In big win, Chiefs find a leader in Romeo Crennel

[Hammock Parties]

This is dangerous. Chiefs players are lobbying openly for Crennel to get the job.

64-year old interim head coaches don't win shit in this league.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/12/18...-a-leader.html

Rookie linebacker Justin Houston grabbed an orange bucket of blue Gatorade and followed a pack of co-conspirators to drench the Chiefs’ new head coach. Romeo Crennel took it, smiled and clapped.

Running back Le’Ron McClain strutted toward Arrowhead Stadium’s west end zone, dropped his helmet around the 25-yard line, and joined five or six teammates in high-fiving and hugging delirious fans.

Crennel missed it. By this time, he was making his way off the field, wiping away tears.

The Chiefs stunned the football world by beating the previously undefeated Packers 19-14 on Sunday, the most shocking outcome in the NFL this season and in Kansas City for longer than that, one that we all might look back on in a few years as the day the franchise’s direction changed.

Three critical developments, in ascending order of importance, emerged from Sunday’s improbable upset: The Chiefs maintained a sliver of playoff hope, reminded a city that football can be fun and almost certainly found their new head coach.

“We treated this as our Super Bowl,” running back Dexter McCluster said. “This was our Super Bowl. You could feel that positive energy.”

What the Chiefs accomplished on Sunday is now the talk of the league. The Packers are still the prohibitive Super Bowl favorites, owners of the second-longest winning streak in NFL history, the model franchise for 31 others trying to build sustainable and long-term success. They’d won 19 straight and came in averaging nearly 36 points per game.

Juxtapose that with an organization in disarray. The Chiefs hadn’t scored more than 10 points since October and have lost five times by 27 points or more — one away from the most since the NFL and AFL merged in 1970.

This last week started with head coach Todd Haley being fired. Kyle Orton, cut by the Broncos a month ago, became the Chiefs’ third starting quarterback of the season. Injuries continue to expose an inexcusable lack of depth.

Nobody wondered whether the Packers would beat the Chiefs as much as they wondered just how badly the Packers would beat the Chiefs.

Then a funny, fun and completely unpredictable thing happened: The Chiefs led for all but 4 minutes, held the Packers to their fewest points and yards since last season, shut down Super Bowl MVP Aaron Rodgers and beat the defending world champions.

It can’t be as simple as Tyler Palko sitting, and the plainly capable Orton playing, can it?

Because even before this, Crennel figured to drop the “interim” from his new title as head coach after Haley’s firing.

But now, after the team’s most inspired effort of the season, the Chiefs almost surely have their man. The locker room is rooting for Crennel to get the permanent job — actually, some Chiefs players are openly lobbying for it.

“Everything was different,” McClain said of the past week. “More meeting time. More football time. Learning your opponent better, understanding your opponent. I know I watched more film this week than I watched all year. Everything was different, man. Good different.”

Especially after Haley openly admitted the Jets were better prepared than the Chiefs last weekend. What you hear from players now is both an indictment of the past and endorsement of the future with Crennel.

McCluster: “I know everybody in this locker room will fight for him.”

Receiver Terrance Copper: “He doesn’t give us a reason not to play hard for him.”

Running back Thomas Jones: “He’d be a great choice for us.”

Receiver Steve Breaston, a noted Haley supporter, even referred to Crennel’s nickname after the game on Twitter: “Yeah by the way … Rac City!!!!”

The descriptions of Crennel are a general sketch of what owner Clark Hunt and general manager Scott Pioli say they want in a head coach.

Crennel treats everyone with respect. He is obsessed with details, with fundamentals, with the kind of preparation that means the Chiefs know their opponents better than the other way around.

Crennel makes his own decisions (Orton found out he was starting Sunday’s game before Pioli did) without being insubordinate. He gives credit to his players first, his assistants second and himself never.

“I was just standing on the sideline,” he said. “That’s all I did today. They got it done.”

The parallels are too many to ignore. Crennel is consistent. He is dedicated. You will never see him take the kind of unsportsmanlike-conduct penalty that Haley drew in his last game.

Crennel went 24-40 over four seasons in Cleveland, but you know that Bill Belichick was also fired by the Browns before taking over the Patriots.

Pioli believes in guys he’s worked with, guys who’ve been in his system before. He believes that smart and motivated people get better with experience and can learn from mistakes.

In other words, Crennel fits.

The immediate impact of the Chiefs winning his first game in charge is kind of fun and mostly obvious. Green Bay’s perfect season is over. The Chiefs can still claim a mathematical shot at the playoffs.

