PDA

View Full Version : REFRESHER COURSE IN MARTYBALL


Bowser
05-20-2006, 08:33 PM
1st and 10 - Up the gut for two yards

2nd and 8 - Off Right Tackle for three yards

3rd and 5 - QB looks off two open receivers downfield, then dumps the ball off to a back (fullback preferably) for three yards

4th and 2 - punt


Rinse and repeat as necessary.



Listen, we are NOT going to revert back to Martyball. Despite the lack of an All-Pro Wide Receiver on this offense, we have many more weapons on the 2006 Chiefs roster as opposed to any offense, of any year, of Marty's regime. So Herm has come out and stated he would like to run more when we have a lead. Great! Running more when we have a lead DOES NOT EQUAL reverting to Martyball.

I sincerely hope this refresher course has been helpful. Now could we please stop with all this Martyball talk crappola? Pretty please?

splatbass
05-20-2006, 08:35 PM
1st and 10 - Up the gut for two yards

2nd and 8 - Off Right Tackle for three yards

3rd and 5 - QB looks off two open receivers downfield, then dumps the ball off to a back (fullback preferably) for three yards

4th and 2 - punt


Rinse and repeat as necessary.



Listen, we are NOT going to revert back to Martyball. Despite the lack of an All-Pro Wide Receiver on this offense, we have many more weapons on the 2006 Chiefs roster as opposed to any offense, of any year, of Marty's regime. So Herm has come out and stated he would like to run more when we have a lead. Great! Running more when we have a lead DOES NOT EQUAL reverting to Martyball.

I sincerely hope this refresher course has been helpful. Now could we please stop with all this Martyball talk crappola? Pretty please?

I agree.

Brock
05-20-2006, 08:39 PM
None of this means that Herman Edwards isn't a complete moron.

He hired Paul Hackett.


Paul.

Hackett.

milkman
05-20-2006, 08:42 PM
1st and 10 - Up the gut for two yards

2nd and 8 - Off Right Tackle for three yards

3rd and 5 - QB looks off two open receivers downfield, then dumps the ball off to a back (fullback preferably) for three yards

4th and 2 - punt


Rinse and repeat as necessary.



Listen, we are NOT going to revert back to Martyball. Despite the lack of an All-Pro Wide Receiver on this offense, we have many more weapons on the 2006 Chiefs roster as opposed to any offense, of any year, of Marty's regime. So Herm has come out and stated he would like to run more when we have a lead. Great! Running more when we have a lead DOES NOT EQUAL reverting to Martyball.

I sincerely hope this refresher course has been helpful. Now could we please stop with all this Martyball talk crappola? Pretty please?

Actually, you've just described an ineffective maulball.

Martyball is utilizing that ineffective maulball concept, while at the same time going into a prevent defense with a lead of 7-10 points at the start of the second half, which, of course, leads to losing to better teams.

splatbass
05-20-2006, 08:43 PM
None of this means that Herman Edwards isn't a complete moron.

He hired Paul Hackett.


Paul.

Hackett.


He also hired Jimmy Raye. But at least neither one is here.

NJ Chief Fan
05-20-2006, 08:44 PM
all i have to say is LJ

4th and Long
05-20-2006, 08:46 PM
Actually, you've just described an ineffective maulball.
No, he was pretty close.

1. Run.
2. Run.
3. Pass.
4. Punt.
5. Play D. Wait for INT/Fumble that's run back for a score.
6. Go back to 1.

milkman
05-20-2006, 08:49 PM
No, he was pretty close.

1. Run.
2. Run.
3. Pass.
4. Punt.
5. Play D. Wait for INT/Fumble that's run back for a score.
6. Go back to 1.

But this is not unique to Marty.

The thing that defines MartyBall, at least for me, was how early he went into a shell to protect tenuous leads.

morphius
05-20-2006, 08:50 PM
Actually, you've just described an ineffective maulball.

Martyball is utilizing that ineffective maulball concept, while at the same time going into a prevent defense with a lead of 7-10 points at the start of the second half, which, of course, leads to losing to better teams.
What are you talking about, I have seen Marty try to sit on a 3 point lead in the first quarter!

4th and Long
05-20-2006, 08:54 PM
But this is not unique to Marty.

The thing that defines MartyBall, at least for me, was how early he went into a shell to protect tenuous leads.
Be that as it may, Run, Run, Pass, Punt, Play D and repeat, is what Marty did. Granted, Marty was notorious for thinking the D could protect a 3 point lead in the first quarter and expect to win the game. I have a very old friend that used to say, "Marty Ball. The only scheme that is capable of grabbing defeat from the slobbering jaws of victory. As long as he's the coach, they should rename this team to, The Griefs."

Bowser
05-20-2006, 08:54 PM
None of this means that Herman Edwards isn't a complete moron.

He hired Paul Hackett.


Paul.

Hackett.

We've all slept with fugly chicks at some point in time, as well. Hopefully, the lesson was learned.

Skip Towne
05-20-2006, 09:04 PM
Does anyone have access to the record of all previous Chiefs coaches? That would be interesting.

milkman
05-20-2006, 09:14 PM
Be that as it may, Run, Run, Pass, Punt, Play D and repeat, is what Marty did. Granted, Marty was notorious for thinking the D could protect a 3 point lead in the first quarter and expect to win the game. I have a very old friend that used to say, "Marty Ball. The only scheme that is capable of grabbing defeat from the slobbering jaws of victory. As long as he's the coach, they should rename this team to, The Griefs."

