I've been saying it, Tom Brady just said, the Chiefs need to start doing it.

[CoMoChief]

I just said earlier in a previous post that the object of the game on offense is to score touchdowns EVERY TIME YOU HAVE THE BALL.

Tom Brady just said in a post game interview that Belichick tells his players to try and do that and that's pretty much why they are scoring 40 points a game.

There isn't anything wrong with scoring a lot of points. Herm for whatever reason thinks otherwise and which is why he's the biggest dumbass in professional football as far as game management goes. People say that you put your defense on the field too much and they get tired and teams will score on you making it a shootout.

Bullshit.

You can lead the league in offense and still control the ball. We did that all the time in the DV/AS era. You can also play defense and stop people from scoring. Defense is a totally different part of the game which means scoring points doesn't mean shit about how your team plays defense. The Pats play both great defense and great offense. Chiefs coaches need to at least try to score as much as humanly possible, as opposed to drawing up plays that STRICTLY prohibit anyone on offense from advancing past the first down marker.

Herm says the magic number was 21, then he changed it to 24.

**** that. Let's air it out and run off of our passing game (since the other way around is NOT working worth a shit) and let's score 34 points a game.

[Oh Snap]

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

Definitely a thin line between 4-6 and 6-4. We're on that line now.

thats probably more realistic... But aside from the jags game, we have been in every game this year...Who knows what could have happened if we would have just opened it up?

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Anyone who thinks Herm doesn't want to score pts is a ****ing moron. Plain and simple. His job is to win and you need to score to do that.

He just doesn't think it's REALISTIC to expect us to score around 30 pts a game. And he's right, we can't.

We didn't need 30 points yesterday. We needed one more touchdown. We had two chances, after just having scored one, and we deferred to the Colts both times.

I guess I'm a ****ing moron, but I don't think his primary objective on those two drives was to score points. His primary concern was to not turn the ball over, and was to make the Colts drive the length of the field in hopes of getting a turnover so we could kick a field goal. If we happened to break a screen or dive and get into field goal range on offense, it would have been even better. After all, he basically said that in his postgame.

We would have been better off if the Colts had scored early in the 4th, because that's when we want to score. His job, in his eyes, is to give the team a chance to win at the end. If we're losing, he wants to get the score close again. If we're tied or winning, he wants the offense to give the defense the best chance to win, with no turnovers and field position.