A fan base is truly encouraged for the first time since that Monday night win over the Chargers, when the Chiefs improved to 4-3 and receiver Dwayne Bowe spray-painted his shoes and a dozen or so teammates put on “Scream” masks to celebrate on Halloween.

But it’s the other stuff that is more important, the other stuff that the players seem to know gives this a chance to be more than a temporary reprieve like their win in Chicago two weeks ago.

The feeling is entirely different this time. Some of that is Orton, who ran the offense well enough to knock off an opponent that hadn’t lost in more than a year.

The bigger part is Crennel, and a genuine vibe in the locker room that this team has found the right coach to make a still-promising future become reality.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Omega

How?

The biggest factor in the game was most likely all the drops by Green Bay's receivers.

He had no answer for our offense or defense. He was out-schemed and out coached

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by KCrockaholic

I guess I've never understood the whole age thing with coaches.

If a guy still has a real passion for coaching, and for reaching the ultimate goal, then it shouldn't matter what his age is.

Coaching isn't a physical job, it's a mental job. I don't see why it matters whether he's 50 or 70.

The vast majority of Super Bowls are won by coaches under the age of 60.

If Romeo shocked the world here and won a SB he would literally be the oldest SB winning coach EVER.

Quite frankly, Romeo has a ton of rings and is fat as hell. How do we even know he's not just looking for another fat paycheck before he retires?

[KCrockaholic]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

He had no answer for our offense or defense. He was out-schemed and out coached

I agree, because McCarty couldn't adjust his offensive gameplan. GB could have ran it on us, but they chose to come out passing heavy. If they had just mixed the run with the pass, it would have kept our defense off balance.

But really we knew what they were going to be doing every play, therefore it was easy to just tee off, and get pressure on Rodgers. That's just 1 factor of how McCarthy was out coached.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

He had no answer for our offense or defense. He was out-schemed and out coached

I disagree. I think our players out executed Green Bay's.

If their receivers hold on to 6 or 7 dropped passes it's a different game.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

He had no answer for our offense or defense. He was out-schemed and out coached

The GB drops are being given too much credence.

The Chiefs flat out outplayed GB.

KC still had coaching issues especially on ST and goal line situations.

Yea we won but we should have been up way more than we were and it shouldn't have been as close in the 4th quarter.Not complaining just pointing out what I was thinking during the game.

I am curious to see how the next 2 weeks go because Orton basically played one of his best games setting a career completion % high.

What are the odds he keep it up? I guess we shall see.

Originally Posted by Omega

The vast majority of Super Bowls are won by coaches under the age of 60.

You don't say? Strange how that works. The vast majority of retired people are over 60.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Omega

How?

The biggest factor in the game was most likely all the drops by Green Bay's receivers.

...

Originally Posted by Bill Barnwell

For this week's most confounding coaching decisions, we turned to our followers on Twitter, who alerted us to a variety of different blunders. While there are a few common threads we'll ignore (John Fox being ultra-conservative, Tom Coughlin challenging out of sheer desperation), there are still plenty of situations to break down, thanks to the usual hodgepodge of curious game-calling choices. And we'll start with the Packers-Chiefs tilt, where @JoeConte pointed out that Romeo Crennel repeatedly bungled his short-yardage decisions.
On the opening drive, the Chiefs had two chances from the one-yard line and decided to throw passes with Kyle Orton both times. With a 0-0 game against the best offense in the league, they chose to kick a field goal. Sure, we know that the Packers ended up scoring just 14 points, but you can't dance with the champ! A 3-0 margin with 54 minutes to go is essentially never going to hold up.
Before we go any further, let's note that the math here is very simple. The average team will score on these carries 56 percent of the time, so your expected outcome by scoring is (7 points * .56) = 3.92 points. You can't score 3.92 points by kicking, so you're essentially giving up a full point by kicking. The Packers have also allowed teams to convert in 75 percent of power runs, the third-worst rate in the league. So our 56 percent estimate is conservative. You also get the benefit of backing the Green Bay offense up inside their 1-yard line as opposed to giving them the result of a kickoff, which is an average of about 22 yards. Based on the average number of points a team scores with a drive that starts from the 1-yard line as opposed to the 22-yard line, you're adding about another full point of value. By kicking instead of going for it, in even an average situation, you're basically throwing two points in the garbage. When you're playing an offensive juggernaut and it's early in the first quarter, well, you simply can't throw points away.
It would be one thing if Crennel just had no faith in his team's short-yardage capabilities, but he changed his mind on Kansas City's first drive of the second quarter. Again, the Chiefs failed on second-and-1 and ended up facing a fourth-and-inches with 3:28 left. They were up 6-0; again, you can't assume that a nine-point lead is going to hold up against a dominant offense. This time, for some reason, Crennel chose to go for it. It was the correct decision, but what was different about this situation as opposed to the first one? The Chiefs were promptly stuffed when they ran a simple handoff up the middle.
That would all have been weird enough, but Crennel got to face a third decision in this same vein! With a 9-7 lead early in the fourth quarter, the Chiefs were faced with a fourth-and-goal from the Green Bay 2-yard line. It's harder to convert from the 2-yard line, but not by much — the conversion rate falls from 55.2 percent to 48.6 percent. That's still an expected total of 3.4 points, so it's better than a field goal, and you still get the superior follow-up situation of pinning a team extremely deep in their own territory (something that a dominant Chiefs pass rush might have appreciated). You're giving up 1.4 points by kicking. This decision was more defensible because it pushed the lead outside of one field goal, but there was 11:28 left in the game when Crennel chose to kick as opposed to going for it. Color commentator Daryl Johnston chimed in to say that it was a good decision because the Chiefs had been stuffed on the previous drive, which is one of the dumbest things you'll hear a commentator say all year. Stories will be written today about how the Chiefs won under the leadership of Romeo Crennel, but don't buy it. They won in spite of him.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Omega