To add to my point.

Maulball is an aggressive, play to win, pound your opponent into submission approach.

Teams like the Ravens, the Bears, the Skins, have utilized this approach to win Super Bowls.

Martyball, on the other hand, is a passive, play not to lose, minimize mistakes, try not to let the other team win approach.

Marty has utilized this approach to win achieve the worst playoff record ever, and to make first round exits on a regular basis.

KCChiefsFan88
05-21-2006, 12:13 AM
Listen, we are NOT going to revert back to Martyball. Despite the lack of an All-Pro Wide Receiver on this offense, we have many more weapons on the 2006 Chiefs roster as opposed to any offense, of any year, of Marty's regime.

The Chiefs had talent on offense during the Marty-era. Joe Montana, Marcus Allen, Andre Rison, Derrick Alexander, Tony Gonzalez, Willie Davis, JJ Birden, Alt/Shields/Szott/Grunhard, etc. Problem was Marty played scared and never bothered to utilize these weapons to their full potential, especially in the passing game (i.e. zero imagination).

Taco John
05-21-2006, 01:25 AM
I still don't understand what Herm is doing in Kansas City. How does a coach with a 39-41 W/L record coming off of a 4-12 season, who only won his division once in five years with a 9-7 record, and who has a reputation for poor clock management become a hot candidate to take over a team that says it's committed to winning a Superbowl?

I can't understand how a guy like Eric Mangini, who was a coach under both Parcells and Belichick didn't get courted to the hilt, especially when you consider the names that have come out from under Belichick: Crennel, Ferentz, Saban, Weis. That's an attractive legacy of coaches. And the fact that Mangini has actually coached on a team that won a Superbowl is something that I'd think would be desireable.

But Herm? I just don't get it. I can't understand how Saunders isn't your head coach, and Herm isn't answering to him as your defensive coordinator.

Hey, at least it's not Art Shell.

Megbert
05-21-2006, 01:27 AM
The Chiefs had talent on offense during the Marty-era. Joe Montana, Marcus Allen, Andre Rison, Derrick Alexander, Tony Gonzalez, Willie Davis, JJ Birden, Alt/Shields/Szott/Grunhard, etc. Problem was Marty played scared and never bothered to utilize these weapons to their full potential, especially in the passing game (i.e. zero imagination).

You forgot Tim "Screwed a McDonalds manager that I worked with" Barnett

Then again she had a chance with Will Shields but chose Timmy. She also was 'seeing' Vince Coleman. I remember Tim and Vince coming thru our drive thru and being complete pricks.

Rausch
05-21-2006, 01:35 AM
Everyone forgets the misused Todd McNair...

:shake:

Megbert
05-21-2006, 01:36 AM
Everyone forgets the misused Todd McNair...

:shake:
\

I didn't forget. Just knew more about Timmy Barnett and his ahem private life. Todd was all about converting the 3rd down. Another player misused by Schittenheimer.

Rausch
05-21-2006, 01:38 AM
\

I didn't forget. Just knew more about Timmy Barnett and his ahem private life. Todd was all about converting the 3rd down. Another player misused by Schittenheimer.

I think what guys like Kimble or Todd could have done in the DV offense and......


*sigh*

Taco John
05-21-2006, 01:42 AM
Does anyone have access to the record of all previous Chiefs coaches? That would be interesting.


Dick Vermiel 44-36 (0.55 pct)
Gunther Cunningham 16-16 (0.50 pct)
Marty Schottenheimer 101-58 (0.635 pct)
Frank Gansz 8-22 (0.26 pct)
John Mackovic 30-34 (0.468 pct)
Marv Levy 31-42 (0.424 pct)
Paul Wiggin* 10-18 (0.357 pct) <---*not counting 2-12 season he was fired
Hank Stram 124-83 (0.599 pct)

morphius
05-21-2006, 01:44 AM
I still don't understand what Herm is doing in Kansas City. How does a coach with a 39-41 W/L record coming off of a 4-12 season, who only won his division once in five years with a 9-7 record, and who has a reputation for poor clock management become a hot candidate to take over a team that says it's committed to winning a Superbowl?

I can't understand how a guy like Eric Mangini, who was a coach under both Parcells and Belichick didn't get courted to the hilt, especially when you consider the names that have come out from under Belichick: Crennel, Ferentz, Saban, Weis. That's an attractive legacy of coaches. And the fact that Mangini has actually coached on a team that won a Superbowl is something that I'd think would be desireable.

But Herm? I just don't get it. I can't understand how Saunders isn't your head coach, and Herm isn't answering to him as your defensive coordinator.

Hey, at least it's not Art Shell.
Well, Saunders didn't get along with our RB of the future and apparently had some disagreements with Carl, so that is why he isn't the HC.

As far as Herm, I think it is bringing in some guy to take care of the D, since the O is already in place and didn't need any real changes. Is it a great choice, not really, but it could work out. I mean heck, they are giving Green the chance to audible now, which is something he didn't have the ability to do when Saunders was here, and everytime Green has been in the hurry up and calling the plays himself the team has moved the ball pretty damn well.

Taco John
05-21-2006, 01:47 AM
Well, Saunders didn't get along with our RB of the future and apparently had some disagreements with Carl, so that is why he isn't the HC.

