My take on the game... - Page 2

voyager · 09-09-2001, 05:54 PM

The Raiders seemed to play with more confidence. They also had a much better running game than the Chiefs. The return by the Raiders at the end of the game turned the momentum of the game to the Raiders. You have to keep the Raiders inside their own 40-yd. line on the return. The Chiefs outplayed the Raiders the whole game and lose on poor special-teams play. That includes the missed FG by Peterson. I think the Chiefs can still win 10 games this year, but this was a hard loss to take when you are up by 11 pts. in the second half.

KCTitus · 09-10-2001, 08:15 AM

Although I dont think it's been said yet, KC still got burned by the short passes to the backs out of the back field or the short TE route.

It was amazing how often this happened, I knew it was coming, so I must assume that the defense knew it was coming.

KC's D played well considering they tired at the end...they were on the field way too long. The Offense was in disarray. Green was overthrowing the receivers and the running game was non-existent. The passing game didnt show any crossing routes or any passes to the backs out of the back field.

If, and that's a BIG IF, Oakland is truly a SB contender, I guess Im pretty happy about KC's overall play. They played close and led a good portion of the game.

The loss to Oakland at home once again hurts, but it was not totally unexpected.

HC_Chief · 09-10-2001, 08:20 AM

I can't believe no one has listed PLAY CALLING as a problem!

We never even tried to establish a running game. Our RBs (TRich and Holmes) combined for thirteen carries.

I know someone is going to say "well, the OLine takes the longest to gel..." - that may be true, but it does not mean you should concede that portion of your offensive attack!

All we heard during the offseason was "we're going to attack the D... if they stack the line, we'll light them up through the air, if they drop their safeties, we'll run the ball down their throats"

Well, I saw raider safeties playing deep - back trying to help on Gonzo and Alexander. I've seen comments re: Trent throwing into double/triple coverage - those second and third players were safeties. So where was the "we'll run the ball down their throats" portion of the O!?

nmt1 · 09-10-2001, 08:23 AM

This quote has me a little worried b/c it sounds a bit like denial.

From Vermeil's post game press conference via KCChiefs.com:
VERMEIL: "He was 16 for 37 and I know he's better than that. Their coverage was very good and we had a hard time shaking our receivers clean on certain things. Overall, I thought the pass protection was pretty good. For us to win, our receivers have to separate better and when they do separate make those plays. I don't know if it was (Green) as much as the Raider defense."

It wasn't all the receivers' fault. Maybe I'm not reading this right.

**morphius** · 09-10-2001, 08:43 AM

First off we have to improve our ST coverages, we allowed some great Field Position to the Radiers after scores. It is so much easier to stop a dink and dunk offese when they have to go the entire length of the field. Here the Raiders might have been advantaged by knowing our ST Coach a little too well.

Those two fumbled snaps killed us, it allowed Oakland to get good field position on one and on the other killed a drive that was in FG range. The same can be said about Peterson's missed FG. I'm hoping there was some first game jitters with Waters and he is able to concentrate more on it in the future and I don't expect to see it happen twice for the rest of the season. Peterson was a good kicker in Seatle, so I hope we don't see many more misses from him.

I said it yesterday, the attacking D was fun to watch and you can expect a D like that to give up a couple big plays. They were on the field way to long since the O was not able to pass or run the ball with any effectiveness. Might explain why they were less active later in the game.

Holmes started off bad, slipped on the first run and then droped a bullseye on the the run on the next play. Then later cost us a timeout late in the game, could have been used to stop the clock to allow for an attempted last drive. I don't expect another game this bad from him. TRich played okay out of the back field and had a great TD run, but as far as running he didn't do much either. We have to start spreading the D out, the old coaches never learned this, I hope these guys are able to.

**morphius** · 09-10-2001, 08:52 AM

(to continue)

Green had some balls dropped, many of which killed drives. We found ourselves in third and long WAY to often, which makes it that much harder to get the ball out there. He did make some bad reads, as he did in preseason, that kind of worry me, especially those throws into tripple teams. I figure the coaching staff new what they were doing when we brought him in, so I have faith he can play better then yesterday.

Their kicking game was perfect, Hall never even had a chance to return anything except on the last drive but he was swarmed. I don't understand the squib kicks to Dunn, but only one of those hurt them. The Raiders DL got way to much penetration and blew up the run, maybe their DL is that good.

Overall I say we have a lot to work on, but I still have more faith in this group of coaches to fix the problems then I did the old group. Lets get our first win next week and see where we can go from there.

HC_Chief · 09-10-2001, 10:23 AM

don't understand the squib kicks to Dunn

I do: Dunn has shown a propesnsity to fumble. The Oakland coaches did their homework... fortunately for us, he did not put the ball on the ground.

