The game plan, for the past 2.5 years, has been built around Matt Cassel.

There is absolutely no way you can look at this game objectively and not understand that the change at QB makes EVERYTHING else possible.

It seems we've come to a chicken or the egg style debate here...

Could we not say that the QB and the play calling are co-evolutionary forces, each playing off one another, the confluence of the two resulting in the postive outcome we're debating today?

Why did you wait until post #83 to say that?


That is exactly right.

You don't remember the screen we ran to lose the game against San Diego? The one where Cassel threw it to the guy on the other team? That's why we didn't run more screens. Because Cassel is inept.

I had to break for lunch.

Maybe. But the difference is not play calling. Its EXECUTION of the play calling. Every play that "works" is by definition a good play call. If you have Cassel and he can't execute the play that is called then this is the weak link.

Good point.

That has less to do with playcalling than with Orton actually progressing through reads. Cassel wouldn't spread the ball around because he'd look to his first receiver and if he was covered he'd shit his pants.

So you're saying the offense wasn't a wee bit different yesterday? Running reverses, multiple screens, McClain up the gut, McDuster to the outside? To say that there wasn't at least some tiny change in philosophy is obtuse...

Both QB & play calling were altered yeasterday when comapred with what we've seen this year...

co-evolutionary forces Dave...

This is right to a degree. No 100% mind you...

Brain food FTW!

A lot of what we did yesterday was due to having a QB. Having said that the playcalling was still a lot different, imo. The absence of the Dex for -2 up the gut at least once a series stands out the most.

They've run ALL of those plays at one point or another during this season. The difference is that they didn't work...

No thanks, I guess I will have to struggle through life without that cerebral boost.

I'll agree, but part of it was also allowing the right personell to participate in said plays. We've run a reverse with Breaston this year? I'll bet money we ran McClain up the middle more yesterday that we have all year combined, and the same could be said with running McCluster to the outside...

I was thinking the EXACT same thing.

Our last drive of the 1st half started with a draw to McCluster for 1 yard.

A draw is not the power slam we have been trying with him all season. I am not talking about a draw. Get rid of the draw for this discussion. He is designed to run the draw. He is not designed to power it up the middle like we have seen them attempt to do time and time and time again, except yesterday.

That statement is devoid of logic and is utter nonsense. A 'game plan' is the plan put together for a particular game. If the offense had been "built around Matt Cassel" one might expect that it would include a heavy dose of plays he can execute. The offense for the last 2.5 years has not been built around Matt Cassel, it's been the offense Haley has wanted to run without a quarterback capable of running it. Same for the running game based on pounding Jones up the middle with an undersized line that is more suited to lateral movement. That's the same reason Palko's mobility wasn't used and Haley tried to shoehorn him into the role of pocket passer.

Had Haley still been in at HC the Chiefs starting Palko, he would have run the same look and the same pattern: Jones in between the tackles on first down. Battle between the tackles or McCluster a draw on second down. A short pass to Bowe or Breston for 7 yards followed by a punt. If a screen or pass worked, there would be no follow up, just Jones in between the tackles on first down.

Also, can anyone explain how the improvement in the running game during the first half is a direct result of the change at QB.

McCluster had 1 carry below his season average yesterday. And average 1.5 full yard below his season average.

The offense was crisp yesterday and people have been fooled into seeing something that didn't happen - McCluster looked EXACTLY like he has all season.

The defense has to respect the passing game for the first time in forever. Mike McCarthy even said so.

A delayed handoff with fake is a draw.

I'm not saying he didn't. I'm saying they ran him outside more than they have all year. That's all I'm saying. I'm not talking about his stats, becasue while you may have pointed out he played no differently, and maybe worse than his averages, he was effective as a greater part of a more effective offense. His individual play wasn't any better, but his role was better, his useage was timed better...

Part of it was because we were facing an average defense.

Part of it was because the Packers were selling out against the run and Orton made them pay.

Part of it was because Orton was rarely pressured and when he was he took it like a man.

Part of it was because the offense controlled TOP and the defense weren't out there every 5 minutes.

Possibly. I know what I saw though.