As far as Herm, I think it is bringing in some guy to take care of the D, since the O is already in place and didn't need any real changes. Is it a great choice, not really, but it could work out. I mean heck, they are giving Green the chance to audible now, which is something he didn't have the ability to do when Saunders was here, and everytime Green has been in the hurry up and calling the plays himself the team has moved the ball pretty damn well.


Well, in favor of the "Herm could work" argument, you've got the case of Marv Levy, who started off pretty weak in KC and went on to...

...hey, I tried. He at least made Buffalo respectable again.

morphius
05-21-2006, 01:51 AM
Well, in favor of the "Herm could work" argument, you've got the case of Marv Levy, who started off pretty weak in KC and went on to...

...hey, I tried. He at least made Buffalo respectable again.
Well, if Green was as injury prone as Herms last QB I would be a bit more worried about the choice, because losing that starting QB is hard on a team and just keeps a team out of sync.

Rausch
05-21-2006, 01:58 AM
I still don't understand what Herm is doing in Kansas City. How does a coach with a 39-41 W/L record coming off of a 4-12 season, who only won his division once in five years with a 9-7 record, and who has a reputation for poor clock management become a hot candidate to take over a team that says it's committed to winning a Superbowl?

I can't understand how a guy like Eric Mangini, who was a coach under both Parcells and Belichick didn't get courted to the hilt, especially when you consider the names that have come out from under Belichick: Crennel, Ferentz, Saban, Weis. That's an attractive legacy of coaches. And the fact that Mangini has actually coached on a team that won a Superbowl is something that I'd think would be desireable.

But Herm? I just don't get it. I can't understand how Saunders isn't your head coach, and Herm isn't answering to him as your defensive coordinator.

I'm guessing it's due to Herm winning 2 playoff games in the last 5 years, compared to 3 past KC coaches winning none in 10.

Just a thought...

splatbass
05-21-2006, 02:03 AM
I still don't understand what Herm is doing in Kansas City. How does a coach with a 39-41 W/L record coming off of a 4-12 season, who only won his division once in five years with a 9-7 record, and who has a reputation for poor clock management become a hot candidate to take over a team that says it's committed to winning a Superbowl?

I can't understand how a guy like Eric Mangini, who was a coach under both Parcells and Belichick didn't get courted to the hilt, especially when you consider the names that have come out from under Belichick: Crennel, Ferentz, Saban, Weis. That's an attractive legacy of coaches. And the fact that Mangini has actually coached on a team that won a Superbowl is something that I'd think would be desireable.

But Herm? I just don't get it. I can't understand how Saunders isn't your head coach, and Herm isn't answering to him as your defensive coordinator.

Hey, at least it's not Art Shell.

Belichick didn't do too well in his first stint as a head coach either.

Rausch
05-21-2006, 02:35 AM
Belichick didn't do too well in his first stint as a head coach either.

Nor did Shanny...

Taco John
05-21-2006, 02:41 AM
Of course both of them took demotions and got into situations where they could evaluate the things that went wrong under some pretty steady hands.

Hey, Herm is at least a motivational guy, even if I don't respect his X's and O's. Maybe all you guys need is the right guy giving the speeches. What do I know?

htismaqe
05-21-2006, 04:21 AM
I still don't understand what Herm is doing in Kansas City. How does a coach with a 39-41 W/L record coming off of a 4-12 season, who only won his division once in five years with a 9-7 record, and who has a reputation for poor clock management become a hot candidate to take over a team that says it's committed to winning a Superbowl?

I can't understand how a guy like Eric Mangini, who was a coach under both Parcells and Belichick didn't get courted to the hilt, especially when you consider the names that have come out from under Belichick: Crennel, Ferentz, Saban, Weis. That's an attractive legacy of coaches. And the fact that Mangini has actually coached on a team that won a Superbowl is something that I'd think would be desireable.

But Herm? I just don't get it. I can't understand how Saunders isn't your head coach, and Herm isn't answering to him as your defensive coordinator.

Hey, at least it's not Art Shell.

Saunders isn't going to be a head coach ANYWHERE, let alone in KC.

Everybody that's worked with him in the past hates him, in Sandy Eggo, in St. Louis, and here.

Apparently he had issues with being in power.

htismaqe
05-21-2006, 04:22 AM
What do I know?

Why nothing of course.

htismaqe
05-21-2006, 04:23 AM
Good work, Bowser. Milkman tried to help you out too, I see...

There's alot of people here that don't understand what Martyball REALLY means...

Bowser
05-21-2006, 07:51 AM
Good work, Bowser. Milkman tried to help you out too, I see...

There's alot of people here that don't understand what Martyball REALLY means...

Thanks. Milkman probably hit it a little closer to center than I did. Marty didn't have a brave bone in his body while here in KC, and had the defense to help hide his unwillingness to take even the slightest of chances. Hence the ultra-conservative offense, and going prevent on defense with a 4 point+ lead, no matter what quarter it was.

Splatbass and Rausch pretty much ended Taco's attempt at whatever Taco was attempting.

Taco John
05-21-2006, 09:21 PM
conversation? Whatever I was attempting, I must have not been too far off the mark based on the several positive reps I received from it. I don't think there's a huge buzz around the league anywhere regarding Herm's ability to X and O.

jspchief
05-21-2006, 09:37 PM
I still don't understand what Herm is doing in Kansas City. How does a coach with a 39-41 W/L record coming off of a 4-12 season, who only won his division once in five years with a 9-7 record, and who has a reputation for poor clock management become a hot candidate to take over a team that says it's committed to winning a Superbowl?

