GRETZ: The Conservative Approach

C-Mac · 11-21-2007, 07:43 AM

GRETZ: The Conservative Approach

Nov 21, 2007, 1:04:17 AM by Bob Gretz - FAQ

It was so predictable.

In the moments after the Chiefs loss at Indianapolis, the drumbeat started.

The Chiefs had been too conservative on offense. They had hamstrung Brodie Croyle in his first NFL start. They had not let the kid fling the ball around the yard.

And that’s why the Chiefs lost. This mantra started in the press box and then some of the boys in the locker room joined in, supposedly giving this point of view credibility.

Let me put it this way: one of the key reasons the Chiefs were a factor in the game was because they pulled in the offensive horns in for Croyle’s first start.

It’s the same thing that happened early in the 2006 season, when the Chiefs went to Denver and Damon Huard was making his first start, after Trent Green was injured. Everyone wrote the Chiefs off that day, but they went in, played great defense and kept a tight reign on the offense in a loud and hostile stadium.

The Chiefs went to overtime that day before losing. Against Indy, they went down to the final seconds before falling to a Colts field goal.

There were two situations that seem to have caused the most bellyaching amongst the second guessers. The first came late in the first half. The Chiefs got the ball at their own 23-yard line with one minute, 18 seconds to play and all three of their timeouts. They ran two running plays and went to the locker room tied 3-3.

Why not take a shot down the field? Why not go for it?

Because on the last offensive play before that possession, Croyle had been smacked by Robert Mathis of the Colts, fumbled and Indianapolis recovered the ball. That eventually provided them the opportunity to kick the field goal that tied the game. Plus, the Colts had a pair of timeouts remaining and they were going to get the ball to start the second half. Throw three passes, run no time off the clock and give Peyton Manning another chance before the half? That’s crazy talk.

Second situation came in the fourth quarter, with 7:41 to play and the Chiefs with a 3rd down-and-18 to go play. The Chiefs ran Kolby Smith and he gained two yards. They punted the ball away to the Colts.

Why not go for it? Let me count the ways. First, on the second down play, that leaky pass protection had again allowed a sack of Croyle. Two, 3rd-and-18 gets converted about eight percent of the time. Don’t believe me? This past weekend in the NFL, there were 37 third down plays where the distance to a first down was 15 yards or more. They ranged from 3rd-and-15 to 3rd-and-25.

Of those 37 plays, three were converted for first downs. That’s 8 percent.

The call on those plays was 29 passing/8 runs. The running plays averaged 7.1 yards per play. The passing plays (attempts plus sacks) averaged 4.4 yards per play.

No, the smart move is you punt the ball away and try to influence field position.

Why would anyone have expected the game plan to be anything but conservative? A young quarterback’s first start, on the road, in a loud hostile stadium, against a good defense and a team with an explosive offense, that’s the recipe for an offensive plan that leans towards the conservative.

Think of it this way: you send a child out on Halloween night for his first experience in trick or treating. He comes home with a bag full of candy. The child is allowed to sit down and eat as much candy as he can stuff in his mouth. Child gets very sick.

The Chiefs coaches were not going to give Croyle the whole bag of goodies. They are going to parcel them out and the young man gets his feet under him and his wits about him.

Understand that the idea is to give Croyle a chance to play. Put in a game plan that is aggressive and full of throwing the football means that Croyle will play for awhile. But with the poor pass protection provided by the current offensive line, that type of plan would eventually end with Croyle being carried off the field, and not in celebration.

Already, just one game into the Brodie Croyle Era and the fans, media and some of his offensive teammates are already grumbling.

Patience people. Patience.

KC Jones · 11-21-2007, 07:51 AM

Gretz is suck a ****ing douche.

Otter · 11-21-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Patience people. Patience.

Now that's funny!

TEX · 11-21-2007, 08:02 AM

I said the same thing about the game reminding me of the Denver game last year. The bottom like is when you play conservative the whole way, and that way gives you a shot at winning, the ONLY way you're gonna win and beat a better team on the road is WHEN YOU HAVE THE CANCE - ****ING TAKE IT!

Herm's proven twice that his way does NOT work. The Emperior hads no clothes Gretz - get a clue.

KCFalcon59 · 11-21-2007, 08:49 AM

This is so frustrating. Gretz is a putz. The playcalling was fine until we ran out of time. Instead of running a sweep on 1st down midway through the 4th quarter with the pathetic blocking we have we could have ran a simple 5 yard out, quick slant or heck for that matter spread them out in 4 wides and run a draw. Any of these options would have been better than what we did.

