Running Game ??
 

Where was the running game that keeps the defense off balance and opens up the passing game.

It was getting stuffed by Oak's big, dominant, backup defensive tackles.:rolleyes:

The Rams do it the other way around. Set up the run with the pass. We need to work on our whole offense. It'll come.

nmt1,

I got that Run/Pass thing backwards, thanks for correcting me.

No problem, Bull.;)

I think it will happen eventually though.

I was wondering the same thing.

THIRTEEN RB totes? That's it?! wtf? :mad:

Holmes rips off a 7-8 yard gash, then sits. Did we bring Marty back?

I was not impressed with our O - not one bit. Our QB and receivers were way out of sync. we never even <i>tried</i> to establish a rushing attack. Only thing we did right was protect the passer.

If not for a good defensive performance (good, not great - we gave up 327 net passing yards :rolleyes: ), we get blown out.

We MUST establish a running game.

We're trying to make up for all those years that we ran 4x more than we passed.:D

In preseason we were not able to run the ball from the 2 TE set, this is an okay lineup for short yardage, but is awful for anything longer then a yard because everyone is packed into the area that you want to run. The LB's are in tight, the Safety's are in tight, and generally speaking the defense is not spread thin anywhere. The sooner the coaching staff sees this the better off we will be.

At least the one thing about this coaching staff is I expect them to learn what things work and what doesn't.

Morphius
Feeling better this morning.

when will one rb be allowed to run it 25 times? Why is this taboo?

The simple answer is this: if you want a good running game, you need a good RB. And we don't have one.

Check James and Dillons stats, even Ahman Green. Good RBs make good running games.

CP (are you listening crapfan?) has duped us again with mediocre talent at RB. This is undeniable.

IMO Holmes is that guy. When given the opportunity, he proved it (Baltimore: 1000 yd season at nearly 5ypc)

We gave Priest SEVEN carries.

TRich: SIX

We never even tried to run it.

Can:

The point of this offense is to use the pass to set up the run. We couldn't pass consistently well so our plan was pretty much shot. The whole thing was out of sync.

sorry, if Holmes had great talent, do you think DV would keep him on the bench?

RB talent is obvious. Denver RBs have it, Colts have it, Saints have it, Bungles have it, Atlanta has it,....

Holmes had 1 good season(not a 1200 or 1400 yard season).

I think DV(contrary to public statements) doesn't believe in Holmes. Faulk NEVER SAT ON THE BENCH, EVER.

We suffered from 2 problems yesterday:

1) Our backs did not get enough totes. PERIOD. No flow, no rhythm...

2) Our run blocking was HORRIBLE in the preseason and it's HORRIBLE now...

As for the sitting on the bench, that's a bogus line of thinking. NONE of our backs got carries. Holmes was on the field, not on the bench, we just threw the ball every down...

I'm not trying to argue Holmes' talent. Haven't seen enough of him to know if he's is talented or not.
My point is, we are going to be passing more than running this year. It's just going to be that way. I actually find it refreshing after watching ten years of running backs being implanted in Tim Grunhard's butt.:p

agreed our run blocking is bad, and our O scheme was lopsided, but the simple point is this: Holmes isn't talented enough(I mean he is o.k., but that's it: just o.k.) If he is more talented, than DV is blind.

I trust DV on this. I think the game plan showed a lack of confidence in Holmes

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.

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.:)

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:

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:

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.

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.

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?

What running game?
 

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

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.

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.

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.

Broncos sign Anderson
 

What about Olandis?

Imbalance...
 

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

We have that back on our roster. His name is Derrick Blaylock. Why do you think we need to acquire a "new" back when we haven't seen what the ones we have can do? That doesn't make sense.

Another stinkin' Bronco?
 

Gaz:

You're right on the money. Where the he!! were the screen passes and passes to backs in the flat? I think they only tried one screen (almost picked off by a DL) and one to Priest in the flat for not much.
Maybe our oline is just not that good.