I can't understand how a guy like Eric Mangini, who was a coach under both Parcells and Belichick didn't get courted to the hilt, especially when you consider the names that have come out from under Belichick: Crennel, Ferentz, Saban, Weis. That's an attractive legacy of coaches. And the fact that Mangini has actually coached on a team that won a Superbowl is something that I'd think would be desireable.

But Herm? I just don't get it. I can't understand how Saunders isn't your head coach, and Herm isn't answering to him as your defensive coordinator.

Hey, at least it's not Art Shell.The only thing I can think of is that the Chiefs FO feels like they know what they're getting with Herm, based on working with him in the past. Sometimes there's more to a coach than what he did with the last couple years, and my guess is Peterson feels like he knows what he's getting with Herm. They think he's a guy that can put the finals touches on a team that has a very solid foundation.

On top of that, he's a guy whose expertise addresses some of KC's biggest needs. He's a D minded coach and specifically a DB minded coach. He's also a former scout, and in light of recent drafts, that can only help.

I don't think this was the right team to take a chance on a Mangini type of coach. IMO, we're trying to glean a last bit of success from an aging veteran offense, and that might be tough to do with a young inexperienced coach.

While some young hotshot might be able to design a hot new car, I think the FO is trying to get someone to tweak the engine of the car they already believe can win the race.

Hammock Parties
05-21-2006, 09:38 PM
I see Herm as Tony Dungy part two.

Dungy won 54 games in 6 years in Tampa Bay...pretty mediocre.

Then he goes to a team with an established offense and a need for defense...fixes the defense (somewhat) and voila!

Herm obviously had a worse record in New York, but he did win a couple of playoff games.

I'm not real worried about his 4-12 season...very few coaches could have gone through what the Jets went through last year and come out better.

With that being said...I'm still cautiously optimistic. The minute he runs on third-and-eight with a 3-point lead and three minutes left is the minute I get pissed.

Hammock Parties
05-21-2006, 09:38 PM
And I still don't understand Taco's obsession with Eric Mangina...who has done exactly squat in the NFL. I don't think he even played pro football.

Hammock Parties
05-21-2006, 09:41 PM
conversation? Whatever I was attempting, I must have not been too far off the mark based on the several positive reps I received from it. I don't think there's a huge buzz around the league anywhere regarding Herm's ability to X and O.

You're right, and I don't think I would want him hired him if we were rebuilding or an expansion team.

I do think Herm was a good fit for us though. The veterans have responded to his presence.

nychief
05-21-2006, 09:42 PM
1st and 10 - Up the gut for two yards

2nd and 8 - Off Right Tackle for three yards

3rd and 5 - QB looks off two open receivers downfield, then dumps the ball off to a back (fullback preferably) for three yards

4th and 2 - punt


Rinse and repeat as necessary.


you forgot on final thing....

GO TO PLAYOFFS


LOSE IN PLAYOFFS


repeat.

milkman
05-21-2006, 09:44 PM
I see Herm as Tony Dungy part two.

Dungy won 54 games in 6 years in Tampa Bay...pretty mediocre.

Then he goes to a team with an established offense and a need for defense...fixes the defense (somewhat) and voila!

Herm obviously had a worse record in New York, but he did win a couple of playoff games.

I'm not real worried about his 4-12 season...very few coaches could have gone through what the Jets went through last year and come out better.

With that being said...I'm still cautiously optimistic. The minute he runs on third-and-eight with a 3-point lead and three minutes left is the minute I get pissed.

The problem with that comparison is that Dungy went into Indy and didn't touch that offense.

I don't believe that Hermie will be the same.


Oh, and there's that whole Dungy and the Colts haven't made it to the SB thing.

Hammock Parties
05-21-2006, 09:46 PM
The problem with that comparison is that Dungy went into Indy and didn't touch that offense.

I don't believe that Hermie will be the same.

I'm praying and hoping that he is. I'm also praying and hoping that Green, Solari and Shea have the balls to stand up to Herm should he try to do anything stupid.


Oh, and there's that whole Dungy and the Colts haven't made it to the SB thing.

Yeah. ROFL

Taco John
05-22-2006, 01:55 AM
I don't think this was the right team to take a chance on a Mangini type of coach. IMO, we're trying to glean a last bit of success from an aging veteran offense, and that might be tough to do with a young inexperienced coach.

While some young hotshot might be able to design a hot new car, I think the FO is trying to get someone to tweak the engine of the car they already believe can win the race.



That's a fair point. When I think of Herm, one of the things I think of is "veterans coach." That's certainly not the case with Mangini, who is a relative unknown quantity.

I suppose it will be an interesting experiment. Herm was going to survive one year at best with New York anyway... I'd wager he's got at least three with you guys.

KCTitus
05-22-2006, 08:23 AM
I'd wager he's got at least three with you guys.

4 years...Carl and Herm ride off together.

FringeNC
05-22-2006, 08:37 AM
Martyball is playing not to lose rather than playing to win. Herm is an avid fan of such a style, as evidenced by his playoff game coaching style. Exhibit B is wanting to sit on a lead instead of putting the game out of reach. Herm said that he'd rather become predictable, run a lot more, burn the clock, rather than remain unpredictable and try to put the game away. If that isn't "Martyball", what is?