**Tribal Warfare** · 09-10-2001, 01:20 PM

This is my take on the game

[list][*]The defense had an excellent game, but tired at the end[*]The offense didn't get into a cohesive rhythm[*]Trent Green and Minnis are keepers[*] The WR's ran the wrong routes , because of the new system[*] Doug Peterson choked, and the STs had critical blunders in the second half. [/list]

HC_Chief · 09-10-2001, 01:22 PM

I agree... except our (hopefully soon to be ex-) kicker is TODD Peterson :p

hehehe

Ethelyn · 09-10-2001, 01:23 PM

Are we talking about the "backup" tight end - Jason Dunn?

HC_Chief · 09-10-2001, 01:24 PM

Ethelyn - why didn't Mikhael start? We saw a lot of Dunn early, no Ricks.

**Tribal Warfare** · 09-10-2001, 01:28 PM

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ethelyn [/i]
[B]Are we talking about the "backup" tight end - Jason Dunn? [/B][/QUOTE]

Ethelyn, I'm not sure how many plays Mikhael was in on, but most of the WRs did run the wrong routes.

Ethelyn · 09-10-2001, 02:07 PM

I don' t think that DV ever perceived that Mikhael would start, and I guess it depends on the kinds of formations that they use as to when Mikhael plays. But I was utterly shocked, because he played on special teams also.

I know that in training camp, he blocked a kick, but I'm not so sure about anything else.

voyager · 09-10-2001, 07:18 PM

After further analyzing the game, I am convinced the Chiefs should have won the game. Yes, the Raiders are one of the top 5 teams in the AFC, but the Chiefs had the game in hand and lost it. I thought the defense played well for 3 qtrs and tired in the 4th qtr. The offense played poorly for the most part. There was no rushing game. The play calling was not that good. Special teams' play was bad again. The two fumbled snaps hurt a lot.

In spite of the Raider advantage in numbers on offense, I still thought the Chiefs had control of the game until the critical 4th qtr. Many are happy the Chiefs lost by only 3 pts., but I contend the Chiefs need to win games at home when leading by 11 pts. in the second half if they want to get to the playoffs. Vermiel has got to be upset and stunned by the Raider game. The players did not step up when the game was on the line, except for the TD pass to Minnis inside of 2 minutes to go in the game.

**Baby Lee** · 09-10-2001, 07:28 PM

Re - tiring on D

What everyone's thought? I am convinced that Raiders have a good running attack and our performance there gives me confidence that we can [that is [i]can[/i]] play good run D on most all the teams we face.

But was that the best passing attack we'll see? We made Gannon, Brown and Rice look pretty good in the second half. Will we hold our own against the greasy donkeys? Will the Colts rip a new one? Luckily, we don't face [i]all[/i] of the passing powerhouses, NO, St.L., SF, GB, MN.

On the defense, what is the assessment of our pass D considering our opponents and when we meet them?

voyager · 09-11-2001, 02:56 AM

After watching the Raider game, the Chiefs may have a lot of trouble against any team that has a good passing game. The CBs on the Chiefs can be thrown against, especially when the Chiefs don't get much of a pass rush.

The key for the Chiefs will be to establish a running game...100+ yds. per game...and control the clock so the defense doesn't have to be on the field so much. They also need to rush the passer more effectively so the CBs don't have so much pressure on them. They also need to score at least 27 pts. per game.

I bet Vermiel thought he had the Raiders in check with an 11 pt. lead in the second half. His frustration level was probably very high after the game. Get used to it, Mr. Vermiel. Chiefs' fans have endured this frustration level for years.

Whether Marty, Gunther, or Vermiel...the Chiefs' problems on the field seem to be an ongoing thing. The Chiefs just cannot finish a "winnable" game. Is it talent level or lack of heart that is costing the Chiefs these games?

09-09-2001, 05:54 PM
voyager Go Chiefs! Join Date: Apr 2001 Casino cash: $10004900	My take on the game... The Raiders seemed to play with more confidence. They also had a much better running game than the Chiefs. The return by the Raiders at the end of the game turned the momentum of the game to the Raiders. You have to keep the Raiders inside their own 40-yd. line on the return. The Chiefs outplayed the Raiders the whole game and lose on poor special-teams play. That includes the missed FG by Peterson. I think the Chiefs can still win 10 games this year, but this was a hard loss to take when you are up by 11 pts. in the second half.
Posts: 23

