Jeremiah Trotter thinks Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games

[rabblerouser]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-lot-of-games/

Originally Posted by Michael David Smith

*by Michael David Smith on January 4, 2013, 8:16 AM EDT

Getty Images

Jeremiah Trotter played a total of seven seasons for Andy Reid in three different stints with the Eagles. And he thinks he lost a lot of games because Reid got out-coached.

“If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise,*I think the opponent’s team would win if it came down to coaching,” Trotter said on 97.5 The Fanatic, via Philly.com. “Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games,” Trotter continued. “Time outs, running the football, you know.”

Trotter said Reid’s offensive style made things different for the defense and the late defensive coordinator Jim Johnson, who ran the defense in Philadelphia until his death in 2008.

“As a defense, we understood we passed the ball too much. You know, there’s times we’re sitting over there like, ‘Man, listen. Just get us a couple of first downs so we can get a break.’ And I’m sure it frustrated Jim Johnson also,” Trotter said

Still, Trotter acknowledges that he won a lot of games during his time with Reid, and he says he would have given Reid a 7.5 or 8 on a scale of 1-10. I shudder to think what he’d say about a coach who was a 1.

Good coaches don't get out coached in a lot of games.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

Andy Reid is terrible at game management, specifically time management and situational recognition. There's no way he can be considered 'quite good'. He's Herm Edwards with better X's and O's.

as i posted, Clock Management is part OC and part HC.

The OC part of clock management is an abortion. Our offense doesn't practice a hurry-up offense. They don't know what to do or when to do it. They waste timeouts like they mean nothing at LoS.

The Defense is nearly as bad at wasting timeouts etc.

The HC part is more or less just when to call timouts and when to challenge.

Reid is mediocre at those.

If the offense wasn't such shit, it wouldn't be such an issue.

See what i mean about HC vs OC when it comes to clock management?

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

Exactly.

The year Green Bay won, they had 25 players on IR (!!) including the leading WR and TE...

The best COACHES coach the next man up. Too bad Eric Bienemy can't coach the WRs too...

This team wasn't on next man up. They were on depth that was even beyond that against the best coach in NFL history. What did you think was going to happen?

[Mr. Laz]

Paraphrased the best i could

'I don't think Kansas City played the Patriots the right way on defense. They fell into a lot of zones and didn't body up and divert Edelman. Brady is too accurate for that, it negates the pass rush that way.'

~Eric Davis~

another NFL player saying that coaching cost us

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by RunKC

This team wasn't on next man up. They were on depth that was even beyond that against the best coach in NFL history. What did you think was going to happen?

From another thread :

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

I was over the loss before the game even ended. Because we all saw it coming. It hasn't affected my mood in any way since. Still going to ride Andy's ass for not only trotting out this strategy, but admitting it on TV.

Exactly.

I knew it was a loss by 7-0. When we started matching their TDs with Santos FGs, I may as well have changed the channel because it was a done deal.

The Chiefs couldn't overcome their HC, their OC on the way out the door, the stupid zones Sutton was calling, the bad officiating, the injuries, and the Patriots themselves.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

From another thread :


Exactly.

I knew it was a loss by 7-0. When we started matching their TDs with Santos FGs, I may as well have changed the channel because it was a done deal.

The Chiefs couldn't overcome their HC, their OC on the way out the door, the stupid zones Sutton was calling, the bad officiating, the injuries, and the Patriots themselves.

This is fair. My point isn't the X's and O's on offense, but more of the lock management and not running the ball.

[stevieray]

You don't defer the ball and let NE offense set the tone....at home in a divisional round. It's like they were begging to be behind the whole game.

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by stevieray

You don't defer the ball and let NE offense set the tone....at home in a divisional round. It's like they were begging to be behind the whole game.

Nah.

Deferring is the right decision every time, and I'll tell ya why.

1. If your defense can force a 3 and out, or even just get them off the field quickly, then your offense is set with better starting field position for their first drive of the game than if they had just received a touch back @ the 20.