Chiefnj
05-22-2006, 08:43 AM
Martyball is playing not to lose rather than playing to win. Herm is an avid fan of such a style, as evidenced by his playoff game coaching style. Exhibit B is wanting to sit on a lead instead of putting the game out of reach. Herm said that he'd rather become predictable, run a lot more, burn the clock, rather than remain unpredictable and try to put the game away. If that isn't "Martyball", what is?

You forgot about hiring Hackett and Raye to run the Jets offense. Those are Exhibits C and D, and constitute enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Herm plays Martyball.

foxman
05-22-2006, 10:09 AM
I like Herm as a coach, but I prefer for it to be for the other team. I had a problem giving up a draft pick for him and I have a big problem with how he handles pressure. I hope he proves me wrong with the pressure concern and with this team having the quality and the veterans that it does, they just might. The point of Herm being a better fit than Mangini is 100% correct, but I am still not convinced that we had to give up a 4th rounder for a quality coach with experiance.

I know of at least one coach who took a NY team to the superbowl with less talent than we have that is not a HC right now for example.

Anyway, it's done and I will hope and pray Herm can be the man for us.

noa
05-22-2006, 11:54 AM
Herm definitely reminds me of Marty, but frankly, I would rather get to the playoffs and lose every year than consistently have the worst defense and only make it to the playoffs once in five years. I think Carl felt he had to hire someone who Willie Roaf, Will Shields, and our other veterans will stick around for. Herm has a reputation for giving veterans an easier time when it comes to practice, which is probably a good thing. Herm may not be the ideal coach because of his poor record in NY and because of his clock management issues, but he should be good for our veterans and for LJ. If we make the playoffs this year by running the ball and playing not to lose, I suspect KC will celebrate the return of Martyball.

CupidStunt
05-22-2006, 11:55 AM
Running more when we have a lead DOES NOT EQUAL reverting to Martyball.


Correct.

Running, PERIOD, is playing to our strengthes.

CupidStunt
05-22-2006, 11:56 AM
Herm is an avid fan of such a style, as evidenced by his playoff game coaching style.

Interesting concept.

What's playoff coaching?

For that matter, what the hell are playoffs? :cuss:

HC_Chief
05-22-2006, 12:02 PM
Running the ball more <> Martyball.

This team is BUILT for running. I have been screaming for the past several years that we really should run the damned ball MORE!! We have a dominant OL, great RBs, and excellent blocking receivers. Teams line up to stop our running game and we STILL run over their ass. This opens up our passing game: when you can run, people bite on playaction. When defenses bite on playaction, the passing game explodes (in a good way).

IMO slightly increasing the number of runs is going to IMPROVE our offense. Getting away from the StLoser "chuck it all over the place, down & distance be damned" is a good thing.

htismaqe
05-22-2006, 12:10 PM
Running the ball more <> Martyball.

This team is BUILT for running. I have been screaming for the past several years that we really should run the damned ball MORE!! We have a dominant OL, great RBs, and excellent blocking receivers. Teams line up to stop our running game and we STILL run over their ass. This opens up our passing game: when you can run, people bite on playaction. When defenses bite on playaction, the passing game explodes (in a good way).

IMO slightly increasing the number of runs is going to IMPROVE our offense. Getting away from the StLoser "chuck it all over the place, down & distance be damned" is a good thing.

:clap:

KCTitus
05-22-2006, 12:18 PM
Running the ball more <> Martyball.

This team is BUILT for running. I have been screaming for the past several years that we really should run the damned ball MORE!! We have a dominant OL, great RBs, and excellent blocking receivers. Teams line up to stop our running game and we STILL run over their ass. This opens up our passing game: when you can run, people bite on playaction. When defenses bite on playaction, the passing game explodes (in a good way).

IMO slightly increasing the number of runs is going to IMPROVE our offense. Getting away from the StLoser "chuck it all over the place, down & distance be damned" is a good thing.

KC was 6th (520) in rushing attempts -- 29 fewer attempts than the league leader, Pittsburgh (549). KC was 17th (507) in pass attempts -- 163 fewer attempts than the league leader, Arizona (670).

From what I understand, Herm wants to increase the rushes to 10 PER GAME. That would put KC at ~ 650 attempts per season. Now, I dont know about anyone else, but I kind of liked the balance last year.

htismaqe
05-22-2006, 12:21 PM
KC was 6th (520) in rushing attempts -- 29 fewer attempts than the league leader, Pittsburgh (549). KC was 17th (507) in pass attempts -- 163 fewer attempts than the league leader, Arizona (670).

From what I understand, Herm wants to increase the rushes to 10 PER GAME. That would put KC at ~ 650 attempts per season. Now, I dont know about anyone else, but I kind of liked the balance last year.

Herm wants to CONTROL THE CLOCK to protect leads.

Obviously, that doesn't translate literally into 160 more attempts. For starters, we won't be leading in all 16 games.

KCTitus
05-22-2006, 12:25 PM
Herm wants to CONTROL THE CLOCK to protect leads.

Obviously, that doesn't translate literally into 160 more attempts. For starters, we won't be leading in all 16 games.

Which is a mistake, IMO. Control the clock AND SCORE more points at the same time. Running just to 'bleed the clock' gave us Gunther's 9 straight rushes that allowed Oakland to comeback, and win, in that Jan 2, 2000 game.

Even the best rushing offense, if predictable, can be stopped by putting 9 in the box.

Back in 1999, KC lead the NFL in rushing attempts that year...they had 522.

