Chiefs Still Cannot Run The Ball
Our offensive line still is not very good.
Yes the offense has been playing better the last month. Chalk that up to Thigpen having more talent than anybody thought he did and Chan Gailey being able to come up with creative enough plays to disguise our deficiencies. That's an enormous job on this squad and kudos to Gailey for figuring out a way to do it.
In the end though, in the NFL if you cannot run the ball, you are not going to win many games.
Everybody loves the passing game. It's exciting. It moves the ball down the field quickly. And if you have a QB the coaches have faith in and that is capable of executing intermediate to long passes, which it looks more and more with each passing week that we might, it can result in your team actually trying to dig out of 3rd and 15s like we did today rather than just resigning to try to get 5 yards and punt.
Having a QB capable of running the passing game is fantastic. But in the end, you STILL have to be able to run the football. You have to be able to trust that your offensive line is going to get enough push to convert that easy 3rd and 2 by running it rather than throwing to Tony Gonzalez in triple coverage or having the inevitable ball bounce off the WRs hands. You should be able to depend on your running game to spin time off the clock when you have the lead at the end of the game without it making it look like the coaches just wanted to punt the ball away as soon as they could.
And most of all, when you are in 1st and Goal at the one yard line, you DAMN WELL better be able to get in the end zone in three tries by running it without having to resort to low percentage fade passes that don't work 50% of the time. The Chiefs failed to do that twice today.
There's two things in the NFL that if you cannot do will make you a loser. Not being able to rush the passer and not being able to run the football. The Chiefs can't do either right now. The sad thing is, there really isn't anything to be done about it the rest of the season. It all comes down to not having the personnel to do it on the squad. It doesn't matter what defensive scheme you're in or what exotic formations and plays the offensive coordinator calls in, if you don't have guys that can maul the oppossing defense and push them a couple yards off the line of scrimmage, or if you don't have a DE that has the speed to get around the Tackle, its not going to happen.
As the season has progressed we have found some answers to questions we had at certain positions. Mark Bradley seems to be a good option as the #2 WR and if we keep our fingers crossed and hope real hard, maybe Thigpen will be as good as what we're hoping he is. The answers for the O-line and DE though, are not on the team. Those issues are going to have to wait until the offseason to be addressed either in free agency or the draft.
For this reason as much as any other we are likely to continue to see games like we have the last month. A team with tons of holes cobbled together with guys brought in off the street to replace the injured guys we picked up off the street earlier in the year showing they have some fight in them and seeing improvment in individual players, but the team as a whole failing when they get to the end.
90% complete teams (no team is ever 100% complete) will beat 45% complete teams every time.
0 recs |
14 comments
Comments
Not Entirely True
The Patriots didn’t have much of a running game last year and they ran the table in the regular season.
Our problems are primarily because of the defense. We can’t rush the passer and we’re the worst in the NFL at stopping the run. You’re not going to win consistently if your defense is that bad, even if you can run the ball (and our offense is much less of a problem). But you’re right that the o-line needs addressing…it should have been addressed more this last offseason. In fact, fixing both lines should probably be our top priority this offseason.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Nov 16, 2008 11:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Every analyst says that it starts with the lines
And I believe it.
We seem to have some options on the periphery, e.g. corners, WRs, backs, safeties, but out front five and seven, on the offense and defense respectively, need a lot of work.
Our LBs just aren’t doing anything. Our pass rush is atrocious. And our running game is feeble. We have shown progress in pass protection, but a lot of that is because we run the spreadesque offense and have a very mobile quarter back (note: third and long, Tyler runs it to the 4).
At least we can have a good draft, and still have PLENTY of cap room to make moves. Having money to spend can mean we can turn this thing around sooner rather than later.
Am I expected playoffs next year? No. Could it happen? Yes.
by AngryJesus on Nov 16, 2008 11:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The Really Depressing Thing About The Defense
Is that we can’t really use rebuilding as an excuse. They’ve been “rebuilding” the defense for three years now and it’s not the rookies (Dorsey, Carr, Flowers) who are struggling as much as it is the vets who should have figured a lot of this out by now.
I’m really of the opinion that it’s not talent as much as it’s conditioning and the guy running the defense. After watching the Chiefs display a historic level of defensive ineptitude this season (we’re on pace for the fewest sacks by any team since they started recording that stat) I’m squarely in the “Fire Gunther” camp (along with our strength and conditioning coach).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Nov 16, 2008 11:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We can't run?
we seemed to be able to run the previous 3 weeks. No, not at the top level, but we ran it farily well (stats, anyone?)
Yes, I’m getting boring. Today we couldn’t run because everyone /knows/ tht LJ don’t pass-block. When the D saw 27, they sold out on the run. and they were right to do so.
