Chiefs Tyson Jackson - Page 11

Halfcan · 09-20-2009, 04:03 PM

one tackle today WOW!!!!

kstater · 09-20-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

You're really gonig to make this your argument?

Really?

Well his job is to kick extra points.////

**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.

**Bwana** · 09-20-2009, 05:54 PM

I don't expect much out of Jackson his first year. I was just glad to see Dorsey step it up.

'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, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfcan

I never said we didnt shut the running game down-but the Faders did not try to pound it on us either-which was dumb on their part. They put themselves in a lot of 3rd and long.

My point was-that for being a #3 pick and the highest paid player on the D-he should have more than one ****ing tackle.

Damn, the Pats should have jettisoned that useless ass Richard Seymour years ago, cause he has only averaged about 2 tackles a game for his entire career.

What the hell were they thinking?

tk13 · 09-20-2009, 06:01 PM

I didn't participate in the game thread, I usually don't, I haven't read it, and I don't give a crap what anybody says in them because they are usually full of instant in the moment overreaction. I agree, the Raiders tried to pass it too much on 1st and 2nd down in the first half. They obviously made a halftime adjustment and tried to start running it down their throat like they did to the Chargers last week... and they couldn't.

And they aren't going to unless Russell gets his head out, because teams are going to stack the box on them. In the 2nd half they had what? 10 or 11 rushes on 1st or 2nd down... and one pass. One. They were trying to run the ball down our throat and gash us for 8, 9, 10 yards a shot like they did against the Chargers. And they couldn't do it. We'd immediately put them in 3rd down situations and force them to make a decision. And they were usually make bad ones. That's playing well. But this isn't even worth a prolonged argument over because we lost the game, and our pass defense has been pretty rough.

Halfcan · 09-20-2009, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

You know, why don't you post on a sesame street board with people who are only slightly your intellectual betters.

Stop posting stuid ****ing shit here.

Holy Christ.

With all the picks we could have had-they reached with Jackson JUST like Mecca said many times on here-and now it shows.

aturnis · 09-20-2009, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

So we shut down the Raiders running but they still scored the game winning TD on a run. Thats not shutting it down if you lose.

Go get your helmet and go play with the rest of the special kids billay.

The Chiefs did shut down the run. One play doesn't summarize a whole game. Not this one anyways. Yes the Raiders did run it in for the go ahead touchdown, that doesn't change the fact that the run was a moot point for their offense the rest of the game.

Their passing game was a moot point too, until the final drive. You can chalk that up to scheme and the LB's.

**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.

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.

Halfcan · 09-20-2009, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Damn, the Pats should have jettisoned that useless ass Richard Seymour years ago, cause he has only averaged about 2 tackles a game for his entire career.

What the hell were they thinking?

he had 2 sacks just last week-no practice

and your point is?

he is an all pro and does not have a 57 million dollar contract

**doomy3** · 09-20-2009, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfcan

he had 2 sacks just last week-no practice

and your point is?

he is an all pro and does not have a 57 million dollar contract

HE IS PLAYING 4-3 DE FOR THE RAIDERS. HE HAS DIFFERENT ASSIGNMENTS AND EXPECTATIONS IN THAT SYSTEM THAN HE HAD WITH THE PATRIOTS.

YOU ARE SERIOUSLY DENSE.

milkman · 09-20-2009, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfcan

With all the picks we could have had-they reached with Jackson JUST like Mecca said many times on here-and now it shows.

I said the same god damn thing, that picking a 34 DE is a bad pick, and poor positional value, you dumbass.

But that doesn't in any discount the fact that he is a ****ing rookie, learning a new position in a new scheme.

It also doesn't discount the fact that he actually did his job reasonably well, given those facts.

As a 34 DE, he is never, I repeat, so your dumbass has just the slightest chance to understand, he is never going to put up big tackle numbers as a 34 DE.

3 or 4 in a game will be a huge number for his poistion.

JFC, get a ****ing clue.

09-20-2009, 04:03 PM
Halfcan In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2005 Casino cash: $7327995	Tyson Jackson one tackle today WOW!!!!
Posts: 43,200

09-20-2009, 05:54 PM	#153
Bwana It's Five O'Clock Somewhere Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Billings, Montana Casino cash: $2135780532	I don't expect much out of Jackson his first year. I was just glad to see Dorsey step it up. __________________ Adventure is dangerous....but monotony can kill you.
Posts: 70,500

09-20-2009, 06:01 PM	#158
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $-1947500	I didn't participate in the game thread, I usually don't, I haven't read it, and I don't give a crap what anybody says in them because they are usually full of instant in the moment overreaction. I agree, the Raiders tried to pass it too much on 1st and 2nd down in the first half. They obviously made a halftime adjustment and tried to start running it down their throat like they did to the Chargers last week... and they couldn't. And they aren't going to unless Russell gets his head out, because teams are going to stack the box on them. In the 2nd half they had what? 10 or 11 rushes on 1st or 2nd down... and one pass. One. They were trying to run the ball down our throat and gash us for 8, 9, 10 yards a shot like they did against the Chargers. And they couldn't do it. We'd immediately put them in 3rd down situations and force them to make a decision. And they were usually make bad ones. That's playing well. But this isn't even worth a prolonged argument over because we lost the game, and our pass defense has been pretty rough.
Posts: 56,732