Rausch
05-22-2006, 12:28 PM
Which is a mistake, IMO. Control the clock AND SCORE more points at the same time. Running just to 'bleed the clock' gave us Gunther's 9 straight rushes that allowed Oakland to comeback, and win, in that Jan 2, 2000 game.

Even the best rushing offense, if predictable, can be stopped by putting 9 in the box.

Back in 1999, KC lead the NFL in rushing attempts that year...they had 522.

In 1999 we didn't have LJ, or for that matter any HB who could take any play the distance.

This isn't Bennett and Kimble Anders, LJ is a top 5 back in the NFL.

You can't stop LJ without 9 in the box. Teams tried all last year.

You put 9 in the box that opens up the play action.

Establish LJ early, run the ball, use play action, keep the _efense off the field...

HC_Chief
05-22-2006, 12:29 PM
Control the clock AND SCORE more points at the same time.

Hopefully that will be the focus. Our running game has been dominant for years. It has scored a butt-load of TDs! Since 2002 the Chiefs have scored the majority of their TDs on the ground.

htismaqe
05-22-2006, 12:32 PM
Which is a mistake, IMO. Control the clock AND SCORE more points at the same time. Running just to 'bleed the clock' gave us Gunther's 9 straight rushes that allowed Oakland to comeback, and win, in that Jan 2, 2000 game.

Even the best rushing offense, if predictable, can be stopped by putting 9 in the box.

Back in 1999, KC lead the NFL in rushing attempts that year...they had 522.

Running to bleed the clock gave us 9 straight rushes.

Throwing just to keep the defense off balance led to a fumble inside the gold zone, a fumble which could have been the TD sealing a victory against Dallas and a trip to the playoffs last year.

Chiefnj
05-22-2006, 12:33 PM
Herm's 2006 team motto:

Keep the Defense Off the Field At All Costs!!!

KCTitus
05-22-2006, 12:36 PM
In 1999 we didn't have LJ, or for that matter any HB who could take any play the distance.

Exactly...but take for example the first game last year. KC scores in 3 plays thanks to LJ's 50 some yard run. So, I have to ask then, what does Herm do? Coach him to fall down so we can 'milk' the clock? Or, worse yet, does Herm call plays that only get 5-6 yards at a time? I dont like either of those options.

I prefer the possibility to take it all the way each play and the relentless attack that the offense is designed to do.

I get nervous when I read that the offenses job is more about slowly moving the ball around to bleed clock rather than taking it to the house. I dont like any notion that doesnt have this offense on full tilt each series.

KCTitus
05-22-2006, 12:39 PM
Running to bleed the clock gave us 9 straight rushes.

Throwing just to keep the defense off balance led to a fumble inside the gold zone, a fumble which could have been the TD sealing a victory against Dallas and a trip to the playoffs last year.

We can dicker about 'this' play or 'that' play all day...Im not really interested that. More importantly, IMO, is the philosophy of the offense going forward. Is it about scoring points or something else?

One of Marty's famous quotes when asked about the role of his offense was 'To not turn the ball over'...that infuriates me to this day. WRONG! It's to get first downs and score points.

HC_Chief
05-22-2006, 12:40 PM
I prefer the possibility to take it all the way each play and the relentless attack that the offense is designed to do.

I get nervous when I read that the offenses job is more about slowly moving the ball around to bleed clock rather than taking it to the house. I dont like any notion that doesnt have this offense on full tilt each series.

What have you read that makes you think Herm wants to neuter the offense? All I've seen is metion of a stronger focus on running the ball... which is this team's strength. A byproduct of running = eating up game clock; I seriously doubt Herm would be upset if we constantly scored on long TD rushes, rather than controlled, time-consuming drives.

If he starts throwing hissy fits because we're "scoring too fast", then the alarm bells should ring.

King_Chief_Fan
05-22-2006, 12:42 PM
Exactly...but take for example the first game last year. KC scores in 3 plays thanks to LJ's 50 some yard run. So, I have to ask then, what does Herm do? Coach him to fall down so we can 'milk' the clock? Or, worse yet, does Herm call plays that only get 5-6 yards at a time? I dont like either of those options.

I prefer the possibility to take it all the way each play and the relentless attack that the offense is designed to do.

I get nervous when I read that the offenses job is more about slowly moving the ball around to bleed clock rather than taking it to the house. I dont like any notion that doesnt have this offense on full tilt each series.

this must be the reason they picked up Q. Griffin.

htismaqe
05-22-2006, 12:45 PM
Exactly...but take for example the first game last year. KC scores in 3 plays thanks to LJ's 50 some yard run. So, I have to ask then, what does Herm do? Coach him to fall down so we can 'milk' the clock? Or, worse yet, does Herm call plays that only get 5-6 yards at a time? I dont like either of those options.

I prefer the possibility to take it all the way each play and the relentless attack that the offense is designed to do.

I get nervous when I read that the offenses job is more about slowly moving the ball around to bleed clock rather than taking it to the house. I dont like any notion that doesnt have this offense on full tilt each series.

OK, who stole the real Titus?

htismaqe
05-22-2006, 12:45 PM
We can dicker about 'this' play or 'that' play all day...Im not really interested that.

I see you got my point - I didn't figure you intended to quibble about individual instances in games, even though that's precisely what you did. ;)

KCTitus
05-22-2006, 12:45 PM
What have you read that makes you think Herm wants to neuter the offense? All I've seen is metion of a stronger focus on running the ball... which is this team's strength. A byproduct of running = eating up game clock; I seriously doubt Herm would be upset if we constantly scored on long TD rushes, rather than controlled, time-consuming drives.

