, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coogs

Yea it was a fluke. In fact, it was the 1st time in the history of the NFL a team has posted 350 rushing yards and lost.

I don't give a rat's ass if it was the first time (and I was aware of that fact), it wasn't a fluke.

The Chiefs lost that game, in spite of the fact that they doiminated in every other way conceivable, because of Romeo Crennel, Brian DaBoll, and Brady Quinn.

I don't care how effectively you are running the ball, you have to eb able to make plays in teh passing game at some point.

12-23-2012, 07:34 PM
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