462 yards of offense

B_Ambuehl · 10-22-2005, 09:17 AM

I'm sure there are still some calling for the head of Al Saunders but 462 yards of offense is a lot. Especially considering when you have run blocking specialists and journeyman free agents out there getting over ~150 yards combined in the passing game. (Dunn, Horn, Boerigter). That's what good coaches and good systems allow you to do and there aren't many other coaches or systems who can get that type of production from that level of talent. (Get million dollar results out of hundred dollar players).

DV said last year after a 500 yard offensive performance that it was the first time he'd had a team over 500. Last night's performance didn't come far from that. Someone oughta check to find out where that performance ranks for the year among all teams.

**the Talking Can** · 10-22-2005, 09:19 AM

if AS had stuck with the run in the 1st quarter we'd easily surpass 500 yards...

Chiefs_Mike_Topeka · 10-22-2005, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

if AS had stuck with the run in the 1st quarter we'd easily surpass 500 yards...

I agree 100%

I was pretty irritated after seeing 8 straight pass plays in route to 3 three and outs of 4 possesions. Then once they started running again they march right down and score again before half.

I sometimes think Saunders makes adjustments to counter the other teams adjustments before the other team has made theirs.

You just always have to stomach the 2-3 possesions where Saunders/Vermeil just seem to lose their friggin minds, because they always seem to get their head out of their asses eventually!

B_Ambuehl · 10-22-2005, 09:31 AM

There's a difference between running the ball and running the ball effectively. Everybody talks about the long runs but there were multiple drive killing runs for no gain or a loss last night that nobody mentions which explain the passes everybody complains about.

The only thing I will complain about is emptying the backfield on 1st down. 50% of the time that leads to problems in protection, batted balls, etc. There's no reason you can't run nearly the same exact play with a back behind the quarterback and by doing so you slow down the pass rush.

**the Talking Can** · 10-22-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefs_Mike_Topeka

I agree 100%

I was pretty irritated after seeing 8 straight pass plays in route to 3 three and outs of 4 possesions. Then once they started running again they march right down and score again before half.

I sometimes think Saunders makes adjustments to counter the other teams adjustments before the other team has made theirs.

You just always have to stomach the 2-3 possesions where Saunders/Vermeil just seem to lose their friggin minds, because they always seem to get their head out of their asses eventually!

absolutely...it's almost as if AS starts day dreaming, then someone taps him on the shoulder, "Al..Al!...wake up, its time to score.."

**morphius** · 10-22-2005, 09:31 AM

Last nights game reminded me a lot of the last few years as far as offense goes. Some great drives, some wtf drives.

Sully · 10-22-2005, 09:37 AM

It's not so much that I want to see the Chiefs run more, it's that I'd like to see em try more runs between the tackles (especially with LJ in the game). We have a great guard tandem that can blow linebackers off the ball, and it seems that the sweep isn't as reliable as it once was, especially now that Priest thinks he's Skip Hicks from back in his UCLA days. (that's obscure, so let me re-image it as Marcus Allen from the Super Bowl).

4th and Long · 10-22-2005, 09:41 AM

We had 43 running plays and 34 pass plays. Looks like a pretty balanced offensive plan to me.

Why are people bitching abouit this again, exactly?

**the Talking Can** · 10-22-2005, 09:48 AM

uh, people are discussing the game...you should try it

Pitt Gorilla · 10-22-2005, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4th and Long

We had 43 running plays and 34 pass plays. Looks like a pretty balanced offensive plan to me.

Why are people bitching abouit this again, exactly?

I agree. There is a reason that we pass the ball; it helps to set up the run. Honestly, if we had "kept running," they would have put 10 guys in the box. A good offense achieves a good balance. I thought that was pretty common knowledge, even among non-coaches. It's also difficult to complain about what Green did with the ball.

**morphius** · 10-22-2005, 10:00 AM

We would have had an easy 500 yards if our buddy Boe didn't catch the Chiefs number 2 WR disease which turns hands into bricks. 2 nice catches and 2 third down drops that were right in his hands.

Mr. Laz · 10-22-2005, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4th and Long

Why are people bitching abouit this again, exactly?

4th and long is never happy unless he has another fan to piss and moan about. 99.9% of the threads he starts are classified as "fan bashing" or "Rufus Dawes" material.

tiptap · 10-22-2005, 11:33 AM

While the evalutation from Scout.com was that all of the line played well, I didn't see the game. I didn't get the feeling that we had success running to the right. (Unless you want to count Priests cut back to the right as such.) But if there was improve play at RT in the running game that will be the best news. We will continue to have a good running team along as Waters and Roaf are pushing on the left side. But we will have easy, dominating wins if we can get production running to the right without tipping our hand by putting Dunn on that side.
Also tell me did the LB jump the vacated pulling lineman in the stretch plays. That is what we are starting to see as teams play us? That would be countered by having better play at RT too.

**Rausch** · 10-22-2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4th and Long

We had 43 running plays and 34 pass plays. Looks like a pretty balanced offensive plan to me.

Why are people bitching abouit this again, exactly?

