ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Q&A with Chan Gailey - 5/27 (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=185243)

Micjones 05-28-2008 01:09 PM

As long as he hangs 6's on the board and can adjust...
I'll be happy with Gailey.

rtmike 05-28-2008 01:22 PM

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

redbrian 05-28-2008 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buehler445 (Post 4770360)
Dude, no. You should be trying to score a touchdown every posession. If your defense makes 1 stop, you can't be defeated. There should be no posession in which it is OK not to score a touchdown. If you are running out the clock, you just run instead of pass for it.

The rest of the paragraph is OK, but that one more point BS screams Herm, and it is bullshit. If nothing else, it should be capitalize on every opportunity afforded us by the defense.

I know I'm overreacting to one statement, but I don't care. SCORE TOUCHDOWNS:cuss:

take a deep breath, he does not mean literally he only wants to score 1 more point than the other team, its just a statement that you need to score 1 more point than the other side and you will win…..now that 1 point could in reality be 1 or more touchdown……..

Buehler445 05-28-2008 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redbrian (Post 4771814)
take a deep breath, he does not mean literally he only wants to score 1 more point than the other team, its just a statement that you need to score 1 more point than the other side and you will win…..now that 1 point could in reality be 1 or more touchdown……..

I know. And if you look at my quote, I said I know I'm overreacting. But for once I want a coach to say he wants to dominate someone's soul. Every coach wants to win. But in order to do so, you've got to want to dominate, not just win.

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.

FAX 05-28-2008 09:38 PM

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

beach tribe 05-28-2008 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buehler445 (Post 4772321)
I know. And if you look at my quote, I said I know I'm overreacting. But for once I want a coach to say he wants to dominate someone's soul. Every coach wants to win. But in order to do so, you've got to want to dominate, not just win.

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.

Through all Gunthers faults, I still like him because he DOES want to do those things you speak of. Herm on the other hand, will have a hard time convincing me that he has a killer instinct. Every game that I remember Herm coaching was a slow nail biter, that he either, won, or lost in the final minutes. I have to put my faith in Gailey to bring that. He's got to be better than those loser OC that were in NY. What were their names? Hmmmmmm?

Pasta Little Brioni 05-28-2008 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe (Post 4772630)
Through all Gunthers faults, I still like him because he DOES want to do those things you speak of. Herm on the other hand, will have a hard time convincing me that he has a killer instinct. Every game that I remember Herm coaching was a slow nail biter, that he either, won, or lost in the final minutes. I have to put my faith in Gailey to bring that. He's got to be better than those loser OC that were in NY. What were their names? Hmmmmmm?

Hey we did smoke the Niners at Arrowhead under herm. outside of that i can't remember another team that we just buried.

cdcox 05-28-2008 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 4771424)
Which was exactly Herm's point last week and he got blasted for it.

Baltimore and Atlanta KNEW we were running the ball, and they STILL couldn't stop it.

Yes. The ability to run at will with complete disregard for the pass happened two times (maybe a few more) over the course of 5 NFL seasons featuring one of the most prolific rushing attacks in NFL history.

Therefore it's all about execution and scheme, strategey and mis-matches mean nothing.

Micjones 05-29-2008 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX (Post 4772584)
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

That's what worries me about Herman Edwards.
He just doesn't seem to be striving for excellence.
That instills the wrong message in these young guys.

RustShack 05-29-2008 01:38 AM

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.

BigRock 05-29-2008 03:20 AM

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.

Frosty 05-29-2008 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 4772847)
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.

Well, the Chiefs could score 5 field goals while holding the other team to two TD's. :)

milkman 05-29-2008 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arc (Post 4772933)
Well, the Chiefs could score 5 field goals while holding the other team to two TD's. :)

Or score two FGs while holding the other team to one, and giving up a safety.

keg in kc 05-29-2008 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 4774349)
Or score two FGs while holding the other team to one, and giving up a safety.

Or score one, while holding the other team to a safety.


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.