Chiefs Teicher: Offense is the Chiefs' biggest problem - Page 2

MoreLemonPledge · 05-20-2009, 12:27 PM

I went to the Chiefs’ first full offseason practice wondering more about their defense, but I left with more questions about the offense.

Let’s start with the offensive line: Very thin without Brian Waters there. They’ve got two starters who are over 30 — Damion McIntosh is 32, Mike Goff is 33 — and both those guys had better hold up or the Chiefs might be in some trouble. Very thin as far as depth; very few proven experienced guys as backups.

The receiving group without Tony Gonzalez: I’m wondering, like everybody else, how that’s going to all play out. Dwayne Bowe dropped some balls and made some nice catches also, but he looked a lot like the Dwayne Bowe we saw last year. The Chiefs really need him to be more consistent because you’ve got Mark Bradley and Bobby Engram behind him. Engram is 36. Not a lot of depth there, either.

The running game with Larry Johnson: You’ve heard me say before the Chiefs need Johnson. He’s their running game. I didn’t really see a guy who’s capable of handling the every-down load like Johnson is. They used Jamaal Charles like they did last year as a third-down back.

Matt Cassel didn’t have one of his better days, but he’s the least of the Chiefs’ concerns right now. It was a windy day; I’ve seen him throw indoors since joining the Chiefs at an earlier minicamp, and there’s no problem with Matt Cassel.

Chan Gailey: I have a lot of respect for him. He did a great job turning the offense around last year after a rotten start and all the quarterback problems. But he’s going to have to earn his money again this year, because there are a lot of issues with the Chiefs offensively.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/chi...y/1206906.html

Not sure if this is a repost or not, but very interesting considering our defense was 2nd worst in the league last year. Your thoughts?

kcbubb · 05-20-2009, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

If KC can finish in the top 20 in either offense or defense that would be considered an excellent year for that side of the ball.

I agree with this. But I don't see it without waters. our o-line will just be too thin.

kcbubb · 05-20-2009, 01:24 PM

people keep talking about their concern with sacks and the o-line. the biggest concern is that we will have no running game bc our o-line sucks especially without waters. if you have no running game and your offense is one dimensional, it's going to be a long rough season.

Mr. Krab · 05-20-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreLemonPledge

Yeah, but Cassel's pretty mobile, too. Not that we really want to see our QB running all over the place.

Agreed, but i think they are a different type of mobile. Thigpen is the kinda of mobile that you could almost make him a wide receiver. Cassel is pretty tough though, i've seen him take some hits that would put Brodie Croyle into a coma.

Hammock Parties · 05-20-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

His running, receiving and blocking abilities have fallen off a cliff since his 2005-2006 career seasons.

Explains the career-long 65 and 63-yard runs.

Hammock Parties · 05-20-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreLemonPledge

Thigpen: 12 INT, 2 Fumbles Lost

Cassel: 11 INT, 4 Fumbles Lost

Cassel is clearly better, but to say Thigpen was a turnover machine is a gross overstatement. (minus the ATL and MIA games, of course!)

Cassel played in more games, took more snaps, threw higher-risk passes.

Mr. Krab · 05-20-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbubb

people keep talking about their concern with sacks and the o-line. the biggest concern is that we will have no running game bc our o-line sucks especially without waters. if you have no running game and your offense is one dimensional, it's going to be a long rough season.

Not really. If we can protect that pass enough to become a pass first team then our running game can be halfway decent. I think that is exactly what Haley will try to do too. Pass,Pass,Pass until the Defense backs the hell up, then run some draws and stretch plays using a 3rd down back like Jamaal Charles.

MoreLemonPledge · 05-20-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

Cassel played in more games, took more snaps, threw higher-risk passes.

Cassel had a better line and better receivers.

I'm not advocating Thigpen at all, just pointing out that he's not any more turnover prone than Cassel.

Mr. Krab · 05-20-2009, 01:43 PM

I dunno about that, Cassel threw a ton of short passes, a shit ton. The patriots running game helped Cassel alot too. The pats ran the ball 130 times more than us.

Saccopoo · 05-20-2009, 01:45 PM

We will be better next year, both offensively and defensively. Because we couldn't get worse. And there are the Broncos and Raiders in our division. Both seem to have taken a, um, step down in terms of cohesiveness in this off-season. Plus a Norv Turner coached team.

Sure the o-line, at least on paper, sucks. But keep in mind, this o-line, up until last season had minimal coaching, bad quarterback play, a reliance on a tight end as the primary offensive target and, above and beyond all things, Herm. Gailey helped a lot last season, but still was shackled by inconsistency at quarterback, hurt Larry, checkdowns to Tony all season, a qb who was a cast of of the Vikings practice squad, etc.

Holding Cottam in to help block will be a major help to the offensive line. Tony was a receiving stud, but he'd ole block more than LJ. Properly using a fullback and having a tight end stick around and actually block someone will be a bigger boon to the Chiefs offensive line than plugging in some free agent. As well, having a quarterback who can actually throw a spiral will help tremendously.

They will be okay.

Hammock Parties · 05-20-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreLemonPledge

I'm not advocating Thigpen at all, just pointing out that he's not any more turnover prone than Cassel.

Cassel took roughly 100 more snaps than Thigpen (passing plays) and had one more turnover.

If Thigpen played in the same offense as Cassel, and threw the same number of passes, he'd have more turnovers. Thigpen's inaccuracy means he'd waste opportunities even if Welker and Moss got open.

bobbything · 05-20-2009, 01:53 PM

I like how Teicher suggests that he's not worried about Cassel's shaky performance(s) in the wind because he's "seen him throw indoors." Might be a valid reason if we played 8 games in a dome.