09-10-2001, 08:15 AM	#16
KCTitus Archivist Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: The Ethernet Casino cash: $9882732	Although I dont think it's been said yet, KC still got burned by the short passes to the backs out of the back field or the short TE route. It was amazing how often this happened, I knew it was coming, so I must assume that the defense knew it was coming. KC's D played well considering they tired at the end...they were on the field way too long. The Offense was in disarray. Green was overthrowing the receivers and the running game was non-existent. The passing game didnt show any crossing routes or any passes to the backs out of the back field. If, and that's a BIG IF, Oakland is truly a SB contender, I guess Im pretty happy about KC's overall play. They played close and led a good portion of the game. The loss to Oakland at home once again hurts, but it was not totally unexpected. __________________ Anything you post on this BB can and will be used against you...
Posts: 26,199

09-10-2001, 08:20 AM	#17
HC_Chief That's just f***in' stupid Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: suburbia Casino cash: $3687107	I can't believe no one has listed PLAY CALLING as a problem! We never even <i>tried</i> to establish a running game. Our RBs (TRich and Holmes) <i>combined</i> for thirteen carries. I know someone is going to say "well, the OLine takes the longest to gel..." - that may be true, but it does not mean you should <b>concede</b> that portion of your offensive attack! All we heard during the offseason was "we're going to attack the D... if they stack the line, we'll light them up through the air, if they drop their safeties, we'll run the ball down their throats" Well, I saw raider safeties playing deep - back trying to help on Gonzo and Alexander. I've seen comments re: Trent throwing into double/triple coverage - those second and third players were safeties. So where was the "we'll run the ball down their throats" portion of the O!? __________________ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Posts: 12,355

09-10-2001, 08:23 AM	#18
nmt1 Veteran Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	This quote has me a little worried b/c it sounds a bit like denial. From Vermeil's post game press conference via KCChiefs.com: VERMEIL: "He was 16 for 37 and I know he's better than that. Their coverage was very good and we had a hard time shaking our receivers clean on certain things. Overall, I thought the pass protection was pretty good. For us to win, our receivers have to separate better and when they do separate make those plays. I don't know if it was (Green) as much as the Raider defense." It wasn't all the receivers' fault. Maybe I'm not reading this right.
Posts: 1,735

09-10-2001, 08:43 AM	#19
morphius World's finest morphius Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $5725027	First off we have to improve our ST coverages, we allowed some great Field Position to the Radiers after scores. It is so much easier to stop a dink and dunk offese when they have to go the entire length of the field. Here the Raiders might have been advantaged by knowing our ST Coach a little too well. Those two fumbled snaps killed us, it allowed Oakland to get good field position on one and on the other killed a drive that was in FG range. The same can be said about Peterson's missed FG. I'm hoping there was some first game jitters with Waters and he is able to concentrate more on it in the future and I don't expect to see it happen twice for the rest of the season. Peterson was a good kicker in Seatle, so I hope we don't see many more misses from him. I said it yesterday, the attacking D was fun to watch and you can expect a D like that to give up a couple big plays. They were on the field way to long since the O was not able to pass or run the ball with any effectiveness. Might explain why they were less active later in the game. Holmes started off bad, slipped on the first run and then droped a bullseye on the the run on the next play. Then later cost us a timeout late in the game, could have been used to stop the clock to allow for an attempted last drive. I don't expect another game this bad from him. TRich played okay out of the back field and had a great TD run, but as far as running he didn't do much either. We have to start spreading the D out, the old coaches never learned this, I hope these guys are able to.
Posts: 26,023

09-10-2001, 08:52 AM	#20
morphius World's finest morphius Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $5725027	(to continue) Green had some balls dropped, many of which killed drives. We found ourselves in third and long WAY to often, which makes it that much harder to get the ball out there. He did make some bad reads, as he did in preseason, that kind of worry me, especially those throws into tripple teams. I figure the coaching staff new what they were doing when we brought him in, so I have faith he can play better then yesterday. Their kicking game was perfect, Hall never even had a chance to return anything except on the last drive but he was swarmed. I don't understand the squib kicks to Dunn, but only one of those hurt them. The Raiders DL got way to much penetration and blew up the run, maybe their DL is that good. Overall I say we have a lot to work on, but I still have more faith in this group of coaches to fix the problems then I did the old group. Lets get our first win next week and see where we can go from there.
Posts: 26,023

09-10-2001, 10:23 AM	#21
HC_Chief That's just f***in' stupid Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: suburbia Casino cash: $3687107	<i> don't understand the squib kicks to Dunn</i> I do: Dunn has shown a propesnsity to fumble. The Oakland coaches did their homework... fortunately for us, he did not put the ball on the ground. __________________ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Posts: 12,355