Reerun_KC · 11-21-2007, 08:51 AM

Gretz = bent over taking it in the ass while I type what Carl tells me to type....

Good thing 99% of the Chiefs fans realize that Gretz is a blowhard for Carl and dont take this pathetic shit literal....

**HemiEd** · 11-21-2007, 08:56 AM

This is a horrible attempt to gloss over. He brings up the 3rd and 18 but totally ignores the 4th and 1!

I had no problem with the 3rd and 18, but I questioned the 4th and 1. Even though it was questionable, I wasn't too upset with not going for it.

However, how many ****ing draw plays did we run on 3rd and long? How many?

OK, we barely lost in Denver last year and barely lost in Indy this year. Do those go half way between the W and L collum? Are they counted as a half loss and a half win?

Zouk · 11-21-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

Gretz = bent over taking it in the ass while I type what Carl tells me to type....

Good thing 99% of the Chiefs fans realize that Gretz is a blowhard for Carl and dont take this pathetic shit literal....

Okay - but the numbers (the 3rd and long stats) speak for themselves, don't they?

Zouk · 11-21-2007, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HemiEd

This is a horrible attempt to gloss over. He brings up the 3rd and 18 but totally ignores the 4th and 1!

Are you talking about 4th and 1 at the Chiefs 46 with 13:25 to go in the game? That hardly seems like a normal "go for it" situation in a tie game.

http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...D_Gamebook.pdf

I think the most controversial decision was the series before the end of the 1st half. Gretz makes that seem like a no brainer to run out the half - but in reality it's not.

**HemiEd** · 11-21-2007, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zouk

Are you talking about 4th and 1 at the Chiefs 46 with 13:25 to go in the game? That hardly seems like a normal "go for it" situation in a tie game.

http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamece...D_Gamebook.pdf

Agreed, if you read the rest of my post, I said I understood. But it would make a hell of a lot more sense to me, to go for 4th and 1, more than 3rd and 18. I think many successful coaches would have gone for that 4th and 1, in the 4th quarter, in a tie game.
As I said, I really had no serious problem with either instance. Just the draw plays on 3rd and long all day caused my some pain.

siberian khatru · 11-21-2007, 09:08 AM

First: Croyle got smacked by Mathis because the Chiefs left Terry alone to defend him in a fairly obvious passing situation. With Freeney out, they should've been able to shift someone over to Terry's side to help out.

When you run in obvious running situations and pass in obvious passing situations, you give the defense an advantage when you're already disadvantaged on offense.

Next: Patience is fine. We are patient with Brodie. We expect mistakes. Many people are willing to sacrifice wins for player development. The furor over the Indy game isn't really that we lost, it's that we didn't try to win.

There's a difference, Gretz. Trying and failing is one thing. Not trying and failing is something completely different.

As I said yesterday, Herm's gameplan worked brilliantly, right up until the point where he failed to capitalize on it. He shortened the game down to the fourth quarter, then refused to take a shot at winning it. He just sat back and waited for the Colts to lose.

Yeah, 3rd and 18 is hard to convert. But the Chiefs were crippling themselves long before that with obvious, safe play calls that didn't attempt to keep the D off balance or force it to defend the entire field.

In the 4th quarter in a tie game, the Chiefs had three first-down plays. They were: run for loss, run for no gain, run for loss.

Why not call play action and throw deep? Hey, maybe you'll get a PI call. Yeah, Brodie might throw an INT or get sacked. But so what? We lost anyway. I'd rather lose trying to take a shot at winning late in the game than just stand there and wait for the Super Bowl champs to hand us a victory in their home.

Messier · 11-21-2007, 09:09 AM

Gretz is right.

siberian khatru · 11-21-2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zouk

I think the most controversial decision was the series before the end of the 1st half. Gretz makes that seem like a no brainer to run out the half - but in reality it's not.

Here's the irony -- critic that I am, I actually can understand that decision better, because of the field position.

Me? I probably would've gambled and tried to move the ball. But I think Herm's decision there is more defensible.

Zouk · 11-21-2007, 09:13 AM

I understand the approach we took in the Colts game. It let us stay in a game we shouldn't have been in, and it was Croyle's 1st start.

But we now have 2 division games at home that we can win and be in place to get a home playoff game. Gonzalez and Bowe are our best offensive players. Croyle is far more effective than Huard in avoiding the rush. We have got to open it up at least a little bit at home in these 2 games.

