Shame On You, Herm Edwards

[FAX]

Shame on you. Shame on Solari's uncle, too. You cost these players this game. Mistakes and all, they could have won this thing if you had let them play. You are sick, sick bastards.

That is all.

FAX

Disclaimers: Sorry if repost. (Actually, I don't care much.)

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Claythan

No, they all contributed.

If Huard doesn't throw that pick maybe we score a TD on that drive and take the lead.

If Pat Thomas does his job, Randy doesn't score that TD and the Pats settle for 3.

I agree with that way of looking at it.

I also think that play calling (or the philosophy that puts a heavy hand on the play calling) bears a responsibility in the loss. You can still play it close to the vest, while giving your team a chance to score, especially when good opportunities arise (good field position in first quarter). Our predictability of play selection makes it easier on the other team, therefore harder on us. Not only that, but you tell your offense to do 3 and outs all day, then you expect them to score on first and goal? You have to build confidence the whole game. We ignored a lot of opportunities today.

[mrbiggz]

It's pretty obvious to me. Ask yourself, How many other head coaches in the league could do better with this team? I can think of ten off my head. Herm Edwards simply isn't good enough.

[SBK]

I've been a quiet Herm supporter, I liked what he was doing building through the draft etc....

After seeing a change in OC and offensive philosophy, and then watching the exact same offense out there---we'll never go anywhere with him as our coach.

Clean house, new HC, and DC minimum, can Chan if you want too, I don't care. Bring in someone that can succeed with the same systems we have. (power running game, cover 2 etc.)

I'd hate to see a new regime want to make us a 3-4 or turn us into something that we'd have to remake the roster to become.....

[noa]

Originally Posted by SBK

I've been a quiet Herm supporter, I liked what he was doing building through the draft etc....

After seeing a change in OC and offensive philosophy, and then watching the exact same offense out there---we'll never go anywhere with him as our coach.

Clean house, new HC, and DC minimum, can Chan if you want too, I don't care. Bring in someone that can succeed with the same systems we have. (power running game, cover 2 etc.)

I'd hate to see a new regime want to make us a 3-4 or turn us into something that we'd have to remake the roster to become.....

In my ideal world, we let Herm rebuild another year, then get rid of him, and bring in a new coach to take over the team Herm built. I think Herm is good with personnel, but I don't want him anywhere near the part of the game that crafts our strategy and mentality. I can handle this season and another season of suckitude, so long as we have the balls to tell Herm "thanks, be on your way" while we go march into the playoffs with some coach who is actually aggressive.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by FAX

I have a question for the football astute. It has to do with the cover 2 defensive scheme.

Is the intent of the C2, at least in part, to keep the play in front of you? In other words, to force the enemy offense to keep everything short with the idea that, eventually, you'll force a punt or they'll make a mistake?

FAX

Anybody?

Is part of the purpose of the C2 to keep the offense from making the big play? Keep everything short and in front of you?

FAX

[SBK]

Originally Posted by noa

In my ideal world, we let Herm rebuild another year, then get rid of him, and bring in a new coach to take over the team Herm built. I think Herm is good with personnel, but I don't want him anywhere near the part of the game that crafts our strategy and mentality. I can handle this season and another season of suckitude, so long as we have the balls to tell Herm "thanks, be on your way" while we go march into the playoffs with some coach who is actually aggressive.

What's the point of keeping him around? You're not going anywhere special with him....

Clean house.

[TREX]

Originally Posted by FAX

Anybody?

Is part of the purpose of the C2 to keep the offense from making the big play? Keep everything short and in front of you?

FAX

I believe the C2 is designed for the safety to slide over and help the corner. The cb then has the option of staying with the wr or releasing the wr early to help on short routes or run support.

[cookster50]

Originally Posted by FAX

I have a question for the football astute. It has to do with the cover 2 defensive scheme.

Is the intent of the C2, at least in part, to keep the play in front of you? In other words, to force the enemy offense to keep everything short with the idea that, eventually, you'll force a punt or they'll make a mistake?

FAX

I think the intent of the C2 is to piss off all the fans.

[Zouk]

Originally Posted by FAX

I have a question for the football astute. It has to do with the cover 2 defensive scheme.

Is the intent of the C2, at least in part, to keep the play in front of you? In other words, to force the enemy offense to keep everything short with the idea that, eventually, you'll force a punt or they'll make a mistake?

FAX

As a general principle this is true, but as always football is much more complicated than the simple analysis says. There are different front alignments you can play with cover 2 that change the vulnerability of the defense. The Chiefs play a lot of different coverages and alignments.

[Chief Henry]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Did you just watch that same game?

The offensive playcalling was horrible completely horrible.

The O play calling was brutal.

[Zouk]

Same thing new year - people have the chicken and egg situtation completely backwards. Outmatched personnel leads to conservative playcalling, conservative playcalling doesn't cause the team to be outmatched. That's a Super Bowl defense playing against an offense filled with guys playing for the first time. No other strategy would have kept us in the game.

Dwayne Bowe has to catch the ball and the special teams need to cover kicks better. Then we have a great chance to win a road game against a team far more talented.

[Chief Henry]

Originally Posted by noa

A good coaching staff would have been aggressive after those turnovers to capitalize rather than squander the opportunity and a good coaching staff wouldn't have called that timeout to set up Cassel with his 50 yard play action out of his own end zone.

Who cares how close you were if you still lost in the end? There's no moral victories in the NFL. We could have won the game. I know we are rebuilding, and our W-L doesn't matter this season, but its actually a good thing for a young team to be rewarded for its hard effort by getting a W from a major upset.

Did we even throw one play action pass ???????
With LJ running on every other play (it seems) the PATS were prime bait for a
well executed play actionpass or screen play. Heck, we only ran one bootleg.

The play calling to me was brutal at best. Play action pass works great in
those cituations. We've got a receiver that can go up and (get it) and an
all world tight end. I was not expeting us to win going into the game, but we should have won that game in New England. The Chiefs coaching staff
needs to grow a pair.

At least our field goal kicker was accurate