News flash, Arrowhead is a windy stadium.

**Buehler445** · 05-20-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

As well, having a quarterback who can actually throw a spiral will help tremendously.
.

. All I could think about were thigpen's rainbow-duck longball passes that were 15 yards short.

Mad me laugh.

Carry on.
Posted via Mobile Device

Just Passin' By · 05-20-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreLemonPledge

Cassel had a better line and better receivers.

I'm not advocating Thigpen at all, just pointing out that he's not any more turnover prone than Cassel.

Cassel's Int% was 2.1, comparied to Thigpen's 2.9. Cassel also had 73 rushing attempts and 47 sacks with 7 fumbles, compared to Thigpen's 62 attempts and 26 sacks with 6 fumbles.

On a per-play basis, Thigpen was definitely more turnover prone than was Cassel. How much that difference holds up now that Cassel isn't in New England is one of the keys to the Kansas City season.

MoreLemonPledge · 05-20-2009, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

Cassel took roughly 100 more snaps than Thigpen (passing plays) and had one more turnover.

If Thigpen played in the same offense as Cassel, and threw the same number of passes, he'd have more turnovers. Thigpen's inaccuracy means he'd waste opportunities even if Welker and Moss got open.

Cassel attempted 32.25 passes per game with 0.9375 turnovers/game.

Thigpen attempted 30 passes per game with an even 1 turnover/game.

In turnovers/pass attempt per game, you can't really get much similar.

Hammock Parties · 05-20-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreLemonPledge

Cassel attempted 32.25 passes per game with 0.9375 turnovers/game.

Thigpen attempted 30 passes per game with an even 1 turnover/game.

In turnovers/pass attempt per game, you can't really get much similar.

That's a terrible statistic to use.

Cassel played in more games. Hello?

05-20-2009, 12:27 PM
MoreLemonPledge M-I-Z S-E-C Join Date: Apr 2009 Casino cash: $10004927	Teicher: Offense is the Chiefs' biggest problem I went to the Chiefs’ first full offseason practice wondering more about their defense, but I left with more questions about the offense. Let’s start with the offensive line: Very thin without Brian Waters there. They’ve got two starters who are over 30 — Damion McIntosh is 32, Mike Goff is 33 — and both those guys had better hold up or the Chiefs might be in some trouble. Very thin as far as depth; very few proven experienced guys as backups. The receiving group without Tony Gonzalez: I’m wondering, like everybody else, how that’s going to all play out. Dwayne Bowe dropped some balls and made some nice catches also, but he looked a lot like the Dwayne Bowe we saw last year. The Chiefs really need him to be more consistent because you’ve got Mark Bradley and Bobby Engram behind him. Engram is 36. Not a lot of depth there, either. The running game with Larry Johnson: You’ve heard me say before the Chiefs need Johnson. He’s their running game. I didn’t really see a guy who’s capable of handling the every-down load like Johnson is. They used Jamaal Charles like they did last year as a third-down back. Matt Cassel didn’t have one of his better days, but he’s the least of the Chiefs’ concerns right now. It was a windy day; I’ve seen him throw indoors since joining the Chiefs at an earlier minicamp, and there’s no problem with Matt Cassel. Chan Gailey: I have a lot of respect for him. He did a great job turning the offense around last year after a rotten start and all the quarterback problems. But he’s going to have to earn his money again this year, because there are a lot of issues with the Chiefs offensively. http://www.kansascity.com/sports/chi...y/1206906.html Not sure if this is a repost or not, but very interesting considering our defense was 2nd worst in the league last year. Your thoughts?
Posts: 6,039

05-20-2009, 01:24 PM	#17
kcbubb Veteran Join Date: Nov 2008 Casino cash: $6056719	people keep talking about their concern with sacks and the o-line. the biggest concern is that we will have no running game bc our o-line sucks especially without waters. if you have no running game and your offense is one dimensional, it's going to be a long rough season.
Posts: 2,367

05-20-2009, 01:43 PM	#23
Mr. Krab Big Red Nuts Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $10004900	I dunno about that, Cassel threw a ton of short passes, a shit ton. The patriots running game helped Cassel alot too. The pats ran the ball 130 times more than us.
Posts: 3,512

05-20-2009, 01:45 PM	#24
Saccopoo Kindness in words... Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Zion Casino cash: $10025483	We will be better next year, both offensively and defensively. Because we couldn't get worse. And there are the Broncos and Raiders in our division. Both seem to have taken a, um, step down in terms of cohesiveness in this off-season. Plus a Norv Turner coached team. Sure the o-line, at least on paper, sucks. But keep in mind, this o-line, up until last season had minimal coaching, bad quarterback play, a reliance on a tight end as the primary offensive target and, above and beyond all things, Herm. Gailey helped a lot last season, but still was shackled by inconsistency at quarterback, hurt Larry, checkdowns to Tony all season, a qb who was a cast of of the Vikings practice squad, etc. Holding Cottam in to help block will be a major help to the offensive line. Tony was a receiving stud, but he'd ole block more than LJ. Properly using a fullback and having a tight end stick around and actually block someone will be a bigger boon to the Chiefs offensive line than plugging in some free agent. As well, having a quarterback who can actually throw a spiral will help tremendously. They will be okay.
Posts: 15,450

05-20-2009, 01:53 PM	#26
bobbything Distributor of Pain Join Date: Nov 2004 Casino cash: $8924900	I like how Teicher suggests that he's not worried about Cassel's shaky performance(s) in the wind because he's "seen him throw indoors." Might be a valid reason if we played 8 games in a dome. News flash, Arrowhead is a windy stadium. __________________ "It is not enough that I succeed; everyone else must fail."
Posts: 3,435