I saw a QB who could read a D.
Who looked confident in the pocket.
Who went through his progressions quickly.
Who has a quicker release.
WHO LOOKED DOWNFIELD AND HIT OPEN RECEIVERS.

I agree. He looked like the best QB we've had under center in the last several seasons.

Except that they didn't. He had 2 middle runs, 2 offtackle runs (1 left, 1 right) and one toss play (I think it was a toss right?), all for a grand total of 2.78 yards per carry. In the running game, he wasn't any different than usual.

In the screen game, he absolutely was more effective and it was 100% because of Orton selling the action. Running a screen means allowing pass rushers to come to the QB in order to sell it - Cassel can't do it without panic. I've seen it up close and in person.

There is a lot of obtuseness in this thread.

1) The QB play was competent
2) The D we played is not very good when they don't cause turnovers

More or less. However, they've looked bad on O vs shittier Ds

Link?

Orton shows to be 10 x better than Cassel. And Orton sucks. Well actually he doesn't suck now that he's a Chief.

I heard McCarthy called Orton a "damned good" quarterback.

Do you just make this stuff up?

You mean the draw like these? During our previous 4 games?

Den @ KC
2nd quarter
1-10-KC 43 (2:13) (Shotgun) 22-D.McCluster left guard to KC 45 for 2 yards (55-D.Williams).

KC @ NE
1st quarter
3-7-KC 23 (14:24) (Shotgun) 22-D.McCluster right end to KC 29 for 6 yards (74-K.Love).
3rd quarter
1-10-NE 43 (5:28) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 22-D.McCluster up the middle to NE 41 for 2 yards (98-G.Warren).

Pit @ KC
3rd quarter
2-1-KC 43 (2:02) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 22-D.McCluster up the middle to KC 45 for 2 yards (99-B.Keisel).
4th quarter
1-10-PIT 30 (8:51) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 22-D.McCluster right end to PIT 30 for no gain (93-J.Worilds).

KC @ Chi
3rd quarter
3-4-CHI 12 (8:24) (Shotgun) 22-D.McCluster left tackle to CHI 5 for 7 yards (20-C.Steltz).
3-10-CHI 10 (7:02) (Shotgun) 22-D.McCluster left guard to CHI 3 for 7 yards (55-L.Briggs).
3-12-KC 22 (5:21) (Shotgun) 22-D.McCluster right end to KC 25 for 3 yards (90-J.Peppers).

I don't credit Muir for playcalling, the credit goes to a QB who checks down and actually puts the damn ball in the vicinity for the WR to catch it. In no way, shape, or form is Kyle Orton a franchise QB, but he's leaps and bounds better than Cassel or Palco. Next season we still need to draft a QB high in the draft if it's optional, sign Orton to a 2-3 year deal, and groom the two youngsters to lead this franchise for years to come.

I honestly think most of it was just Green Bay's defense.

They are that bad.

I would not expect the line to give Orton that much time the next two weeks. Especially in Denver.

Glad you brought that up!

How many times did Neckbeard call an audible?

At their 1-3 yard line, why the Hell didn't we run on all downs, into the A or B gap, with Battle? We can't pass in the red zone; there's not enough yardage, to do so.

Zone reads is something that Orton can do, that Cassel can't.

Cassel can't think into that; Orton can.

Orton ~ Gannon (I don't have a double squiggly key. Sorry)

Great win and all, but this is from Grantland (pointing out how atrocious our play selection was in the Red Zone). Conclusion: Chiefs won in spite of their offensive play calls.

"Thank You for Not Coaching

For this week's most confounding coaching decisions, we turned to our followers on Twitter, who alerted us to a variety of different blunders. While there are a few common threads we'll ignore (John Fox being ultra-conservative, Tom Coughlin challenging out of sheer desperation), there are still plenty of situations to break down, thanks to the usual hodgepodge of curious game-calling choices. And we'll start with the Packers-Chiefs tilt, where @JoeConte pointed out that Romeo Crennel repeatedly bungled his short-yardage decisions.

On the opening drive, the Chiefs had two chances from the one-yard line and decided to throw passes with Kyle Orton both times. With a 0-0 game against the best offense in the league, they chose to kick a field goal. Sure, we know that the Packers ended up scoring just 14 points, but you can't dance with the champ! A 3-0 margin with 54 minutes to go is essentially never going to hold up.