Does having a sub-par line hurt? Yup. Thiggy being young? Yup.
Nevertheless. We supposedly have one of the top backs in the league, and since he don’t pass block, (save for once that I saw) or receive ery well, what can you do with him.
I remember seeing a game against Denver, where I was screaming (literally!) at the TV, because their RB wasn’t putting in his mouthguard on plays where he wasn’t involved. If the D had keyed on that, we’da killed them!
Well, the other D-coords ain’t so stupid as we were. You see LJ, you play the run, and forget the play action.
Oh, I forgot – It’s All Herm’s Fault!
by Bleedingredandgold on Nov 17, 2008 4:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
To be fair
we did score a TD on one of those 1st and goals…on first down no less. Why did the replays going on during the challenge only show LJ’s back? Unless he was holding the football with his nuts, it was a TD, because the bottom of the 27 on his jersey broke the plane.
by PVChiefsfan on Nov 17, 2008 7:09 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately
There wasn’t a camera on that side of the field to do a replay viewing and therefore we have no idea where the ball was at. And the ref on that side had the angle and the view of the play so it’s not like his vision was obscured.
Too bad Herm didn’t realize there wasn’t a camera there before he threw the challenge flag. Of course, as Brian Billick noted quite a few coaches would have known that there was no camera because where the replay cameras are is something that many coaches look for before games (Billick said he looked for them). Funny how Herm didn’t.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2008 7:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, no.
Billick said that he knew some coaches do look for the cameras, the number of which he said were largely dependent on how ‘popular’ the networks figured the game would be (ie: how many resources the committed to televising it).
But then Billick confessed that he probably would not have looked for the cameras before the game either because there were more important things to concern yourself with as a coach and it was just unfortunate that Larry didn’t turn the other way on his jump.
by JacinB on Nov 17, 2008 2:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair Enough
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2008 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No T-Rich- No TD's
T-Rich’s bread and butter is blowing up fools on the goaline. Why in the world would we ever let him go? Our run game hasn’t been the same since he left. I blame Carl for this bonehead move. T-Rich WANTED to stay a Chief!
by C-7PumpkinSmasher on Nov 17, 2008 9:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Seriously?
That was how many years ago? How old is T-Rich now?
The point is, even if he had stayed a Chief, he likely wouldn’t still be playing for us anyway, and we’ve got a great Rookie fullback that fits the T-Rich mould that we’re developing. Ironically, I don’t think he was in and blocking for LJ during those goal-line runs either.
And, on both of those plays, Thiggy was open enough because the defense’d sold out on blocking LJ that he could’ve play-faked it to someone or run it in himself on the bootleg.
by JacinB on Nov 17, 2008 2:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He Was In For Blocking On Some Of Them
Got flagged on a completely b.s. hold on one. And I agree…T-Rich was great while he was here but he’s old now and I like Mike Cox’s potential.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2008 2:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you nuts?
Look at what Thomas Jones is doing with the Jets. All because of T-Rich. Look at what A. Peterson did last year, all because of T. Rich. He is a stud who is still getting it done at a high level. T-Rich MAKES 1,000 yard rushers. Plus he was a fan favortie for number of years. Letting him go was a slap in all of our faces. It’s no wonder our running game shwagged out as soon as he left.
by C-7PumpkinSmasher on Nov 17, 2008 3:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He's Played In Three Games This Year For The Jets
And Thomas Jones rushed for 70 yards or less in each of them. Also, Adrian Peterson is on pace to run for 1,700 yards without Tony Richardson in his backfield. So let’s not go attributing magical powers to him…he hasn’t “made” any thousand yard rushers, either this year or last year. Adrian Peterson is a great back with or without him. Thomas Jones has actually played better when Richardson isn’t in the lineup.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Nov 17, 2008 4:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Power run game
We are able to run and run effectively up and down the field, LJ even managed to peel off a couple of 8 and 9 yard runs. But every time we go to our "power" formation we get blown up big time. When we become predictable we fail every time, but when we have the entire field to work with we keep the opposing team on their toes.
What boggles my mind is how the opposing team just destroys us from BOTH sides of the line when we try smash mouth football. There are defensive players in the backfield from both the right and left side and until at least one side of our line can block we should think twice about going to the power formation.
What I would like to see is go ahead and spread out the defense with 4 players split out to keep the defense honest in having to guard all those players and then just hand off to LJ and have him smash it up the gut. This way you keep the light package on the field for the D and LJ should be able to overpower DBs to get into the endzone.
by tevans96 on Nov 17, 2008 9:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 


















