Chiefs Tyson Jackson

tk13 · 09-20-2009, 05:48 PM

I think that absolutely proves my point. But to each his own. We allowed 2 first downs, they only attempted one pass. They did not move the chains running the football like they did against the Chargers. It's not even close. The Chargers allowed more first downs on the ground in those first two drives you posted than we did in the entire game today.

We stopped the run on 1st and 2nd down, got them in 3rd down situations and then we got them off the field. I don't know what on earth you're expecting. If you're expecting 85 Bears style play, then yes, that's a disappointment. For us to have been "more successful" stopping the run we literally would've had to hold them to about 40 yards rushing for the game under your scenario.

**dirk digler** · 09-20-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13

I think that absolutely proves my point. But to each his own. We allowed 2 first downs, they only attempted one pass. They did not move the chains running the football like they did against the Chargers. It's not even close. The Chargers allowed more first downs on the ground in those first two drives you posted than we did in the entire game today.

We stopped the run on 1st and 2nd down, got them in 3rd down situations and then we got them off the field. I don't know what on earth you're expecting. If you're expecting 85 Bears style play, then yes, that's a disappointment. For us to have been "more successful" stopping the run we literally would've had to hold them to about 40 yards rushing for the game under your scenario.

Yep and we only allowed 67 yds which is pretty good.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 09-20-2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13

I think that absolutely proves my point. But to each his own. We allowed 2 first downs, they only attempted one pass. They did not move the chains running the football like they did against the Chargers. It's not even close. The Chargers allowed more first downs on the ground in those first two drives you posted than we did in the entire game today.

We stopped the run on 1st and 2nd down, got them in 3rd down situations and then we got them off the field. I don't know what on earth you're expecting. If you're expecting 85 Bears style play, then yes, that's a disappointment. For us to have been "more successful" stopping the run we literally would've had to hold them to about 40 yards rushing for the game under your scenario.

I love how the narrative of what actually happened in the game changes after the game is over. Go back and read the first half of the game thread. This is what you'll see:

"Holy shit, I can't believe the Raiders are this ****ing stupid"
"Cable is the best D-coordinator we've ever had"
"The Raiders keep stopping themselves with bad play calling"

Were we better against the run today? Hell yes. But let's not start sucking each other's dicks. This is a bad run defense, and we "stopped" it about as well as the Patriots stopped Marshall Faulk in the Super Bowl. When your coaches don't come out to establish what you do well, it's not the other team that has stopped that part from working, it's those coaches.

The truly amazing thing is that Russell was so bad, and so inaccurate, that he wasn't even able to hit swing and flare passes. Had he even done that, you probably would have (but not definitely) seen a lot more running, as the lanes were wide open and it would have extended the drives.

**1ChiefsDan** · 09-20-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I love how the narrative of what actually happened in the game changes after the game is over. Go back and read the first half of the game thread. This is what you'll see:

"Holy shit, I can't believe the Raiders are this ****ing stupid"
"Cable is the best D-coordinator we've ever had"
"The Raiders keep stopping themselves with bad play calling"

Were we better against the run today? Hell yes. But let's not start sucking each other's dicks. This is a bad run defense, and we "stopped" it about as well as the Patriots stopped Marshall Faulk in the Super Bowl. When your coaches don't come out to establish what you do well, it's not the other team that has stopped that part from working, it's those coaches.

The truly amazing thing is that Russell was so bad, and so inaccurate, that he wasn't even able to hit swing and flare passes. Had he even done that, you probably would have (but not definitely) seen a lot more running, as the lanes were wide open and it would have extended the drives.

Now we are supposed to judge how well the Chiefs did based on what someone posted on a "game thread". JFC

'Hamas' Jenkins · 09-20-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denverdanchiefsfan

Now we are supposed to judge how well the Chiefs did based on what someone posted on a "game thread". JFC

It doesn't surprise me that you're too stupid to get the point. The point is that people will do anything to look for positives here, and today it's the fact that our D was stopping the run, when the reality is that Tom Cable stopped the run.

milkman · 09-20-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

It doesn't surprise me that you're too stupid to get the point. The point is that people will do anything to look for positives here, and today it's the fact that our D was stopping the run, when the reality is that Tom Cable stopped the run.

The reality is, in spite of the poor play calling by the Raiders, when the Raiders did try to run, they had little success.

The fact that we didn't get gashed consistently even after the Raiders didn't come out running the ball on the very first series is a positive.

Now, can we biuild on that going forward?

Probably not, because we still don't have the rihgt piseces for this defnse to succeeed.

**dirk digler** · 09-20-2009, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

The reality is, in spite of the poor play calling by the Raiders, when the Raiders did try to run, they had little success.

The fact that we didn't get gashed consistently even after the Raiders didn't come out running the ball on the very first series is a positive.

Now, can we biuild on that going forward?

Probably not, because we still don't have the rihgt piseces for this defnse to succeeed.

Yep. When we face a team that runs the ball good and has a good QB then we will be able to tell if we keep improving or we just suck until we get better players.

**1ChiefsDan** · 09-20-2009, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

It doesn't surprise me that you're too stupid to get the point. The point is that people will do anything to look for positives here, and today it's the fact that our D was stopping the run, when the reality is that Tom Cable stopped the run.

Yep, always with the "you're too stupid". It is your only response and it is tired and old. Oxygen deprivation at birth is a hard thing to overcome. Good luck with that.

Hootie · 09-20-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denverdanchiefsfan

Now we are supposed to judge how well the Chiefs did based on what someone posted on a "game thread". JFC

dude..that's hamas...whatever makes his point...

he's a pessimistic reerun...just like mecca who was bashing cassel after the game (who played like a ****ing warrior if you ask me)...

they are idiots.

**dirk digler** · 09-20-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Were we better against the run today? Hell yes. But let's not start sucking each other's dicks. This is a bad run defense, and we "stopped" it about as well as the Patriots stopped Marshall Faulk in the Super Bowl. When your coaches don't come out to establish what you do well, it's not the other team that has stopped that part from working, it's those coaches.

No one is comparing the Chiefs D to the 85 Bears or the great Steeler defenses. What we are saying is that all these dire predictions about the Raiders rushing for 300 yds were a little over done. Also as someone posted already the Raiders had almost the same pass to rush ratio as they did against the Chargers. We stopped the run we just couldn't stop Russell when it counted and that is all that really matters.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 09-20-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

No one is comparing the Chiefs D to the 85 Bears or the great Steeler defenses. What we are saying is that all these dire predictions about the Raiders rushing for 300 yds were a little over done. Also as someone posted already the Raiders had almost the same pass to rush ratio as they did against the Chargers. We stopped the run we just couldn't stop Russell when it counted and that is all that really matters.

No one is arguing that the 300 yard predictions were correct, or that they weren't rooted in some hyperbole just for the **** of trolling.

09-20-2009, 05:48 PM	#1
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $-1967500	I think that absolutely proves my point. But to each his own. We allowed 2 first downs, they only attempted one pass. They did not move the chains running the football like they did against the Chargers. It's not even close. The Chargers allowed more first downs on the ground in those first two drives you posted than we did in the entire game today. We stopped the run on 1st and 2nd down, got them in 3rd down situations and then we got them off the field. I don't know what on earth you're expecting. If you're expecting 85 Bears style play, then yes, that's a disappointment. For us to have been "more successful" stopping the run we literally would've had to hold them to about 40 yards rushing for the game under your scenario.
Posts: 56,734