If he starts throwing hissy fits because we're "scoring too fast", then the alarm bells should ring.

Ive been reading this BB, primarily...so Im probably getting a little bit biased text and my own nervousness about a new HC coming in. The only thing I can point to is Herm's stated intention to increase the number of carries per game by 10 or so. When I look at the numbers, this club was already predicated on rushing the ball first, and any increase just to increase it seems a bit unbalanced IMO.

KCTitus
05-22-2006, 12:47 PM
OK, who stole the real Titus?

LOL...Ive not said one thing different than any times in the past regarding the clubs offense.

KCTitus
05-22-2006, 12:49 PM
I see you got my point - I didn't figure you intended to quibble about individual instances in games, even though that's precisely what you did. ;)

Well aside from the fact that Gunther did state specifically the reasons why he did what he did was to run clock and put the defense on the field. It was his stated objective with that club which was to run the ball first and play defense second. It spoke DIRECTLY to his philosophy.

The 'one' play you cited in the Dallas game was not something that could be easily pointed to as the teams stated philosophy to 'pass first' in the red zone...the numbers contradict it entirely.

greg63
05-22-2006, 12:50 PM
1st and 10 - Up the gut for two yards

2nd and 8 - Off Right Tackle for three yards

3rd and 5 - QB looks off two open receivers downfield, then dumps the ball off to a back (fullback preferably) for three yards

4th and 2 - punt


Rinse and repeat as necessary.



Listen, we are NOT going to revert back to Martyball. Despite the lack of an All-Pro Wide Receiver on this offense, we have many more weapons on the 2006 Chiefs roster as opposed to any offense, of any year, of Marty's regime. So Herm has come out and stated he would like to run more when we have a lead. Great! Running more when we have a lead DOES NOT EQUAL reverting to Martyball.

I sincerely hope this refresher course has been helpful. Now could we please stop with all this Martyball talk crappola? Pretty please?

:clap::clap::clap:

Calcountry
05-22-2006, 12:55 PM
No, he was pretty close.

1. Run.
2. Run.
3. Pass.
4. Punt.
5. Play D. Wait for INT/Fumble that's run back for a score.
6. Go back to 1.no no no. THat flow chart is way to simple.

We must throw in some if/then statements.

1. Run
a. if run goes for TD, then go to 7.(7 is a good number for this ;))
b. if run netted less than 10 yards go to 2.

c. if run netted first down, go to 1.
2. Run
a. if run goes for TD, then go to 7.
b. if run left you in 3rd and longer than one yard to go then go to 4.

c. if run netted first down go to 1.
3. Run
a. if run goes for TD, then go to 7.
b. if run nets first down, go to 1

c. if run fails to achieve first down, go to 5
4. Pass
a. if pass goes for TD, then go to 7.
b. if pass nets first down go to 1
5. Special Teams
a. attempt Field goal absolutely, without question, any time the ball is
short of the goal line but inside the 32 yard line, if not go to 5d.
b. FG Good go to 8.
c. FG is no good go to 6.
d. without exceptions punt.
6. Play D and wait for INT/Fumble
a. No turnover go to 9.
b. It is returned for TD go to 7.
d. Is not returned for a TD, go to 1.

7. Pump fist and look angry
8. Kick off then go to 6.
9. Receive Kickoff then go to 1.


Considering the the effectiveness of last years D, I think I can leave out the part about receiving punts. :D

htismaqe
05-22-2006, 12:57 PM
LOL...Ive not said one thing different than any times in the past regarding the clubs offense.

I wasn't speaking to your statements about the club's offense - I have similar concerns. My comments were directed at your seeming want to declare that we're doomed 2 full months before the start of training camp. :D

KCTitus
05-22-2006, 12:59 PM
I wasn't speaking to your statements about the club's offense - I have similar concerns. My comments were directed at your seeming want to declare that we're doomed 2 full months before the start of training camp. :D

Ha! Doomed? Hardly...

Bottom line is I'm a 'if it aint broken, dont fix it' kind of guy. Forgive me for getting a little nervous about someone wanting to 'improve' an already lethal offense. I think the problems lie on the other side of the ball.

htismaqe
05-22-2006, 01:00 PM
Well aside from the fact that Gunther did state specifically the reasons why he did what he did was to run clock and put the defense on the field. It was his stated objective with that club which was to run the ball first and play defense second. It spoke DIRECTLY to his philosophy.

The 'one' play you cited in the Dallas game was not something that could be easily pointed to as the teams stated philosophy to 'pass first' in the red zone...the numbers contradict it entirely.

The one play I cited in the Dallas game can be pointed to as a shining example of the previous coaching staff.

It was about "passing first" or any other stated philosophy. It was about picking the appropriate play at the appropriate time and SMACKING THE OTHER TEAM IN THE MOUTH.

htismaqe
05-22-2006, 01:01 PM
Ha! Doomed? Hardly...

Bottom line is I'm a 'if it aint broken, dont fix it' kind of guy. Forgive me for getting a little nervous about someone wanting to 'improve' an already lethal offense. I think the problems lie on the other side of the ball.

I think Herm has been VERY CLEAR. He's not "fixing" anything on offense.

He's contemplating making changes on offense, if they're necessary, to fix the DEFENSE.

