ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Jeremiah Trotter thinks Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=294751)

Mr. Laz 01-20-2016 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabblerouser (Post 12041145)
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 01-20-2016 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabblerouser (Post 12041132)
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 01-20-2016 01:16 PM

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 01-20-2016 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 12041172)
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 :
Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet (Post 12041264)
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 01-20-2016 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabblerouser (Post 12041273)
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 01-20-2016 05:52 PM

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.

ToxSocks 01-20-2016 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray (Post 12041600)
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 01-20-2016 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 12041610)
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.

ToxSocks 01-20-2016 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray (Post 12041625)
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 01-20-2016 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 12041653)
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 01-20-2016 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 12041610)
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 01-21-2016 07:28 AM

Bump for Bob Dole

OctoberFart 01-21-2016 12:46 PM

Trotter knows what a mediocre coach Reid is.

rabblerouser 01-21-2016 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OctoberFart (Post 12042764)
Trotter knows what a mediocre coach Reid is.

So do some Chiefs fans.

rabblerouser 01-21-2016 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19 (Post 12042867)
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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.