Chiefs Conspiracy Theory Re: Jamal only getting 5 touches - Page 3

**FRCDFED** · 10-30-2012, 07:47 AM

Bear with me for a minute.......I didn't see the game so my opinion is based merely on what I have read in the media specifically on Crennels response to why Jamal was only given 5 carries for the game.

Is it possible that Pioli/Crennel/Daboll attempted to sabotage B. Quinn's first start on the team by inserting a game plan that limited the use of the running game and was designed to force Quinn to pass more than expected?

I mean, wouldn't you break in a new starting QB by using the teams strength (running game) to create opportunities to build confidence and succeed in the passing game? Start off with some runs followed by some play action to keep the defense honest. Then move on to short slants and high percentage throws to build confidence and establish a tempo with the receivers?

So again I ask.....is it possible that the three stooges attempted to put in a game plan to sabotage Quinn but that it backfired only because Quinn went down with and injury and they couldn't change the entire game plan thereby forcing them to roll with what they had?

Just asking.............because that is the ONLY reason I can come up with that you give Jamal ****ING Charles only 5 carries in a ****ING game!!!

jspchief · 10-30-2012, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lou_Zare

you are way over-thinking this. Daboll is a ****ing loser.

/thread

siberian khatru · 10-30-2012, 08:44 AM

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

**FRCDFED** · 10-30-2012, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canofbier

I think Haley is just giving Pioli the middle finger on the way out. Wait, what?

For sure.......Haley definately got the short straw. He ended up in a situation with too many ego's and Patriot Club cards. A club he wasn't a member of.

splatbass · 10-30-2012, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loochy

This is kind of like how people think that the U.S. Govt. orchestrated 9/11 attacks. There's NO WAY that an organization as incompetent as that could orchestrate something on that scale.

As someone that has worked for the government as a defense contractor for 30 years I can tell you they are not as incompetent as you seem to believe. Could they pull it off? Absolutely. Could they keep it a secret for 10 years? Probably not. Did they do it? Not likely. But they are not incompetent.

I know it is popular to call the government incompetent, but we have the best, strongest, highest tech military in the world, and they are far from incompetent. The same goes for the intelligence system.

**loochy** · 10-30-2012, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splatbass

As someone that has worked for the government as a defense contractor for 30 years I can tell you they are not as incompetent as you seem to believe. Could they pull it off? Absolutely. Could they keep it a secret for 10 years? Probably not. Did they do it? Not likely. But they are not incompetent.

I know it is popular to call the government incompetent, but we have the best, strongest, highest tech military in the world, and they are far from incompetent. The same goes for the intelligence system.

Guess who else works as a defense contractor.

splatbass · 10-30-2012, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loochy

Guess who else works as a defense contractor.

I don't know. I don't care. I know I've seen the government do some amazing, and very competent, things over the last 30 years.

Molitoth · 10-30-2012, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splatbass

As someone that has worked for the government as a defense contractor for 30 years I can tell you they are not as incompetent as you seem to believe. Could they pull it off? Absolutely. Could they keep it a secret for 10 years? Probably not. Did they do it? Not likely. But they are not incompetent.

I know it is popular to call the government incompetent, but we have the best, strongest, highest tech military in the world, and they are far from incompetent. The same goes for the intelligence system.

This.

**loochy** · 10-30-2012, 09:05 AM

They are too big for their own good. Individual empowered cells can get things done but excessive bureaucracy and top down involvement significantly hamper progress and agility.

But can't we agree here that there is NO CHIEFS CONSPIRACY?!?! They just suck.

Also, enjoy this picture of AJ McCarron's mom:

splatbass · 10-30-2012, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loochy

They are too big for their own good. Individual empowered cells can get things done but excessive bureaucracy and top down involvement significantly hamper progress and agility.

This is true of every large corporation too. Something else I have much experience with. Any large organization is going to be like that in some fashion.

