The sky is not falling.

[Chris Meck]

I've been gone (on tour through the southern states with my band for the last few weeks) so I'm just gonna address all the football stuff in one post, if that's kosher with you guys.

First of all, I think we all would've been pleased to be 2-2 at this point in the season, it's just the WAY that we're 2-2 that's the bummer, yes?

But is it really all that surprising? Historically speaking, this offense ALWAYS starts out shaky the first few games-why, with so many vets I have no idea. But we do. We always struggle offensively the first quarter of the season or so and then settle in and kick ass. Even the year we started 9-0 we weren't that great offensively in the first few games. This year we struggled a little more than last without Big Willie. No surprise, really, or at least it shouldn't be. Precedent says we start racking up some points this week and the machine starts humming.

Defensively, I figured that we'd struggle to contain premier receivers through the first quarter of the season without Warfield. McCleon really can't consistently man-up. He's too short and lacks top-end speed. Thus all the zones, keeping the offensive players in front. This would work if our offense was scoring like it should, but it hasn't. It would work if we could pressure consistently with our front 4, but we can't. With A true #2 cover man to pair with Surtain, we'll be able to mix and match coverages, disguising things better. Blitzes can be more creative. Our safeties can be more aggressive. It's gonna get better, and it's gonna start getting better this week.

We don't lose to the Eagles if we don't turn the ball over 4 times. It's that simple. It's not KC's profile to turn the ball over a bunch, it's highly unusual, so I'm not all that worried about it becoming habit. Bad timing, for sure, but if those turnovers are even field goals we win. Maybe even if they're punts and The Eagles have to go the long field we win.

We're 2-2 and haven't played well yet. That's cause for concern, but we get an influx of talent back this week. if we go at least 2-2 over the next four games but GET BETTER, I'll be optimistic about it. I'd guess we go 3-1 over the next quarter and start to look like a contender about game 6. All of that depending on a lack of key injuries, of course.

By the way, y'all have NO IDEA how screwed up Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana are from the Hurricane from watching television. It's really something to see first-hand.
Just my .02

[Cormac]

dupe :doh!:

[Cormac]

Good post (as usual).

I agree with what you have said, and have the following to add:

Offense
Our O was completely shut down with the loss of Roaf. Saunders' biggest fault is his inability to alter gameplans on the fly, IMO. In hindsight the bye-week came at a great time, and the only good thing about giving the players the week off is getting the coaching staff to work on its own shortcomings behind closed doors. I think with the return of Roaf we can get back to I-formation sets and power running behind the O-line and T-Rich. Gonzalez can go back to running routes, and we can bring in Dunn, Wilson etc. where needed. I think that Priest will return to FFL Player #1 again for the next several weeks, and Gonzo will catch 3-4 TDs in the next 4 games.

Defense
Our D has improved. There are just some problems that still exist. The only real legitimate concern I have is the soft-zone that Gun seems to rely on. It killed us in the Philly game. Is this reflective of McCleon's deficiencies, or is this the new Gun? Whatever the reason, it reeks of bend-don't-break chicken-$hit play, and after all Gunther's excitement about his talent influx, he should have higher aspirations for this team. With Warfield back, does Gun play him and go back to mixing in aggressive coverage schemes? Or will it just mean EW is stuck in soft zones? We have had relatively few "break-downs" on our D this year, in comparison to recent years, IMO. A few against Denver that had horrible consquences, but otherwise we have been solid. Our pass D is weak because we allow anything catchable to be caught. But our run D is good. If we begin to tighten up our pass defense I think this D can be a top 10-15 unit during the last half of this season. That should see us into the playoffs and give us momentum. Overall we looked excellent against NYJ (who imploded), solid against Oakland (probably an accurate reflection of our team), terrible at times against Denver (as always happens!), and had several good series against Philly, but our soft zone was ripped apart in the second half.

STs
Dante looked really lively in the Oakland game, and broke one against Philly. I think he'll have at least a couple more this year. Our kicking game looks good. Tynes is kicking the ball straighter than he used to, and Colquitt is everything he was advertised, IMO. Coverage is mixed, but this is a big-play ST unit.

Overall I think this next game has huge implications for the rest of our season. This should be an offense we can stop at home. Our O will have no excuses with Roaf and Welbourn back, and everybody should be pi$$ed off, and play/coach like it. I expect a hard tackling defensive performance, and a power-running attack. A lot like the Baltimore game last year, or even the Atlanta game :D. If we can put together a dominant performance that should set a good tone for the rest of our year. If we look half-assed again, we could be sunk.

