ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Archives (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Running Game ?? (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=19708)

KCTitus 09-10-2001 08:39 AM

We have to accept the fact that the key to KC's offense is not the up center butt play every other down.

I cant, off the top of my head, recall but it seems to me that there were quite a few boos and plenty of BB b!tching last year after KC started their first game with 6 straight runs up center butt.

Should KC had run more, probably so.

nmt1 09-10-2001 08:40 AM

Can:

You may be right on Holmes. I'm going to reserve judgement though. It was the first game in a new system. We shouldn't be too hasty IMO.:)

ChiTown 09-10-2001 08:42 AM

Yesterday's offensive gameplan lacked the imagination that I thought we might see with DV and Saunders. Now, I know damn well that we don't have the offensive firepower that the Rams have, but we certainly could have thrown a little more at these guys than we showed Sunday.

It was a bit too Rayesque for me :mad:

I'll say this much from the positive side of the ledger. Green played as bad as he can probably play. If that's the case, things can only get better, right? :confused:

the Talking Can 09-10-2001 08:45 AM

this has nothing to do with old school martyball. Its just that I realized I was in denial about our RB's. I thought they could make something from nothing(like better rbs do), but they can't(T-Rich can and does but he lacks "shake-and-bake").

Yeah, I'm sure our running game will improve, and Holmes will make some nice runs...but next year we have to upgrade if we want a superbowl, plain and simple.

I know I'm getting ahead of myself, but I can't take these loses any more and I think Kansas City(the town and franchise) is in denial about what a REAL RUNNING BACK DOES!!!

IMHO, we don't have a RB that could start for a top 10 college team.:eek:

nmt1 09-10-2001 08:47 AM

Chitown:

Got a nice chuckle out of your Green comment. :p

I think they were just too out of sync for any game plan to work.

KCTitus 09-10-2001 08:49 AM

TC: If you'll note, my signature has been the same for about 2 years now. I happen to agree w/you on that point.

Im also aware of the fact that Oaklands front 4 was dominating our OL in terms of run blocking.

Can Priest Holmes deliver, well that is the 64 dollar question. Should KC get a premiere RB next year? definately, if possible.

RB's do not perform, regardless of who they are, when they only get sporadic carries. It takes several carries to get into the flow. KC should have tried to run the ball more, especially when they had the lead, but they didnt.

I think that's more because Oak forced KC's hand to the pass.

nmt1 09-10-2001 08:53 AM

Can:

Did we not upgrade the RB position by adding Holmes? At least he has one thousand yard season to his credit. That's more than we could say about Kimble, Bennett or even Richardson. No one said that Priest Holmes is going to be like Marshall Faulk. In fact, most went out of their way to say he wouldn't. We really didn't have a whole lot of choices in free agency this year.
A superstar RB would be great but where is he going to come from?

Gaz 09-10-2001 08:54 AM

What running game?
 

Even if the holes were not there and the gains were small, we should not have abandoned the run. Keeping the Defense honest is a requirement for a balanced Offense. I did not see a balanced Offense yesterday. I saw an Offense that bailed on the run and went pass-happy, with predictable results.

Maybe it is something in the KC water supply?

xoxo~
Gaz
Expects to see improvement next week.

the Talking Can 09-10-2001 08:57 AM

Titus, your signature is on the mark.

Look, I am mystified as to why we didn't attempt to run when we had a lead.

If Holmes is our "starting rb" why not use him?

The whole game, offensively reeked of last year. Except, last year or WRs caught passes(and last year the QB threw passes to the WRs).


mostly I'm just incredibly frustrated. We always find a way to lose.

on the bright side, how about Washington:eek: :D

KC Jones 09-10-2001 08:58 AM

FWIW:

If you happened to have watched the same game I did, you would have seen this:

The Raiders basically dared us to beat them in the air, isolating our rookie WR and our lame (hurt ankle) sole threat WR with their pro bowl CBs. They brought just about everybody else up to the line. There was no way we would have likely established much of a run. Our coaches saw this and were trying to spread the field a little to get them to back off the LOS. Unfortunately, our receivers had trouble getting open and Green wasn't terribly accurate in this debut. I'd like us to have run effectively too, and had a more balanced attack. However, I'm not sure how much I would have tried to run the ball against that front either.

ChiTown 09-10-2001 09:00 AM

Ditto Gaz
 
With one exception:

I think the coaching staff recognized the lack of run blocking execution. Still they should have gameplanned better than what they showed.

KCTitus 09-10-2001 09:01 AM

Agreed, Can, but again, I think Oakland forced our hands on this.

If KC cannot beat them in the air, they're not going to beat them on the ground.

To the staff's credit they didnt pull a Marty/Gun and run even when the play wasnt there. KC had to convert some of those pass plays. Had that happened, and the running game would have opened.

stevieray 09-10-2001 09:04 AM

Broncos sign Anderson
 
What about Olandis?

Gaz 09-10-2001 09:05 AM

Imbalance...
 

Yes, Oakland stacked the line to stop the run. Why then did we not see more screens and shovel passes to the RBs? The "extended handoff" would serve the same purpose [backing Oakland off the LOS], would it not?

I thought the whole point this season would be balance. I saw very little balance yesterday. Even the receptions were not balanced. Green had GrbacVision yesterday, looking almost exclusively at Gonzalez.

xoxo~
Gaz
Puzzled by the "down the field or bust" mentality.

nmt1 09-10-2001 09:05 AM

They may let him go to another team but it won't be us, that I will guarantee.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.