**MahiMike** · 11-21-2007, 09:41 AM

Incredible. He actually uses 2 games in which they lost to defend the loss. Basically saying, "well, we lost the game but it was so close it doesn't count". Bullshit! I'd rather lose by 3 TDs than 3 points. If I've got a popgun offense going into Indy, I don't even dress my punter. Tell him, "sit your ass down today. We're gonna need lots of points so every series is 4 down territory".

11-21-2007, 07:43 AM
C-Mac Lurker Extraordinaire Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Wally World Casino cash: $2363699	GRETZ: The Conservative Approach GRETZ: The Conservative Approach Nov 21, 2007, 1:04:17 AM by Bob Gretz - FAQ It was so predictable. In the moments after the Chiefs loss at Indianapolis, the drumbeat started. The Chiefs had been too conservative on offense. They had hamstrung Brodie Croyle in his first NFL start. They had not let the kid fling the ball around the yard. And that’s why the Chiefs lost. This mantra started in the press box and then some of the boys in the locker room joined in, supposedly giving this point of view credibility. Let me put it this way: one of the key reasons the Chiefs were a factor in the game was because they pulled in the offensive horns in for Croyle’s first start. It’s the same thing that happened early in the 2006 season, when the Chiefs went to Denver and Damon Huard was making his first start, after Trent Green was injured. Everyone wrote the Chiefs off that day, but they went in, played great defense and kept a tight reign on the offense in a loud and hostile stadium. The Chiefs went to overtime that day before losing. Against Indy, they went down to the final seconds before falling to a Colts field goal. There were two situations that seem to have caused the most bellyaching amongst the second guessers. The first came late in the first half. The Chiefs got the ball at their own 23-yard line with one minute, 18 seconds to play and all three of their timeouts. They ran two running plays and went to the locker room tied 3-3. Why not take a shot down the field? Why not go for it? Because on the last offensive play before that possession, Croyle had been smacked by Robert Mathis of the Colts, fumbled and Indianapolis recovered the ball. That eventually provided them the opportunity to kick the field goal that tied the game. Plus, the Colts had a pair of timeouts remaining and they were going to get the ball to start the second half. Throw three passes, run no time off the clock and give Peyton Manning another chance before the half? That’s crazy talk. Second situation came in the fourth quarter, with 7:41 to play and the Chiefs with a 3rd down-and-18 to go play. The Chiefs ran Kolby Smith and he gained two yards. They punted the ball away to the Colts. Why not go for it? Let me count the ways. First, on the second down play, that leaky pass protection had again allowed a sack of Croyle. Two, 3rd-and-18 gets converted about eight percent of the time. Don’t believe me? This past weekend in the NFL, there were 37 third down plays where the distance to a first down was 15 yards or more. They ranged from 3rd-and-15 to 3rd-and-25. Of those 37 plays, three were converted for first downs. That’s 8 percent. The call on those plays was 29 passing/8 runs. The running plays averaged 7.1 yards per play. The passing plays (attempts plus sacks) averaged 4.4 yards per play. No, the smart move is you punt the ball away and try to influence field position. Why would anyone have expected the game plan to be anything but conservative? A young quarterback’s first start, on the road, in a loud hostile stadium, against a good defense and a team with an explosive offense, that’s the recipe for an offensive plan that leans towards the conservative. Think of it this way: you send a child out on Halloween night for his first experience in trick or treating. He comes home with a bag full of candy. The child is allowed to sit down and eat as much candy as he can stuff in his mouth. Child gets very sick. The Chiefs coaches were not going to give Croyle the whole bag of goodies. They are going to parcel them out and the young man gets his feet under him and his wits about him. Understand that the idea is to give Croyle a chance to play. Put in a game plan that is aggressive and full of throwing the football means that Croyle will play for awhile. But with the poor pass protection provided by the current offensive line, that type of plan would eventually end with Croyle being carried off the field, and not in celebration. Already, just one game into the Brodie Croyle Era and the fans, media and some of his offensive teammates are already grumbling. Patience people. Patience.
Posts: 5,632

11-21-2007, 07:51 AM	#2
KC Jones Genious Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Casino cash: $10012761	Gretz is suck a **ing douche. __________________ re-sign: to sign again resign:** to withdraw from employment
Posts: 5,366

