GRETZ: The Conservative Approach
 

GRETZ: The Conservative Approach

Nov 21, 2007, 1:04:17 AM by Bob Gretz - FAQ


It was so predictable.

In the moments after the Chiefs loss at Indianapolis, the drumbeat started.

The Chiefs had been too conservative on offense. They had hamstrung Brodie Croyle in his first NFL start. They had not let the kid fling the ball around the yard.

And that’s why the Chiefs lost. This mantra started in the press box and then some of the boys in the locker room joined in, supposedly giving this point of view credibility.

Let me put it this way: one of the key reasons the Chiefs were a factor in the game was because they pulled in the offensive horns in for Croyle’s first start.

It’s the same thing that happened early in the 2006 season, when the Chiefs went to Denver and Damon Huard was making his first start, after Trent Green was injured. Everyone wrote the Chiefs off that day, but they went in, played great defense and kept a tight reign on the offense in a loud and hostile stadium.

The Chiefs went to overtime that day before losing. Against Indy, they went down to the final seconds before falling to a Colts field goal.

There were two situations that seem to have caused the most bellyaching amongst the second guessers. The first came late in the first half. The Chiefs got the ball at their own 23-yard line with one minute, 18 seconds to play and all three of their timeouts. They ran two running plays and went to the locker room tied 3-3.

Why not take a shot down the field? Why not go for it?

Because on the last offensive play before that possession, Croyle had been smacked by Robert Mathis of the Colts, fumbled and Indianapolis recovered the ball. That eventually provided them the opportunity to kick the field goal that tied the game. Plus, the Colts had a pair of timeouts remaining and they were going to get the ball to start the second half. Throw three passes, run no time off the clock and give Peyton Manning another chance before the half? That’s crazy talk.

Second situation came in the fourth quarter, with 7:41 to play and the Chiefs with a 3rd down-and-18 to go play. The Chiefs ran Kolby Smith and he gained two yards. They punted the ball away to the Colts.

Why not go for it? Let me count the ways. First, on the second down play, that leaky pass protection had again allowed a sack of Croyle. Two, 3rd-and-18 gets converted about eight percent of the time. Don’t believe me? This past weekend in the NFL, there were 37 third down plays where the distance to a first down was 15 yards or more. They ranged from 3rd-and-15 to 3rd-and-25.

Of those 37 plays, three were converted for first downs. That’s 8 percent.

The call on those plays was 29 passing/8 runs. The running plays averaged 7.1 yards per play. The passing plays (attempts plus sacks) averaged 4.4 yards per play.

No, the smart move is you punt the ball away and try to influence field position.

Why would anyone have expected the game plan to be anything but conservative? A young quarterback’s first start, on the road, in a loud hostile stadium, against a good defense and a team with an explosive offense, that’s the recipe for an offensive plan that leans towards the conservative.

Think of it this way: you send a child out on Halloween night for his first experience in trick or treating. He comes home with a bag full of candy. The child is allowed to sit down and eat as much candy as he can stuff in his mouth. Child gets very sick.

The Chiefs coaches were not going to give Croyle the whole bag of goodies. They are going to parcel them out and the young man gets his feet under him and his wits about him.

Understand that the idea is to give Croyle a chance to play. Put in a game plan that is aggressive and full of throwing the football means that Croyle will play for awhile. But with the poor pass protection provided by the current offensive line, that type of plan would eventually end with Croyle being carried off the field, and not in celebration.

Already, just one game into the Brodie Croyle Era and the fans, media and some of his offensive teammates are already grumbling.

Patience people. Patience.

Gretz is suck a ****ing douche.

Now that's funny!

I said the same thing about the game reminding me of the Denver game last year. The bottom like is when you play conservative the whole way, and that way gives you a shot at winning, the ONLY way you're gonna win and beat a better team on the road is WHEN YOU HAVE THE CANCE - ****ING TAKE IT!

Herm's proven twice that his way does NOT work. The Emperior hads no clothes Gretz - get a clue.

This is so frustrating. Gretz is a putz. The playcalling was fine until we ran out of time. Instead of running a sweep on 1st down midway through the 4th quarter with the pathetic blocking we have we could have ran a simple 5 yard out, quick slant or heck for that matter spread them out in 4 wides and run a draw. Any of these options would have been better than what we did.

Gretz = bent over taking it in the ass while I type what Carl tells me to type....

Good thing 99% of the Chiefs fans realize that Gretz is a blowhard for Carl and dont take this pathetic shit literal....

This is a horrible attempt to gloss over. He brings up the 3rd and 18 but totally ignores the 4th and 1!

I had no problem with the 3rd and 18, but I questioned the 4th and 1. Even though it was questionable, I wasn't too upset with not going for it.

However, how many ****ing draw plays did we run on 3rd and long? How many?