09-10-2001, 01:20 PM	#22
Tribal Warfare Man of Culture Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Far Beyond Comprehension Casino cash: $-3007187	This is my take on the game [list][]The defense had an excellent game, but tired at the end[]The offense didn't get into a cohesive rhythm[]Trent Green and Minnis are keepers[] The WR's ran the wrong routes , because of the new system[] Doug Peterson choked, and the STs had critical blunders in the second half. [/list] __________________ Last edited by Tribal Warfare; 09-10-2001 at 01:23 PM..*
Posts: 43,454

09-10-2001, 01:22 PM	#23
HC_Chief That's just f***in' stupid Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: suburbia Casino cash: $3687107	I agree... except our (hopefully soon to be ex-) kicker is TODD Peterson :p hehehe __________________ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Posts: 12,355

09-10-2001, 01:23 PM	#24
Ethelyn Starter Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Houston Casino cash: $10004900	Are we talking about the "backup" tight end - Jason Dunn? __________________ Ethelyn L.
Posts: 208

09-10-2001, 01:24 PM	#25
HC_Chief That's just f***in' stupid Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: suburbia Casino cash: $3687107	Ethelyn - why didn't Mikhael start? We saw a lot of Dunn early, no Ricks. __________________ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Posts: 12,355

09-10-2001, 01:28 PM	#26
Tribal Warfare Man of Culture Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Far Beyond Comprehension Casino cash: $-3007187	[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ethelyn [/i] [B]Are we talking about the "backup" tight end - Jason Dunn? [/B][/QUOTE] Ethelyn, I'm not sure how many plays Mikhael was in on, but most of the WRs did run the wrong routes. __________________
Posts: 43,454

09-10-2001, 02:07 PM	#27
Ethelyn Starter Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Houston Casino cash: $10004900	I don' t think that DV ever perceived that Mikhael would start, and I guess it depends on the kinds of formations that they use as to when Mikhael plays. But I was utterly shocked, because he played on special teams also. I know that in training camp, he blocked a kick, but I'm not so sure about anything else. __________________ Ethelyn L.
Posts: 208

09-10-2001, 07:18 PM	#28
voyager Go Chiefs! Join Date: Apr 2001 Casino cash: $10004900	After further analyzing the game, I am convinced the Chiefs should have won the game. Yes, the Raiders are one of the top 5 teams in the AFC, but the Chiefs had the game in hand and lost it. I thought the defense played well for 3 qtrs and tired in the 4th qtr. The offense played poorly for the most part. There was no rushing game. The play calling was not that good. Special teams' play was bad again. The two fumbled snaps hurt a lot. In spite of the Raider advantage in numbers on offense, I still thought the Chiefs had control of the game until the critical 4th qtr. Many are happy the Chiefs lost by only 3 pts., but I contend the Chiefs need to win games at home when leading by 11 pts. in the second half if they want to get to the playoffs. Vermiel has got to be upset and stunned by the Raider game. The players did not step up when the game was on the line, except for the TD pass to Minnis inside of 2 minutes to go in the game.
Posts: 23

09-10-2001, 07:28 PM	#29
Baby Lee Supporter Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $8028275	Re - tiring on D What everyone's thought? I am convinced that Raiders have a good running attack and our performance there gives me confidence that we can [that is [i]can[/i]] play good run D on most all the teams we face. But was that the best passing attack we'll see? We made Gannon, Brown and Rice look pretty good in the second half. Will we hold our own against the greasy donkeys? Will the Colts rip a new one? Luckily, we don't face [i]all[/i] of the passing powerhouses, NO, St.L., SF, GB, MN. On the defense, what is the assessment of our pass D considering our opponents and when we meet them? __________________ We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics - E.W.
Posts: 95,642

09-11-2001, 02:56 AM	#30
voyager Go Chiefs! Join Date: Apr 2001 Casino cash: $10004900	After watching the Raider game, the Chiefs may have a lot of trouble against any team that has a good passing game. The CBs on the Chiefs can be thrown against, especially when the Chiefs don't get much of a pass rush. The key for the Chiefs will be to establish a running game...100+ yds. per game...and control the clock so the defense doesn't have to be on the field so much. They also need to rush the passer more effectively so the CBs don't have so much pressure on them. They also need to score at least 27 pts. per game. I bet Vermiel thought he had the Raiders in check with an 11 pt. lead in the second half. His frustration level was probably very high after the game. Get used to it, Mr. Vermiel. Chiefs' fans have endured this frustration level for years. Whether Marty, Gunther, or Vermiel...the Chiefs' problems on the field seem to be an ongoing thing. The Chiefs just cannot finish a "winnable" game. Is it talent level or lack of heart that is costing the Chiefs these games?
Posts: 23