Before we go any further, let's note that the math here is very simple. The average team will score on these carries 56 percent of the time, so your expected outcome by scoring is (7 points * .56) = 3.92 points. You can't score 3.92 points by kicking, so you're essentially giving up a full point by kicking. The Packers have also allowed teams to convert in 75 percent of power runs, the third-worst rate in the league. So our 56 percent estimate is conservative. You also get the benefit of backing the Green Bay offense up inside their 1-yard line as opposed to giving them the result of a kickoff, which is an average of about 22 yards. Based on the average number of points a team scores with a drive that starts from the 1-yard line as opposed to the 22-yard line, you're adding about another full point of value. By kicking instead of going for it, in even an average situation, you're basically throwing two points in the garbage. When you're playing an offensive juggernaut and it's early in the first quarter, well, you simply can't throw points away.

It would be one thing if Crennel just had no faith in his team's short-yardage capabilities, but he changed his mind on Kansas City's first drive of the second quarter. Again, the Chiefs failed on second-and-1 and ended up facing a fourth-and-inches with 3:28 left. They were up 6-0; again, you can't assume that a nine-point lead is going to hold up against a dominant offense. This time, for some reason, Crennel chose to go for it. It was the correct decision, but what was different about this situation as opposed to the first one? The Chiefs were promptly stuffed when they ran a simple handoff up the middle.

That would all have been weird enough, but Crennel got to face a third decision in this same vein! With a 9-7 lead early in the fourth quarter, the Chiefs were faced with a fourth-and-goal from the Green Bay 2-yard line. It's harder to convert from the 2-yard line, but not by much — the conversion rate falls from 55.2 percent to 48.6 percent. That's still an expected total of 3.4 points, so it's better than a field goal, and you still get the superior follow-up situation of pinning a team extremely deep in their own territory (something that a dominant Chiefs pass rush might have appreciated). You're giving up 1.4 points by kicking. This decision was more defensible because it pushed the lead outside of one field goal, but there was 11:28 left in the game when Crennel chose to kick as opposed to going for it. Color commentator Daryl Johnston chimed in to say that it was a good decision because the Chiefs had been stuffed on the previous drive, which is one of the dumbest things you'll hear a commentator say all year. Stories will be written today about how the Chiefs won under the leadership of Romeo Crennel, but don't buy it. They won in spite of him."

Play calling was different / better for sure but still only 1 TD...

This.

The line could not block for shit near the EZ.

Play selection there was not good, either.

Clay Mathews was invisible.

Certainly. Everyone knows GBs D isn't very good.

Still though, the difference between Kyle and Matt is night and day.

Loved the look on Orton's face after Woodson bit on his pump fake and he dropped the ball into the bucket to Bowe. Was like "Gotcha".

Same against Bailey?

Dumb analysis. He critiques KC for not running the ball the first series noting that on average 56% of the time teams can run successfully. If he knew anything about KC, he'd know that KC can't move the ball in short yardage. In fact, both of Orton's passes should have been TDs. Breaston was open, but the ball was slightly behind him, and McClain dropped the ball.

Then he notes that on the 2nd drive, they got stuffed on the ground.

The writer only talks about league wide averages, and doesn't take into account KC's atrocious red zone offense this year.

It's complete crap to say KC won in spite of Romeo.

They lead the league in takeaways and Orton is supposedly an INT prone QB. The fact is Orton outplayed GB and outplayed Rodgers yesterday. I'd take Rodgers 10 out of 10 times but yesterday Orton was the better QB.

I'm glad someone started this thread. I was thinking the same thing. From the opening drive, there were big differences. Different personnel, different plays, quicker play calls, quicker tempo. I was wondering who was calling the plays myself.

Also, the little things were different too. Like the really quick snap count and very quick release of Orton on the WR quick out. That play rarely works but it did almost every time because of how fast they ran it.

I also believe Orton set a career high in completion percentage. Very "Brees-like" :):):):):):):):)

That quick hitter to Breaston was pretty damn great. Don't remember if it was a hot read or not but man that play was executed perfectly.
Posted via Mobile Device