KCTitus
05-22-2006, 01:04 PM
The one play I cited in the Dallas game can be pointed to as a shining example of the previous coaching staff.

It was about "passing first" or any other stated philosophy. It was about picking the appropriate play at the appropriate time and SMACKING THE OTHER TEAM IN THE MOUTH.

Sure you can, because it led to a turnover...It wouldnt be a 'shining' example if it went for a TD now would it? Im going to go out on a limb and guess there were more passing TD's inside the 20 than 'shining' examples.

Calcountry
05-22-2006, 01:06 PM
Of course both of them took demotions and got into situations where they could evaluate the things that went wrong under some pretty steady hands.

Hey, Herm is at least a motivational guy, even if I don't respect his X's and O's. Maybe all you guys need is the right guy giving the speeches. What do I know?Heck, with your vast knowledge, I am surprised that you weren't recruited for the job. :rolleyes:

HC_Chief
05-22-2006, 01:08 PM
I'm still not convinced of our offense's overall "lethality".

In the running game, you bet your ass it's "lethal"! The passing game, on the other hand, is a different story. True, Gonzo is a great target at TE and Kennison is a solid wideout, but that's about all we have in terms of consistent receiving threats.

Holmes used to play a HUGE role in the passing game. With LJ, we get a great runner who can catch a few passes, and Gonzo, Kennison, & ??

Saunders often called games as if he were having StL flashbacks. It drove me CRAZY! This is NOT a team made for passing all over the place. The passes that work for us are predicated on the running game... playaction & screens. When we went into straight up, drop back, gunslinger mode we were dangerous, but not "lethal". With LJ back there blocking for Trent instead of Priest, I see the "danger" shifting to "in danger of getting our starting QB killed".

htismaqe
05-22-2006, 01:09 PM
Sure you can, because it led to a turnover...It wouldnt be a 'shining' example if it went for a TD now would it? Im going to go out on a limb and guess there were more passing TD's inside the 20 than 'shining' examples.

That's the problem with compiling stats. Sure, more often than not, they scored. But how many times did they fail to convert on 3rd and 1 when it could have been the difference in the game?

I believe GoChiefs said it earlier - all of the stats in the world don't mean anything if you don't win.

KCTitus
05-22-2006, 01:14 PM
I'm still not convinced of our offense's overall "lethality".

In the running game, you bet your ass it's "lethal"! The passing game, on the other hand, is a different story. True, Gonzo is a great target at TE and Kennison is a solid wideout, but that's about all we have in terms of consistent receiving threats.

Holmes used to play a HUGE role in the passing game. With LJ, we get a great runner who can catch a few passes, and Gonzo, Kennison, & ??

Saunders often called games as if he were having StL flashbacks. It drove me CRAZY! This is NOT a team made for passing all over the place. The passes that work for us are predicated on the running game... playaction & screens. When we went into straight up, drop back, gunslinger mode we were dangerous, but not "lethal". With LJ back there blocking for Trent instead of Priest, I see the "danger" shifting to "in danger of getting our starting QB killed".

I dont remember those pass 'happy' games...I'll have to go back and look at the game books, because the overall numbers dont bear that out.

FringeNC
05-22-2006, 05:33 PM
Evidently, a surprising number of people think the Chiefs were a passing team last year. The Chiefs ran the ball more than almost every team in the league, yet that is still not enough?

Additionally, it seems that very few appreciate Saunders game-calling, and the benefits of mixing up the run and the pass in general.

There is a little doubt that our offensive line run blocks better than pass blocks. That's why we are a running team. However, no matter how good at run blocking our offensive line is, they will not be effective if the other team puts nine men at the line of scrimmage.

The old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" certainly applies here. Why Herm wants to impose a Martyball philosophy on this offense is a mystery to me. Having said that, I doubt Herm's Martyball philosophy will be implemented...it was just another example of Herm talking out his ass. He's not going to be involved in offensive game-planning, I'd imagine.

Calcountry
05-22-2006, 05:37 PM
I'm still not convinced of our offense's overall "lethality".

In the running game, you bet your ass it's "lethal"! The passing game, on the other hand, is a different story. True, Gonzo is a great target at TE and Kennison is a solid wideout, but that's about all we have in terms of consistent receiving threats.

Holmes used to play a HUGE role in the passing game. With LJ, we get a great runner who can catch a few passes, and Gonzo, Kennison, & ??

Saunders often called games as if he were having StL flashbacks. It drove me CRAZY! This is NOT a team made for passing all over the place. The passes that work for us are predicated on the running game... playaction & screens. When we went into straight up, drop back, gunslinger mode we were dangerous, but not "lethal". With LJ back there blocking for Trent instead of Priest, I see the "danger" shifting to "in danger of getting our starting QB killed".I'm sorry, but Holmes would never have made it to the one yard line against the Raiders last year. LJ exploded so quickly after catching the pass, that the Raiders D didn't have time to collapse on him and stop him from making that huge gain, heck, he almost scored.

Hammock Parties
05-22-2006, 05:42 PM
Evidently, a surprising number of people think the Chiefs were a passing team last year.

That happens when you throw for 4,000 yards.

Brock
05-22-2006, 05:50 PM
Evidently, a surprising number of people think the Chiefs were a passing team last year. The Chiefs ran the ball more than almost every team in the league, yet that is still not enough?

Trent Green was 6th in the league for pass attempts. However, I think the Chiefs were very well balanced as far as rush/pass mix.