OK, we barely lost in Denver last year and barely lost in Indy this year. Do those go half way between the W and L collum? Are they counted as a half loss and a half win?

Okay - but the numbers (the 3rd and long stats) speak for themselves, don't they?

Are you talking about 4th and 1 at the Chiefs 46 with 13:25 to go in the game? That hardly seems like a normal "go for it" situation in a tie game.

http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...D_Gamebook.pdf


I think the most controversial decision was the series before the end of the 1st half. Gretz makes that seem like a no brainer to run out the half - but in reality it's not.

Agreed, if you read the rest of my post, I said I understood. But it would make a hell of a lot more sense to me, to go for 4th and 1, more than 3rd and 18. I think many successful coaches would have gone for that 4th and 1, in the 4th quarter, in a tie game.
As I said, I really had no serious problem with either instance. Just the draw plays on 3rd and long all day caused my some pain.

First: Croyle got smacked by Mathis because the Chiefs left Terry alone to defend him in a fairly obvious passing situation. With Freeney out, they should've been able to shift someone over to Terry's side to help out.

When you run in obvious running situations and pass in obvious passing situations, you give the defense an advantage when you're already disadvantaged on offense.

Next: Patience is fine. We are patient with Brodie. We expect mistakes. Many people are willing to sacrifice wins for player development. The furor over the Indy game isn't really that we lost, it's that we didn't try to win.

There's a difference, Gretz. Trying and failing is one thing. Not trying and failing is something completely different.

As I said yesterday, Herm's gameplan worked brilliantly, right up until the point where he failed to capitalize on it. He shortened the game down to the fourth quarter, then refused to take a shot at winning it. He just sat back and waited for the Colts to lose.

Yeah, 3rd and 18 is hard to convert. But the Chiefs were crippling themselves long before that with obvious, safe play calls that didn't attempt to keep the D off balance or force it to defend the entire field.

In the 4th quarter in a tie game, the Chiefs had three first-down plays. They were: run for loss, run for no gain, run for loss.

Why not call play action and throw deep? Hey, maybe you'll get a PI call. Yeah, Brodie might throw an INT or get sacked. But so what? We lost anyway. I'd rather lose trying to take a shot at winning late in the game than just stand there and wait for the Super Bowl champs to hand us a victory in their home.

Gretz is right.

Here's the irony -- critic that I am, I actually can understand that decision better, because of the field position.

Me? I probably would've gambled and tried to move the ball. But I think Herm's decision there is more defensible.

I understand the approach we took in the Colts game. It let us stay in a game we shouldn't have been in, and it was Croyle's 1st start.

But we now have 2 division games at home that we can win and be in place to get a home playoff game. Gonzalez and Bowe are our best offensive players. Croyle is far more effective than Huard in avoiding the rush. We have got to open it up at least a little bit at home in these 2 games.

Incredible. He actually uses 2 games in which they lost to defend the loss. Basically saying, "well, we lost the game but it was so close it doesn't count". Bullshit! I'd rather lose by 3 TDs than 3 points. If I've got a popgun offense going into Indy, I don't even dress my punter. Tell him, "sit your ass down today. We're gonna need lots of points so every series is 4 down territory".

Fire Bob Gretz.

Seriously, this is a clueless article. If they wanted to rein in the offense for most of the game as a strategy, whatever. I think it's stupid, but whatever.

But the issue is that they did it in the fourth quarter when it became apparent that one score was needed to win the game. We had one chance to win and the Colts had one chance to win, and we gave ours back.

You don't seem to understand, Herm accomplished everything he set out to do.

Herm's game plan was to keep the game close so that the Chiefs would have a chance to win in the fourth quarter. Play tough defense and don't turn the ball over. At the end of the fourth quarter, as Herm intended, the Chiefs had a chance to take the game.

He didn't say that he would TAKE that chance, only that he would HAVE a chance.

I hardly read Blob Gretz anymore. He's to predictable. We knew he was going to write an article just like this. it doesn't surprise me at all.
Gretz is as predictable as Herms offense.

Wow. When you put it like that, it all becomes crystal clear.

i wonder how much the Chiefs pay Gretz these days?

FYP.

found the 1%....

ROFL

Herm Edwards can be a winning coach for this team, but if the Chiefs do not win the AFC West this year, the sellout streak will end and there will be some home game blackouts.

Playing boring and frustating football and then playing crybaby in team propaganda and press conferences is a turn off for the ticket buying public.

If the Chiefs do not win 5 of the last six. Chiefs will have tough time selling out the Saints, Bucs, Bills, and Dolphins next year.

If they don't win this week I think they'll have a tough time selling out the next 5 games. People aren't taking this season very well.

