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

[Sully]

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.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

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

It is what Pioli deserved. This whole season is what Pioli deserved. Look, I am not even promoting Alex Smith here, but just a half ass competent QB wins that game every ****ing time. Hell, most teams in the NFL win that game by 35 points today if they have our offensive yardage production.

Me. I am thrilled we lost. I want Pioli gone, and I want Geno Smith to be our QB. Then give me 225 out of Charles and 350 out of the team, and I take my chances.

[FloridaMan88]

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.

Today's performance on offense... despite 350 yards rushing resulted in one TD.

You can't win in today's NFL without being able to throw for close to 300 yards every game.

Last year's two Super Bowl participants were ranked 2nd and 5th in passing offense per game. They were ranked 20th and 32nd in rushing offense per game.

The NY Giants... the Super Bowl winners were ranked dead last... 32nd in rushing offense per game last year.

This is a pass first, pass second, pass often league. Deal with it or don't expect to win anything.

[FloridaMan88]

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.

What about watching Tom Brady and Eli Manning throw for close to 300+ yards per game and lead their teams to the Super Bowl last season?

[Molitoth]

The rules of the game lean in favor of a passing attack.

Pass interference and roughing the passer are huge chunks of yardage.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by milkman

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.

This.

It wasn't a fluke.

The game has changed.

[burt]

Originally Posted by Sully

One of the, if not THE, greatest men I've ever known. And I haven't known him that long.

I feel the same way about Coach Mayabb.

[Easy 6]

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?

As much as i LOVE a dynamic, smashing run game... this is too easy to answer.

Gotta be able to chuck it these days, yesterdays game was a textbook example, well over 300 yards rushing and it didnt mean shit because quinn couldnt put one in the endzone.

[AdumbGuy]

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. We've lost a few games earlier this year even with a huge time of possession advantage which usually means we're rushing well. Our rushing offense has been one of the best in the league for a while now. The coaches, inexplicably, don't seem to understand that the run sets up the pass.

You mentioned Schottenheimer and he would've been pissed about this last game. The chiefs were all about turnovers with that D. Under him, we were pretty much always at the top of the league in turnover differential. And every single QB that ever played for marty knew how to playaction pass like a motherf******.

We need balance, but admittedly an elite qb in today's nfl gives you a much larger margin of error than an elite rb

[Coogs]

While it wasn't a fluke play that beat us, I still contend losing a game in which you rush for 350 yards to be in that neighborhood.

Look, I totally understand the QB thing. Hell, I have been riding shotgun with Clay being the driver on the dishing out of stats on our QB situation here over the past four years. All a lot of you could throw out was "Cassel sux".

But I also understand having a QB that can throw it all over the yard accomplishes nothing either. Look at Matt Stafford and the Detroit Lions for example.

I don't totally agree with the OP. I do agree that you need to have a QB who can throw for 300 yards if the situation calls for needing 300 yards to win.

And I will contend we were damn lucky we did not win that game yesterday. Quinn gave up a pick 6. Succop did his usual bit in a winnable game. And 4 other damn near can't miss scoring opportunities were wasted by the mess that Pioli has created.

What we saw yesterday... 350 yards rushing to win a game is not dead... we just ****ed it up royally. Thank God for that!!!

[Coogs]

And, as a matter of fact, even in this day and age, if we ever make it to the Super Bowl again and one of two things was going to happen... our QB is going to throw for 300+ yards, or we could rush for 350 with our star RB getting 226, I would take the running total every damn time and take my chances.

Chance are good you are going to win under either scenario, but I'm taking the running route. And I don't care if I stand alone on that fact.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Coogs

And, as a matter of fact, even in this day and age, if we ever make it to the Super Bowl again and one of two things was going to happen... our QB is going to throw for 300+ yards, or we could rush for 350 with our star RB getting 226, I would take the running total every damn time and take my chances.

Chance are good you are going to win under either scenario, but I'm taking the running route. And I don't care if I stand alone on that fact.

The NFL is evolving. Teams NEED a quarterback to lean on these days, not a running back. Hell, the rules these days practically give quarterbacks carte blanche in their play. If a defender farts in the general direction of a QB, it's 15 yards.

It's been beat to death in discussions, but when was the last "game managing" quarterback to win a Super Bowl? Brad Johnson with the Bucs? The saying used to be "offense wins games, but defense wins championships". I'm not so sure about that anymore, particularly when you look at the last decade and a half of SB winners.

[Sully]

I'd like to know three things, though I'm too lazy to look them up myself...

1) what's the average points scored, over the past 7-9 years, of teams with 150+ yards rushing?

2) what's the average points scored, over the past 7-9 years, of teams with 300 yards passing?

3) what's the average points given up by teams in both of those categories.

[patteeu]

You think Marty didn't want a franchise QB? If so, he must have thrown a fit when Carl traded for Joe Montana.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Coogs

And, as a matter of fact, even in this day and age, if we ever make it to the Super Bowl again and one of two things was going to happen... our QB is going to throw for 300+ yards, or we could rush for 350 with our star RB getting 226, I would take the running total every damn time and take my chances.

Chance are good you are going to win under either scenario, but I'm taking the running route. And I don't care if I stand alone on that fact.

The Packers have a chance to win another SB this year with a mediocre running game and Aaron Rodgers.

The Vikings have no shot with a mediocre QB and the best RB in the game.

[Bob Dole]

Still think you need to have both and be able to attack your opponent's weakness.

And also sense enough to know WHEN to attack your opponent's weakness.