I disagree. I think our players out executed Green Bay's.

If their receivers hold on to 6 or 7 dropped passes it's a different game.

There weren't 6 or 7 drops. Many of the passes yea they had a shot at but you don't catch all of those unless you are red hot which GB typically has been.

I would say more like 3 real drops.

Had the officials not been reeruned we get a safety as well. It works both ways.

[KCrockaholic]

Originally Posted by Omega

The vast majority of Super Bowls are won by coaches under the age of 60.

If Romeo shocked the world here and won a SB he would literally be the oldest SB winning coach EVER.

Quite frankly, Romeo has a ton of rings and is fat as hell. How do we even know he's not just looking for another fat paycheck before he retires?

We don't know. Just like we wouldn't know if ANY coach was just looking for a paycheck. Cause whether or not you have won a SB, in the NFL, as a coach, you still get paid great money.

But I believe it's obvious that he still cares, and that he would like to take this team to it's potential.

And I see how you're using history as a factor for your argument, but new records and marks are set every single season. One day, a coach as old as 70 years old WILL win a SB.

And it still doesn't explain how age should effect coaching. If there is a true reasoning, then I want to know what it is.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by KCrockaholic

I agree, because McCarty couldn't adjust his offensive gameplan. GB could have ran it on us, but they chose to come out passing heavy. If they had just mixed the run with the pass, it would have kept our defense off balance.

But really we knew what they were going to be doing every play, therefore it was easy to just tee off, and get pressure on Rodgers. That's just 1 factor of how McCarthy was out coached.

Yep

Originally Posted by Omega

I disagree. I think our players out executed Green Bay's.

If their receivers hold on to 6 or 7 dropped passes it's a different game.

And if Hali hadn't been held on every play they would have won by 2-3 TD's.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

The GB drops are being given too much credence.

The Chiefs flat out outplayed GB.

KC still had coaching issues especially on ST and goal line situations.

Yea we won but we should have been up way more than we were and it shouldn't have been as close in the 4th quarter.Not complaining just pointing out what I was thinking during the game.

I am curious to see how the next 2 weeks go because Orton basically played one of his best games setting a career completion % high.

What are the odds he keep it up? I guess we shall see.

I agree totally. Our team wanted it and GB thought they could just show up and win by 4 TD's. Crennel had this team ready to play and his defense just dominated the Packers scheme wise and energy wise.

[KCrockaholic]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I agree totally. Our team wanted it and GB thought they could just show up and win by 4 TD's. Crennel had this team ready to play and his defense just dominated the Packers scheme wise and energy wise.

The scheme defensively, and offensively were both terrific. They looked like they put in some serious work in the film room, and it paid off. Maybe Muir didn't fall asleep this time.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by KCrockaholic

And it still doesn't explain how age should effect coaching. If there is a true reasoning, then I want to know what it is.

It's not JUST age. It's age and the fact that Romeo would be up for 0 head-coaching jobs if he was fired today.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

There weren't 6 or 7 drops.

Yes there were. I've already seen two and I'm not even finished with the 1st quarter.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Omega

It's not JUST age. It's age and the fact that Romeo would be up for 0 head-coaching jobs if he was fired today.

Just out of curiosity, who do you want?

I don't think Crennel will take us to the promised land but I also think we could do worse looking at whats out there.

Who is a totally hot HC candidate we could/should go with? I honestly don;t know at this point.