**** you Bob Gretz you ass sucking lard tard.

The Chiefs only have three home games left.

lack of direction and suspect coaching will do that

ROFL

Gretz doesnt ****ing get it either. the 3rd and 18 draw didnt really bother me at that point. it was the 2 plays before that. T hey were HORRIBLE calls. Especially late in the 4th quarter. Who in their right minds wants to let Payton Manning dictate a football game at the end?

This is what pissed me off. you have one of the all time great QB's and your want to put the game in his hand? WHY?

Touche. Thanks dad.

Bob Gretz is the biggest suck ass there is. I am ready for them all to go. Lj, Herm, CeePee , Solari, Gunther.....Clark Hunt needs to just fire all the ****ers and let the fans know he actually gives a **** about this team.

This franchise has those 2 signs right now

Wow... Gretz has a little CP shit on his nose!

exactly ..... when Zouk and co talk about 3rd and long being such a terrible down for risk they are ignoring the real issue.


What got us to 3rd and long in the 1st place.....


when they talk about our balance .... how we run it 27 times and threw 27 passes, they ignore the types of runs and passes. They also ignore the order of the runs and passes.

a swing pass counts as pass but doesn't have the same effect as a pass.


They say we can't protect the passer so we can't throw the ball deep ...... well hell ya we have trouble protection the passer when everyone in the stadium knows we are going to throw it.



"Homer power and the misleading stat" should be the titled movie about the Chiefs.

Laz you should be a coach man. I enjoy reading your posts, you have good football knowledge.

They also don't tell you how many of those runs go for negative yards. It's all bullshit. Complete and utter ****ing bullshit. No other team goes into this kind of a shell cause they change QB's.

It's horse shit. Gretz and Herm call go suck each others' nut sacks.

that just made me laugh ROFL

You're right, Mr. RedBull. Mr. Laz has better vision and patience than any other poster on the Planet.

FAX

Let's remember that the worst play of the entire year occurred on a 1st and 10 deep-drop pass.


Kansas City Chiefs at 13:32
1-10-KC 20 (13:32) D.Huard sacked at KC 12 for -8 yards (E.Dumervil). FUMBLES (E.Dumervil)
[E.Dumervil], RECOVERED by DEN-N.Webster at KC 17. N.Webster for 17 yards,
TOUCHDOWN.


The blockers (not just the offensive line, but the tight ends and fullback as well) are making every play - run or pass - look awful right now. They threw 43 times and ran only 10 times against the Jags (which I'm sure was not what they expected) and still only scored 7 points. It's really hard to play call your way out of physical domination.

Everyone on this board is obsessed with homoerotic imagery.

Hey! Stick this post up your vaseline-soaked anus with a big pecker!!

FAX

every team has bad plays ..... the idea is too minimize those plays by good playcalling and good coaching.

minimizing those plays by not calling them is just silly ..... it's surrender.


btw - who chose these offensive lineman?

ROFL ROFL

it's so rude, it's hilarious.

You can't fix everything in 1 or 2 offseasons. Herm inherited a bottom 5 in the league defense, and an offense based around players over the age of 30. He chose to fix the defense first. 8 of the 11 starters on the D were brought in since Herm arrived. This offseason he will rip up the offense. There will be about 5 new offensive starters next year. He's already started the process with Croyle and Bowe. By next year I anticipate only 8-10 of the 45 players that will be active on gameday will have been on the team when Vermeil was coach. That means the team IS being re-built, and the process is not over yet.

Wow! Yikes! Happy Thanksgiving!
Send my best to you and yours.

I'm sorry, Mr. Messier. My apologies. I was just vamping there for a second. This whole Herm thing has, apparently, gotten the best of me. My most sincere good wishes for a safe, relaxing, and enjoyable holiday to you, as well.

May your bird be stuffed and your big yams mashed.

FAX

similiar? :hmmm:

There was only one thing I wanted out of this game, a confident new QB. Considering that people are thinking he's the next Favre if only his coach weren't holding him back, I'd consider that accompished.

It appears that the people who swore that they'd 'be patient' with Brodie actually meant they'd be OK with it if he threw 800 interceptions and got sacked 400 times. If he were developed with an eye to growing his confidence and protecting him from injury and no-win situations, well that patience went right out the window.

At some point you have to go and win the game. You can't just sit there and wait for them to give it to you. They don't want to. They are also trying to win the game themselves. The way the Colts changed things up and marched down the field eating up 7 minutes of clock was impressive. They wanted it so they went out and got it. The same way Denver threw that bomb to Javon Walker last year to beat us. These teams made adjustments to get the win. We kept it close and acted like that was all we came for.

Undoubtedly, you are correct, Mr. Baby Lee. Honestly, there's a part of me that agrees with your conclusion that we did, in fact, accomplish something on Sunday and that Herm's decisions make some sense if you accept his stated rationale.