Can,
Our backs were getting stuffed in the backfield a lot. Their safeties and linebackers were cheating up to the line of scrimmage. You can't run against 8 and 9 man fronts. Even when they didn't stack the LOS, our offensive line didn't seem to run block very well. That has been something DV has talked about all preseason. They need to improve on that. Now, that being said, you loosen up a defense that stacks the LOS by passing. Green wasn't accurate and the wide receivers weren't getting open. The Raiders didn't respect the passing game and we didn't give them much reason to respect it. Hopefully, the next time these teams meet in December, Trent and his receivers will have their timing down a little bettter. This offense was just out of sync. I expect it to improve a lot over the course of this season. This is only the first game, don't bail on the team yet. I was kinda disappointed to not see more creativity in the offense. Also, was it just me or did the defense stop blitzing as much in the 2nd half? It seemed as though they laid back and allowed Oakland to pick us apart.
As far as Priest Holmes, hold your judgement on him until the season is over. I think he'll be a good one.

Hate to say it, but after that first game, it looks like the RB should have come from SF. Garner looked fast and he was surehanded. Oh well.. here's to hoping Sunday was the aberation and not the norm.

- Mark

You can't blame Holmes for his performance yesterday, plain and simple..

The o-line looked terrible...

Parker,

I can blame him for the dropped pass early in the first quarter. He should have had that.

- Mark

What game were you watching? That ball was WAY above his head...yes, he could have caught it, but it would have been a great catch with no help from Green...

Parker,

Sorry to bring this up again and make too much over one play (perhaps), but..

I just watched the play over and over again. The pass was fine. It bounced off Holmes's fingers as he was looking at where to run next, not concentraiting on catching the ball. Too bad too, that looked to be a BIG gainer. One guy had a chance to tackle him but with Priest's speed he could probably have made ALOT of yards. It would have been a GOOD catch, certainly not a GREAT catch. It was thrown to him in stride and if he hadn't tried to catch it, it would have likely sailed right next to his helmet. He didn't even have to extend his arm. Shoulda had that.

The slip on the preceeding play wasn't as bad as it first looked, but it did seem like he ran into his own player.

By no means am I discounting Holmes's ability (and the rest of the offense) to rebound, but let's be honest. He gets a C for his performance yesterday. Meanwhile, Garner looks like a big addition for the Raiders. I wasn't afraid of Napolean, but Charlie scares me when he is in the ballgame.

- Mark

Garner? Other than one catch, he didn't look any better than Holmes...

Maybe we should give the back the ball 20 time in a game. Thats what the problem is. Look at all the top rushers for the week, they all start slow, 7 for 21 yards is not uncommon. If he breaks on for 25 then the average looks good. Give them the damn ball.


Hoover

Bingo, Hoover...

Why are some of you guys already talking about getting a new running back? I mean this was just one game out of 16. Yes we lost but only by 3 points to the so called best in the west. And we would have won that game if Todd (I couldn't hit a 5 yarder if my life depended on it) Peterson. Priest didn't get the ball so he never really had a chance. The offensive line just was not playing well. You can bet on it that they'll be ready for Seattle. Oh and are there any centers out there that we could pick up until Casey gets back. Talk about costing us the game.

Being the Monday Morning QB...
 

I see the problem as a combination of things already mentioned...

1. <B>Run-blocking stunk.</B> Raider front 7 may have "forced that hand" initially, but the offense <I>has</I> to dictate the terms of battle and retain the initiative; otherwise all is lost. Honestly think Saunders/Green tried to adapt with some screens to back Raiders off LOS, but failed. Once it failed, they essentially abandoned the run. Hoping Wiegman's return will help.

2. Green did have a lousy day; O-line gave him all the time in the world, and he still missed receivers. Consistently tried to force ball into coverage all day...was lucky to not get picked several times (still remember him trying to jam it into DA with Raider all over him).

Better synch w/receivers = more completions = stretching D = set up run = defense guessing.

kcchiefs2001,

Take it with a grain of salt. These are some of the same guys that were annointing Trent Green as the savior after a good preseason game.

IMO, the reason we didn't run the ball effectively, is because we COULDN'T get into a rythm. We were going 3 and out alot, and we could not move the ball against their Dline. So it wasn't a matter that we didn't give Holmes a chance, but we didn't have the chance because we were always on our heels because are passing game barely worked, and they were ready for the run.

Oh well, I'm still optimistic.