2. Your goal at the end of a half, offensively, is to control the clock and score, leaving no time for the opponent. That would give you a score and some momentum that they can't counter to close the half.

3. You get the ball to start the half and get the first shot at their defense after you've made your adjustments. If you can score, this would now put you up by 14.

Essentially, if you do it right, which is what Andy attempts to do every time, and what other teams have successfully done, you will have created a two score swing before their offense can even touch the field.

A Two score swing....to put a team down by 14 before they even can touch the ball, is huge.

The Broncos do it. The Patriots do it. I have no issue with the Chiefs doing it and i honestly believe it's the best route to go when you have a strong defense.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Nah.

Deferring is the right decision every time, and I'll tell ya why.

1. If your defense can force a 3 and out

Against a 12-4 team you haven't played with your best edge rusher iffy, and then trot out zone coverage allowing a dink and dunk for the score.

The strategy to defer might be sound, but we weren't.

I still think you show confidence and try to put points on the board, or at least play for field position. JMO.

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by stevieray

Against a 12-4 team you haven't played with your best edge rusher iffy, and then trot out zone coverage allowing a dink and dunk for the score.

The strategy to defer might be sound, but we weren't.

I still think you show confidence and try to put points on the board, or at least play for field position. JMO.

Deferring IS playing for field position though. Deferring IS showing confidence. Confidence in the defense while trying to shorten the field for your offense. It's smart. It really is.

And they didn't start the game with zone coverage, and i don't think Andy (or any one else really) anticipated the D struggling as much as they did. They couldn't get off the field.

And we've said all along, this is a defensive team and if the defense can't come through the Chiefs are in big doodoo.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Deferring IS playing for field position though. Deferring IS showing confidence. Confidence in the defense while trying to shorten the field for your offense. It's smart. It really is.

And they didn't start the game with zone coverage, and i don't think Andy (or any one else really) anticipated the D struggling as much as they did. They couldn't get off the field.

And we've said all along, this is a defensive team and if the defense can't come through the Chiefs are in big doodoo.

Either way shows confidence...this is the second time the defense hasn't come through....and either way can get you field position.

You don't hand the ball to juggernauts when your edge rushers are subpar.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Nah.

Deferring is the right decision every time, and I'll tell ya why.

1. If your defense can force a 3 and out, or even just get them off the field quickly, then your offense is set with better starting field position for their first drive of the game than if they had just received a touch back @ the 20.

2. Your goal at the end of a half, offensively, is to control the clock and score, leaving no time for the opponent. That would give you a score and some momentum that they can't counter to close the half.

3. You get the ball to start the half and get the first shot at their defense after you've made your adjustments. If you can score, this would now put you up by 14.

Essentially, if you do it right, which is what Andy attempts to do every time, and what other teams have successfully done, you will have created a two score swing before their offense can even touch the field.

A Two score swing....to put a team down by 14 before they even can touch the ball, is huge.

The Broncos do it. The Patriots do it. I have no issue with the Chiefs doing it and i honestly believe it's the best route to go when you have a strong defense.

This is absolutely correct.


100% of the time...

The Chiefs' problems weren't just execution : why would Sutton call so many zones?? Brady really only loses when he gets hit. Jam the receivers, pressure Brady, profit!! RIGHT??

WTF with all the zones, AND WHY DIDN'T REID DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I understand that Sutton is DC, but a good HC has his head in every aspect of his team.

It's bullshit.

[rabblerouser]

Bump for Bob Dole

[OctoberFart]

Trotter knows what a mediocre coach Reid is.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by OctoberFart

Trotter knows what a mediocre coach Reid is.

So do some Chiefs fans.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19

Honestly think we should resign Berry and DJ, but now that I think about it I almost would rather use Smith/Howard money on a WR or RT.

We still have a lot of defensive talent. We need more balance.

Either need a new playcaller, a new QB, or both.

Tired of the shitshow.