![]() |
As long as he hangs 6's on the board and can adjust...
I'll be happy with Gailey. |
Like last year, there's never a mention of trying to win the Super Bowl, the drive to succeed. At least this year the coaches are hoping for a few playoff wins.
I realize we're most likely years away from hoping that but don't cha' gotta drill in these guys heads that a losing season is not acceptable. Anything short of a Super Bowl berth is unacceptable. :hmmm: -keyboard coach |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This team needs some hunger. It needs guys that want to go out and win with authority, and it can be inspired by coaches. I know exactly what he means by winning by a point. The W is all that matters, but I want a dominant team. And that should be the goal of each coordinator. Gunther should want to murder QBs and score touchdowns off turnovers. Gailey should want to execute perfectly and methodically or even explosively break defenses. It won't work out like that, but for once, I just want someone to say I want to be the best. I want to win by forfeit because the other team was too embarrassed to come out of the locker room at half. You can't have success unless you train to be the best. There I go ranting again....my bad. It comes down to I know I'm overreacting, but I want a mean streak in my team that strives for football excellence. |
I feel your pain, Mr. Buehler445. I understand what Chan's saying. I mean, it's pretty obvious that you only have to outscore your opponent by 1 point to win the game, and all.
To me, though, it's a silly thing to say and sends a weird message to your team. I would prefer that the coaches speak in terms of elevating expectations and building confidence in the guys rather than telling them that it's okay not to dominate the enemy, rub poot on their face, and make them cry. FAX |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Therefore it's all about execution and scheme, strategey and mis-matches mean nothing. |
Quote:
He just doesn't seem to be striving for excellence. That instills the wrong message in these young guys. |
To score one more point would mean we have to score a TD while the other team gets two FG's... so we are going for TD's. Also no one had problems with Dick and Al scoring one more point... thats how it went because our defense couldn't stop anyone. I think this whole thing is getting blown out of proportion. He is saying they want to run, score, play great defense, and win. Hes not saying jack around until the end and giving the other team a chance to win.
|
People are really misunderstanding Gailey's comments here. What he's saying is that he literally wants to win games by one point. And that's the way he's going to call the offense, with that goal in mind.
For example: - If the Chiefs are up 3, they have the ball, and the clock is about to run down in the 4th quarter, Gailey's going to tell Brodie to receive the snap and then run backwards until he takes a safety. - If the Chiefs are down by 5 at any point in the game, Gailey will forgo the extra point after a TD. If that happens in the 1st quarter, for the rest of the game he'll have Brodie kneel on 4th and 1 at the goalline rather than score and break up the 1 point lead. Unless the other team scores, in which case they'll do whatever necessary to get back up by 1. - If the Chiefs are losing by 1 point late in the game, and they have the ball 4th and inches on the goalline, Chan will tell Brodie to fumble the snap and let the defense recover it. Then the other team will have the ball backed up on their 1 yard line, and Chan will cross his fingers that the Chiefs' defense can get a safety. I think it's a really revolutionary style of calling an offense. I'm excited to see it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.