11-21-2007, 08:02 AM	#4
TEX Out Gunning CP's Fandom Police Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Laguna Beach, CA Casino cash: $2383127	I said the same thing about the game reminding me of the Denver game last year. The bottom like is when you play conservative the whole way, and that way gives you a shot at winning, the ONLY way you're gonna win and beat a better team on the road is WHEN YOU HAVE THE CANCE - **ING TAKE IT! Herm's proven twice that his way does NOT work. The Emperior hads no clothes Gretz - get a clue. __________________ "The CHIEFS, HAVE THEIR DYNASTY!"**
Posts: 34,669

11-21-2007, 08:49 AM	#5
KCFalcon59 MVP Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Topeka, Kansas Casino cash: $910000	This is so frustrating. Gretz is a putz. The playcalling was fine until we ran out of time. Instead of running a sweep on 1st down midway through the 4th quarter with the pathetic blocking we have we could have ran a simple 5 yard out, quick slant or heck for that matter spread them out in 4 wides and run a draw. Any of these options would have been better than what we did.
Posts: 6,762

11-21-2007, 08:51 AM	#6
Reerun_KC Rock Chalk Jayhawks! KU!!! Join Date: Aug 2005 Casino cash: $8301160	Gretz = bent over taking it in the ass while I type what Carl tells me to type.... Good thing 99% of the Chiefs fans realize that Gretz is a blowhard for Carl and dont take this pathetic shit literal....
Posts: 934

11-21-2007, 08:56 AM	#7
HemiEd Supporter Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ozarks Casino cash: $3300564	This is a horrible attempt to gloss over. He brings up the 3rd and 18 but totally ignores the 4th and 1! I had no problem with the 3rd and 18, but I questioned the 4th and 1. Even though it was questionable, I wasn't too upset with not going for it. However, how many ****ing draw plays did we run on 3rd and long? How many? OK, we barely lost in Denver last year and barely lost in Indy this year. Do those go half way between the W and L collum? Are they counted as a half loss and a half win?
Posts: 33,410

11-21-2007, 09:08 AM	#11
siberian khatru 21st Century Schizoid Fan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Gates of Delirium Casino cash: $2564950	First: Croyle got smacked by Mathis because the Chiefs left Terry alone to defend him in a fairly obvious passing situation. With Freeney out, they should've been able to shift someone over to Terry's side to help out. When you run in obvious running situations and pass in obvious passing situations, you give the defense an advantage when you're already disadvantaged on offense. Next: Patience is fine. We are patient with Brodie. We expect mistakes. Many people are willing to sacrifice wins for player development. The furor over the Indy game isn't really that we lost, it's that we didn't try to win. There's a difference, Gretz. Trying and failing is one thing. Not trying and failing is something completely different. As I said yesterday, Herm's gameplan worked brilliantly, right up until the point where he failed to capitalize on it. He shortened the game down to the fourth quarter, then refused to take a shot at winning it. He just sat back and waited for the Colts to lose. Yeah, 3rd and 18 is hard to convert. But the Chiefs were crippling themselves long before that with obvious, safe play calls that didn't attempt to keep the D off balance or force it to defend the entire field. In the 4th quarter in a tie game, the Chiefs had three first-down plays. They were: run for loss, run for no gain, run for loss. Why not call play action and throw deep? Hey, maybe you'll get a PI call. Yeah, Brodie might throw an INT or get sacked. But so what? We lost anyway. I'd rather lose trying to take a shot at winning late in the game than just stand there and wait for the Super Bowl champs to hand us a victory in their home.
Posts: 69,153

11-21-2007, 09:09 AM	#12
Messier MVP Join Date: Mar 2004 Casino cash: $10005050	Gretz is right.
Posts: 7,610

11-21-2007, 09:13 AM	#14
Zouk Veteran Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: DC Casino cash: $10004900	I understand the approach we took in the Colts game. It let us stay in a game we shouldn't have been in, and it was Croyle's 1st start. But we now have 2 division games at home that we can win and be in place to get a home playoff game. Gonzalez and Bowe are our best offensive players. Croyle is far more effective than Huard in avoiding the rush. We have got to open it up at least a little bit at home in these 2 games.
Posts: 1,454

11-21-2007, 09:41 AM	#15
MahiMike He's Mahomie! Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Jax, FL Casino cash: $10023443	Incredible. He actually uses 2 games in which they lost to defend the loss. Basically saying, "well, we lost the game but it was so close it doesn't count". Bullshit! I'd rather lose by 3 TDs than 3 points. If I've got a popgun offense going into Indy, I don't even dress my punter. Tell him, "sit your ass down today. We're gonna need lots of points so every series is 4 down territory".
Posts: 17,387