There's another part of me that thinks you may be a tad too forgiving with Herm, though. What Sunday's game demonstrated is that, at least in this case, Herm's has a strong tendency to not allow his offense to even attempt to win the game in crunch time. For my part, I never questioned Croyle's confidence. Frankly, I believe there really isn't any need to. He's not a china doll or some prima-donna. He's been through some bloody wars in his college career and he's won more than his share of those battles.

Can you not agree that, at least, the possibility exists that just maybe Herm might be using the "we must protect the quarterback's fragile mind and emotions" mantra to veil his decisions not to make a valid, realistic attempt for a first down in critical game situations?

FAX

i think i love you

Every situation is no-win if the coach will not allow the player to even attempt to be successful. Success builds confidence, failure teaches lessons, not trying accomplishes nothing.

Exactly! Herm sucks because THIS TEAM SHOULD BE BETTER THAN THIS!

We should be at least 6-4. I understand having to be patient, but i think Herm has been to patient to the point where it hurts the team.

Again, WHY do you want to put the game in the hands of Payton Manning? Thats a Duh George call.

I think Herm has less influence on playcalling than we think. I think he pretty much gives his offensive coaches autonomy, and they do what they want. I'd blame Solari more than Herm. I guess we'll see what happens if Solari is fired and they bring in someone new.

Raye or Hackett?

The name I heard was neither Raye nor Hackett.

BTW, Solari was forced on Herm by Carl, IMO.

and when solari calls a passing play on 3 and long then Herm chews Solari's ass because the QB got sacked?




you can bet after that happens a few times solari gets the message to just call a draw play.

Interesting, Mr. GoChiefs. Teicher (sp?) voiced the exact opposite opinion in his radio interview yesterday. He said that Solari is definitely constrained by Herm. He underlined this point by saying that Saunders would fare no better under Herm.

I'm not saying that he's right, mind you. Also, I'm fully aware that the oline does limit offensive flexibility and potency. However, I remain convinced that, were our playcalling just a tad more innovative and unpredictable, it would help the oline. Also, there's no question that a more mobile quarterback would have helped.

You're right that Solari may be fired, but at this point, I'd have to say that, if he is, it will be a sacrifice to the media/fans more than anything else.

FAX

See we can agree on something. There is hope for you yet.

Herm is not the one telling Solari to call a Draw every 2nd down.

Herm is not telling Solari to throw only WR quick hits.

Herm is not telling Solari to keep smashing the ball up the middle for none yards.

Solari was forced onto Herm by Carl.

Carl wanted to salavage the DV offense.

Carl wanted Huard cause he is too chicken shit to re-build.

Herm is the head coach though and either he is taking the knife for CeePee or he is a complete and utter dumb ass for allowing this shit to continue.

Teicher says a lot of stuff. He's always pretty anti-Chiefs.

People gave Vermeil a free pass when Robinson was here, and pretty much thought Robinson was the big problem with the defense. For all purposes, Herm appears to know as much about offense as Dick did about defense. I think Herm deserves the same chance Vermeil got with his coordinators.

Unless, of course, Herm shows the same reeruned vote of confidence in Solari that Dick did in Robinson.

Teicher is a dumb ass. He is the same guy who one week said we need to start Croyle and the next week said it was a bad move cause we were starting Croyle.

He knows dick about football.

Teicher (sp?) may well be "anti-Chiefs" (you would know better than I), but he appears both knowledgeable and frank, to me.

I agree with what you're saying about Herms coordinators, though. Any coach deserves to make improvements in the coaching staff wherever he sees fit. Personally, I think this is more of a "philosophy" issue than and "xs and os" issue, however. You can hire the most intelligent and innovative OC of all times, but if the HC's philosophy is to let your defense win the games, you're wasting time and talent in that position.

FAX

He echoed my feelings yesterday, Mr. petegz28.

So, I like him.

FAX

What do you expect? The guy probably hasn't ever played a down of football.

not even ...... he's the guy that fully supported the company line when the chiefs put Bennett at running back and sign Tony Richardson for to a starting RB.

unless he's changed lately he's pretty much always been a company man.

So? You don't have to of had to play football to be knowledgable.


I mean griping one day that we need to start Croyle then griping one week later when people do what you said needed to be done really takes your credibility down several hundred notches.

Teicher is a drama queen.

I respect your views on the guy, Mr. petegz28. I am not at all familiar with Teicher (sp?) and his past articles or remarks and not to drag out the point, but he said yesterday that his gripe was with the "timing" associated with Croyle's start. He thought they should have started him sooner.

FAX

To common onlooker, one will generalize certain plays without diagnosing/recognizing routes/quick reads ect... I use to play QB, and thus I know what to look for in that aspect.

Yes he did say that. Then he said we are hurting Croyle by starting him now.


So as I said we did what he said he thought we should do one week after he said it and he griped cause we did it.