If you think they are so bad why do you work as a contractor for them? Maybe you should find another, more competent, line of work. Or maybe its just you.

**Canofbier** · 10-30-2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splatbass

This is true of every large corporation too. Something else I have much experience with. Any large organization is going to be like that in some fashion.

If you think they are so bad why do you work as a contractor for them? Maybe you should find another, more competent, line of work. Or maybe its just you.

Jeez, harsh. Contractors go where the money is, right?

**loochy** · 10-30-2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splatbass

This is true of every large corporation too. Something else I have much experience with. Any large organization is going to be like that in some fashion.

If you think they are so bad why do you work as a contractor for them? Maybe you should find another, more competent, line of work. Or maybe its just you.

It makes me money? WTF kind of question is that? I don't do this out of the goodness of my heart.

Also, I agree about the corporation thing. You and I might work for the same company...

**buddha** · 10-30-2012, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRCDFED

How in the world do you only give Charles 5 carries is beyond me. Hopefully they don't do something stupid this week and overload him. We need Charles to make it through this season so we will have a stud RB to pair with our shiny new QB next year!

It doesn't make any sense...so the only reason I can come up with is that KC is mailing it in on all levels trying to get the top pick in the draft. At this point, why not do that? We literally have nothing to lose. Better to trade Bowe, draft an elite QB in the first round, and find a GM and coaching staff who know what they are doing.

Personally, I'd pull for Gruden.

keg in kc · 10-30-2012, 09:16 AM

Or it could be that the Raiders defense is much better against the run than the pass, and they were actually trying to attack a team's weakness for a change.

htismaqe · 10-30-2012, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Or it could be that the Raiders defense is much better against the run than the pass, and they were actually trying to attack a team's weakness for a change.

That's like an armless man saying "I didn't try to kick him because he's prone to taking punches to the face".

**loochy** · 10-30-2012, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's like an armless man saying "I didn't try to kick him because he's prone to taking punches to the face".

this

10-30-2012, 07:47 AM
FRCDFED Line'em up Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: somewhere out there Casino cash: $8966297	Conspiracy Theory Re: Jamal only getting 5 touches Bear with me for a minute.......I didn't see the game so my opinion is based merely on what I have read in the media specifically on Crennels response to why Jamal was only given 5 carries for the game. Is it possible that Pioli/Crennel/Daboll attempted to sabotage B. Quinn's first start on the team by inserting a game plan that limited the use of the running game and was designed to force Quinn to pass more than expected? I mean, wouldn't you break in a new starting QB by using the teams strength (running game) to create opportunities to build confidence and succeed in the passing game? Start off with some runs followed by some play action to keep the defense honest. Then move on to short slants and high percentage throws to build confidence and establish a tempo with the receivers? So again I ask.....is it possible that the three stooges attempted to put in a game plan to sabotage Quinn but that it backfired only because Quinn went down with and injury and they couldn't change the entire game plan thereby forcing them to roll with what they had? Just asking.............because that is the ONLY reason I can come up with that you give Jamal **ING Charles only 5 carries in a **ING game!!!
Posts: 3,200

10-30-2012, 08:44 AM	#32
siberian khatru 21st Century Schizoid Fan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Gates of Delirium Casino cash: $-1375050	"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Posts: 71,919

10-30-2012, 09:05 AM	#38
loochy Hey Loochy, I'm hooome! Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: PooPooKaKaPeePeeShire Casino cash: $-1759603	They are too big for their own good. Individual empowered cells can get things done but excessive bureaucracy and top down involvement significantly hamper progress and agility. But can't we agree here that there is NO CHIEFS CONSPIRACY?!?! They just suck. Also, enjoy this picture of AJ McCarron's mom: __________________ Hey Loochy, I'm hoooome!
Posts: 42,183

10-30-2012, 09:16 AM	#43
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Or it could be that the Raiders defense is much better against the run than the pass, and they were actually trying to attack a team's weakness for a change.
Posts: 58,682