Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcox
The 4th-and-1 argument was introduced to this thread by a Herm supporter.
|
It was introduced because I actually thought there might be a point to Fringe blabbering his "risk management" crap. Silly me for thinking he meant some specific decision Herm made during the game, and not the completely vague "playing not to lose" BS that keeps getting thrown out like some catchy buzzword that no one can seem to explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcox
The real argument is that the entire 2nd half was played from a play-not-to-lose perspective.
|
I see this question has already been asked and ignored, but please, do explain in what way.
On the Chiefs' opening drive of the game, they marched 96 yards for a touchdown. What revolutionary offensive strategy did they break out to accomplish that feat? They ran it some, Thigpen scrambled here and there, and they threw some short passes. I don't think Thigpen threw a ball farther than 10 yards the entire way. A couple receptions went for 10+ yards, but it was yards after catch.
Tell me what drastic, fundamental change took place in the way they ran the offense in the second half. Give me tangible evidence of Herm forcing some kind of change on the way they were operating.
You can't because there isn't any. They were still throwing those passes. They were still running the ball. Thigpen still scrambled. It didn't work as well. Throws were off, catches weren't made, runs didn't go for as many yards.
A case can certainly be made for Gailey not adjusting well, but that's an entirely different discussion. The topic at hand boils down to little more than "Mommy, the offense isn't moving the ball anymore! WHY DID HERM TELL THEM TO STOP GETTING YARDS?"
That is literally the dumbest interpretation possible, and it's being made by a guy who's all over this thread talking about what other people don't know or don't understand.
IRONY~!