I'd say that ratio is perfect for the talent we have.

My bitch is WHEN they decide to run/pass.

You don't empty the ****ing backfield on 1st down in a game you've got a big lead. There's no ****ing reason to do it and no ****ing reason to risk a sack/fumble/int at that point.

The last two weeks we've had a lead at the end of the game only needing to run out the clock. What do we do?

We pass.

It boggles the ****ing mind...

Calcountry · 10-22-2005, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl

There's a difference between running the ball and running the ball effectively. Everybody talks about the long runs but there were multiple drive killing runs for no gain or a loss last night that nobody mentions which explain the passes everybody complains about.

The only thing I will complain about is emptying the backfield on 1st down. 50% of the time that leads to problems in protection, batted balls, etc. There's no reason you can't run nearly the same exact play with a back behind the quarterback and by doing so you slow down the pass rush.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the Radio feed, Lenny the cool kept going, OOOOO empty backfield. As in, WTF are you doing?????

10-22-2005, 09:17 AM
B_Ambuehl Veteran Join Date: Apr 2005 Casino cash: $9805405	462 yards of offense I'm sure there are still some calling for the head of Al Saunders but 462 yards of offense is a lot. Especially considering when you have run blocking specialists and journeyman free agents out there getting over ~150 yards combined in the passing game. (Dunn, Horn, Boerigter). That's what good coaches and good systems allow you to do and there aren't many other coaches or systems who can get that type of production from that level of talent. (Get million dollar results out of hundred dollar players). DV said last year after a 500 yard offensive performance that it was the first time he'd had a team over 500. Last night's performance didn't come far from that. Someone oughta check to find out where that performance ranks for the year among all teams.
Posts: 2,605

10-22-2005, 09:19 AM	#2
the Talking Can Supporter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: street Casino cash: $10022208	if AS had stuck with the run in the 1st quarter we'd easily surpass 500 yards... __________________ Clark Hunt: "Thank god for the Dominican pool boy"
Posts: 51,585

10-22-2005, 09:31 AM	#4
B_Ambuehl Veteran Join Date: Apr 2005 Casino cash: $9805405	There's a difference between running the ball and running the ball effectively. Everybody talks about the long runs but there were multiple drive killing runs for no gain or a loss last night that nobody mentions which explain the passes everybody complains about. The only thing I will complain about is emptying the backfield on 1st down. 50% of the time that leads to problems in protection, batted balls, etc. There's no reason you can't run nearly the same exact play with a back behind the quarterback and by doing so you slow down the pass rush. __________________ Who's decision was it to fire Romeo" - Coleman C Hunt: "It was my decision but it was one that Scott agreed with" LOL
Posts: 2,605

10-22-2005, 09:31 AM	#6
morphius World's finest morphius Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $6955027	Last nights game reminded me a lot of the last few years as far as offense goes. Some great drives, some wtf drives.
Posts: 25,968

10-22-2005, 09:37 AM	#7
Sully It Goes On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Lees Summit Casino cash: $10026331	It's not so much that I want to see the Chiefs run more, it's that I'd like to see em try more runs between the tackles (especially with LJ in the game). We have a great guard tandem that can blow linebackers off the ball, and it seems that the sweep isn't as reliable as it once was, especially now that Priest thinks he's Skip Hicks from back in his UCLA days. (that's obscure, so let me re-image it as Marcus Allen from the Super Bowl). __________________ "And I don't wish that girl any bad luck," he said, "but I hope she gets hit with a car." - Tommy Lasorda
Posts: 18,295

10-22-2005, 09:41 AM	#8
4th and Long Wheeeeee!!! Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: In a house Casino cash: $9344925	We had 43 running plays and 34 pass plays. Looks like a pretty balanced offensive plan to me. Why are people bitching abouit this again, exactly? __________________
Posts: 19,775

10-22-2005, 09:48 AM	#9
the Talking Can Supporter Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: street Casino cash: $10022208	uh, people are discussing the game...you should try it __________________ Clark Hunt: "Thank god for the Dominican pool boy"
Posts: 51,585

10-22-2005, 10:00 AM	#11
morphius World's finest morphius Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $6955027	We would have had an easy 500 yards if our buddy Boe didn't catch the Chiefs number 2 WR disease which turns hands into bricks. 2 nice catches and 2 third down drops that were right in his hands.
Posts: 25,968

10-22-2005, 11:33 AM	#13
tiptap Is this it? Join Date: Jan 2004 Casino cash: $10007847	While the evalutation from Scout.com was that all of the line played well, I didn't see the game. I didn't get the feeling that we had success running to the right. (Unless you want to count Priests cut back to the right as such.) But if there was improve play at RT in the running game that will be the best news. We will continue to have a good running team along as Waters and Roaf are pushing on the left side. But we will have easy, dominating wins if we can get production running to the right without tipping our hand by putting Dunn on that side. Also tell me did the LB jump the vacated pulling lineman in the stretch plays. That is what we are starting to see as teams play us? That would be countered by having better play at RT too. __________________ Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken
Posts: 5,134