JMO.

[Brock]

We don't lose to the Eagles if we don't turn the ball over 4 times.

That is a pretty weak assumption, IMO. It's not as if the Eagles had much trouble moving the ball.

[Hammock Parties]

That is a pretty weak assumption, IMO. It's not as if the Eagles had much trouble moving the ball.

Check out the first half of the game.

[Brock]

Check out the first half of the game.

Yeah, that matters if there isn't a second half.

[Hammock Parties]

Yeah, that matters if there isn't a second half.

Look, how many drives did the Eagles have over 70 yards?

[Brock]

Look, how many drives did the Eagles have over 70 yards?

It didn't look to me like they would have had any trouble going 99 yards if they had to.

[Hammock Parties]

It didn't look to me like they would have had any trouble going 99 yards if they had to.

Wrong.

[Brock]

Wrong.

Well, you just continue on with your backing that defense. They'll continue making you look stupid.

[Frosty]

Historically speaking, this offense ALWAYS starts out shaky the first few games-why, with so many vets I have no idea.

I caught part of an interview with TonyG during the week before the Eagles game. The interviewer asked (para-phrased) "It seems like every year the Chiefs come out trying to feature the wideouts. Then, after a few weeks, they come to their senses and start throwing to the best TE in the game. When does that start?"

I think every year, Saunders has delusions of being the Rams. After four of five weeks, he remembers that this is a power running team, with the passing game based on play-action. He also remembers that TonyG and Priest are excellent receivers. I think that this is the cause of the traditionally slow start (losing Roaf obviously contributed big time this year).

[keg in kc]

That is a pretty weak assumption, IMO. It's not as if the Eagles had much trouble moving the ball.I don't think it's a weak assumption at all. We lost by 6. Trent Green's pick went for 6.

As for moving the ball, we handed them the ball on the 50 when LJ fumbled and on the 25 when Dante fumbled. Do they score as quickly or as easily if they're backed up another 25 or 50 yards ? Maybe/maybe not. It's a valid question either way.

Then there's the intangible: momentum. We're up 17-0. Green throws his pick. Little bit of a speed bump there, but not major, definitely not after Dante returns the ensuing kick-off for 6. And then the defense comes out, forces a punt on a 3-and-out. The offense comes out, Green nearly gets picked again, and then LJ fumbles on the 50. And the game is turning. From the point of LJs fumble, with 2:45 or so remaining in the 2nd quarter, the offense doesn't cross midfield until the 8:11 mark of the 4th quarter, and only gains 3 first downs.

Our offensive production from a minute into the 2nd quarter, with the 17-0 lead:

3-and-out, punt
4 plays, Interception for TD (following Hicks' blocked FG)
KR TD
2 plays, Fumble
3 plays, End of Half
3-and-out, Punt
6 plays, Punt
4 plays, Punt
KR Fumble
5 plays, Interception

I don't think it's out-of-bounds to say that might have had an impact on the performance of the defense, and could be part of the reason why Philadelphia was finally able to move the ball, particularly during the second half. Of course, this is also a fairly meaningless argument to have, because no matter how much we debate what could or could not have happened, whose fault it was or wasnt, it doesn't change the outcome of the game in any way.

I must be really bored to type all that out. :shake:

[philfree]

That is a pretty weak assumption, IMO. It's not as if the Eagles had much trouble moving the ball.


It's a much weaker assumption that the 4 turnovers wasn't what cost us the game.

PhilFree:arrow:

[Chris Meck]

statistically speaking, you don't win very often while turning over the ball four times.

Sorry, you just don't. And in a game you lost by 6 points, I think that would be obvious.

Chris

[BigRedChief]

I agree that most of us would have taken a 2-2 start this season. But it was the way we lost the games that has fans bummed. Blowing an 18 point lead at home. :banghead:

We thought we would get Warfield back after the bye. Looks like he's either in DV's doghouse or not in football shape.

We are playing soft and people will not be excited about teams that are losing and playing soft. If a team puts forth their best effort and plays hard and loses its a lot easier to take the losses.

If we have any realistic chance at a Super Bowl we have to be 7-3 by the time we entertain NE at home. We can lose the San Diego game on the road but thats it.We will have to get better than we are now.

We have to get to the level where we can go on the road to Pitt or Indy and win or else its rebuilding time.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Well, you just continue on with your backing that defense. They'll continue making you look stupid.


I guess if I put this quote in my signature and the Chiefs turned out to be a top 15 defense then it would make you look stupid. I guess right now it's all just speculation. Imagine that.