Our Rushing Game is Under-Rated (by us also)...

[Luzap]

As I watched NFL Playbook, and after following our board this week, I've come to the conclusion that our running game is vastly under rated.

Consider the following:

1) Ok, in week #1 it was obvious to everyone that 195 yards rushing was awesome, but I think it got lost in the shuffle because everyone was asking, 'What's wrong with the Jets?' Also, with Priest and Larry playing, no one back really captured the eye of the media, and let's face it, Larry Johnson's stats were just ridiculous ~ it had to be a fluke.

2) The Raiders run D is much, much better than most realize right now. Their switch to the 4-3 has put Washington and Sapp in positions to do what they do best. Even using a 3-4, how many yards did they hold Corey Dillion to in week #1? See Gretz's article on the Chiefs website if you want a view of how they tried to ambush us. We put 140 yards on them ~ and did it when we needed them the most. Yet again, those yards are divided between two backs. While we were focused on Black's (LT) miscues, our O Line (with two back-up tackles) quitely had a great game. This story was dramatically overshadowed by the play of our defense.

Personally, I am in awe not of the fact that this team has won it's first two games, but rather, in how they've won them. We've run the ball (because we've chosen to) successfuly against two teams that have good run defenses and done it with two tackles playing back-up. Our best run blocking tight end was out the last half of the last game. We are without the services of Weigeman (our veteran all purpose OL back-up), without Simms (who for pre-season and one series looked like a #6 pick), without Warfield (our #2 CB who was #1 last year), without Battle (who was considered to be the third best we had), and for part of the last game without Carlos Hall (our FA DE that was definitely making plays).
Throw in the fact that our offensive game plan was out the window last week, and the fact that everyone felt this was a brutal first four game stretch ~ I think we're setting on something special.

If you can run the ball and stop the run, you can dominate in the NFL. I think we will still be tested on defense, but I, for one, think we may have one of (if not the) most potent running attacks in the League.
I am salivating at the thought of getting all (most) our players back healthy. Can you imagine having a good record going into the second half of the season with Roaf, Hall, Sampson, Simms, and TRich healthy? Having Warfield back won't hurt either.

We could also talk about what a great job Trent Green and Al Saunders have done (not to mention Gun), but that's another conversation.

Luz
thinking we may have a dominating team...

[Thig Lyfe]

Good points.

I think the Chiefs have something special as well. It feels a lot more specialer than 2003 even, because even from the start we knew that the D was a huge liability.

Not the case this year.

[Deberg_1990]

Id put our run game up against any other team in the NFL. When we are at 100% there is no stopping it. No other team in the NFL can combine the O-line we have, and Priest + LJ. No other team can even come close to that deadly triple threat.

[Halfcan]

Yeah great post. I agree, ou have to run and stop the run. We should be able to do that this weekend. I hope Al doesn't try another freakin double reverse. Just jam down their throats like a cheap porno.

[Bowser]

Good post, Luz. i think our running game has stressed just how much the coaching staff DOESN'T want Trent to drop back and pass 40 times a game. And while it's good to have the balance that we've had, it sort of worries me about what could possibly be the real story with Trent's leg. Hopefully, that's just me worrying too much.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Bowser

Good post, Luz. i think our running game has stressed just how much the coaching staff DOESN'T want Trent to drop back and pass 40 times a game. And while it's good to have the balance that we've had, it sort of worries me about what could possibly be the real story with Trent's leg. Hopefully, that's just me worrying too much.

trent's leg is fine...

problems with the artery like he had are easily correctable with modern medical techniques...

he's had the procedure and he's good to go...

you're worrying too much...

[Logical]

without the services of Weigeman

Huh, do you mean Wellbourn? I don't think Weigman is out or has been out.

[Straight, No Chaser]

Originally Posted by Luzap

As I watched NFL Playbook, and after following our board this week, I've come to the conclusion that our running game is vastly under rated...

thinking we may have a dominating team...

Your observations about the Chiefs running game in weeks one and two are on the mark, but are just that --observations:

...I think it got lost in the shuffle...

The Raiders only needed to make one smart play at the end and we'd have lost that game; they didn't of course, and the most impressive sequence for me, was the offense executing those two clock-draining drives that ended up in FG's. I'm not as sold as you on performance thus far, but concede the potential. We'll see on Monday night weather or not our running game has arrived. So too, we'll see if it's really personnel on defense and not the scheme.

For the most part, the games at Pile High & Invesco, have been bellwether games for us. They know what we run on both sides of the ball and vice versa. If we can play for 4 quarters and beat them with what they know is coming then we have indeed arrived.


--->

[keg in kc]

The thing about "not being sold" on our wins the last two weeks because the other teams have ****ed up ignores the fact that we also had a number of **** ups in both games. We had several dropped INTs against the Jets and several key penalties against the Raiders. It's not like we played flawless ball and scraped by because we were lucky. We won because, while we did make mistakes, we made fewer, and we simply outplayed both teams, despite missing several starters at key positions.

And I think something's to be said for our conditioning, too. We were in a lot better physical shape towards the end of both games than either opponent. So much for all the "camp's too easy" and "we shouldn't be resting so many vets" talk.

[jidar]

I agree. I've been thinking the same thing. Our running game is almost unstoppable. There isn't a D in the NFL right now that can keep us under 100 yards on the ground, let alone 80.

[Earthling]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

The thing about "not being sold" on our wins the last two weeks because the other teams have ****ed up ignores the fact that we also had a number of **** ups in both games. We had several dropped INTs against the Jets and several key penalties against the Raiders. It's not like we played flawless ball and scraped by because we were lucky. We won because, while we did make mistakes, we made fewer, and we simply outplayed both teams, despite missing several starters at key positions.

And I think something's to be said for our conditioning, too. We were in a lot better physical shape towards the end of both games than either opponent. So much for all the "camp's too easy" and "we shouldn't be resting so many vets" talk.

Good observation.

[CosmicPal]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

The thing about "not being sold" on our wins the last two weeks because the other teams have ****ed up ignores the fact that we also had a number of **** ups in both games. We had several dropped INTs against the Jets and several key penalties against the Raiders. It's not like we played flawless ball and scraped by because we were lucky. We won because, while we did make mistakes, we made fewer, and we simply outplayed both teams, despite missing several starters at key positions.

And I think something's to be said for our conditioning, too. We were in a lot better physical shape towards the end of both games than either opponent. So much for all the "camp's too easy" and "we shouldn't be resting so many vets" talk.

I agree

[Rausch]

If not for a Parker fumble and a block in the back on Dante's return we blow out the Raiders...

[keg in kc]

Hell, no matter how you want to slice it, winning at Oakland on their home opener in prime time is no joke. If people are waiting on a "perfect game" before they're willing to believe, they'll be waiting a long damn time. Even if we should somehow manage to lose Monday (and I don't think we will, but anything's possible), nothing changes the fact that winning last Sunday was a hell of a difficult thing to do.

[Straight, No Chaser]

Luzap thinks we have a dominating team... I think we can be. Oh, we dominated the Jets alright but the Raiders... dominating that crew means winning by more than 6 (IMO). They have much stingier defense than last years team. If that's the best run-D we'll face then I'd go with dominating too. Myopia abounds around here about Denver at Invesco. Don't get me wrong... I think we can win but I think their coaching staff is glad Gunther's running the same scheme. It's predictable to plan for. Denver's "D" toughened up after the half last week and put Diego's plans for running Tomlinson on the bench. If I remember correctly, Denver dominated the Bolts on both sides in 2nd half. I'll take a win by 1 point but no blowout predictions.


--->