But here’s the real issue coming out of KC’s 17-10 loss to the Pats – who gets credit for the Chief...

But here’s the real issue coming out of KC’s 17-10 loss to the Pats – who gets credit for the Chiefs boring, plodding, mind-numbingly conservative offensive attack?

Do we credit Herm Edwards for that, too?

Maybe we should credit the New England Patriots.

Scout.com: Be Patient With Chiefs Offense

2 months ago Chris Comment 19 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Brilliant Article

and I laughed my ass off…nice one Wendler!

by PVChiefsfan on Sep 10, 2008 11:27 AM CDT 0 recs

But I disagree with the idea that the Chiefs “had no choice but to pass on nearly every down” of their final series. When talking about a theoretical two point conversion, he comments, “By the final minute of the fourth quarter, it was abundantly clear that KC’s offense was amazingly adept at plowing into the middle of the line of scrimmage and gaining two yards.” Well, why didn’t we try to do that more than once? Or maybe Jamaal Charles to the corner? We needed 5 yards and had one time out with the clock stopped at 53 seconds. The way I see it, time wasn’t really much of a factor. At least it wasn’t the main factor in determining play choice. Instead Huard’s 3 passes were incomplete. Yes, Bowe should have caught the one on first down. But the other two were exceptionally poor-even uncatchable, especially the one to TG, which probably should have been picked off.

Yes, throughout the game I was grumbling when the Chiefs ran again on first down, but if you’ve been doing that with a moderate degree of success, why switch it up?

by smg49 on Sep 10, 2008 11:47 AM CDT 0 recs

Great article

and if we open it up versus the Raiders, I’ll be singing a different tune. I’m just concerned because last weekend felt like we were running different sets of the same plays in the same game plan. Like, running the draw on 3rd and 8 in Pats territory using a double back Shotgun set versus a single back Shotgun set doesn’t give me tons of confidence, you know?

That two back set is really HOT though. I would love to see us run a misdirection with LJ running to the flat and passing to Charles for a screen. That would be awesome. Or a play action with LJ running the seam in Tony’s wake. Pull the safeties and freeze the linebackers, float it over.

I look a lot at what the Bears did with Kyle Orton, let me say that again, Kyle Orton and I think “hey, they’re conservative. Why can’t we do that?” “Why can’t we float a dropper to the tight end for a huge gain on 1st down instead of running into a wall again?”

by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 12:42 PM CDT 0 recs

agreed: too much similarity

The pick that Huard threw was a prime example. The CB for New England said he noticed that we were running the exact same play that he saw earlier in the game (I think the one Bowe scored on), so he jumped the route and took it away.

Also, I recall Gailey saying that he was not opposed to running the same play over and over again until the opposing defense found a way to stop it. Well, that sure as hell was a good way to stop it. Perhaps he underestimated the intelligence of the Patriots D, and maybe the intelligence of defensive players today in general. I can see repeating plays in the run game, but he needs to use caution running the same plays from the same formation in passing… defenses are too smart to fall for that crap in the NFL… this isn’t Georgia Tech anymore.

by Ochophosphate on Sep 10, 2008 9:42 PM CDT up 0 recs

The sample's too small

to draw conclusions.

We’re only one week in. There aren’t trends yet. I’m willing to wait a week or two to see what Chan’s clan shows us on the field.

by NJChiefsFan on Sep 10, 2008 12:49 PM CDT 0 recs

Well again

it’s that we saw a lot of what we saw last year, you know? You’re absolutely right that the sample size is too small to draw conclusions, but it is alarming, yes?

by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 12:52 PM CDT up 0 recs

No

What do you do against a team that clearly overmatches you on offense? You run the ball and speed the game up so the other team has fewer chances to beat you up.

This is the same situation as Indianapolis last year. The Chiefs went with an ultra-conservative gameplan gaining 3 yards a play or so and everyone hollered because it was boring.

Boring it might be, but it damn near won us BOTH games. There really is no excuse for not winning against the Pats. The game was in our hand with a minute and a timeout to go on the 5 yard line. It wasn’t the gameplan or the playcalling that lost us the game. It was lack of execution on the field by the players.

Having said that, we won’t see the ultra conservative playcalling all season.

by ChiefDJ on Sep 10, 2008 5:59 PM CDT up 0 recs

+1

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Sep 10, 2008 6:31 PM CDT up 0 recs

You could say

that maybe if we’d actually gotten aggressive and took some chances, we might have actually won instead of nearly won, since the biggest reason, the only reason, you might say, was the fact that we had fewer points than them. That tends to help.

But if you’re right, and we see less conservative playcalling, that’ll be great and we should compete. I just haven’t seen it in 17 games. I’ll hold out hope, though.

I do love the split back sets.

by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 9:18 PM CDT up 0 recs

agreed

this level of conservatism seems to only lead to closer losses… but still losses.

I almost had to slap myself after that loss for saying the following – “oh well, if we had scored we just would have blown it in OT, and I would be even more disappointed”. But who knows, maybe if we made it to OT we would have gone for the kill instead of plodding and dink-and-dunking?

I too love the split backs – something I wished we would have done with Priest/LJ. Me likey with LJ/Charles though.

by Ochophosphate on Sep 10, 2008 9:50 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'd be freaking out if we still had Solari,

but since there’s a new OC I’ll reserve judgement.

I was disappointed with the lack of rollouts, etc last Sunday.

by NJChiefsFan on Sep 10, 2008 1:11 PM CDT 0 recs

I agree

which is why I preferred Brodie to Damon. Brodie has the athletic ability to get out of the pocket while Damon has the ability to beat about 50% of the residents at a nursing home to the last serving of jello

I strive to be the person my dog thinks I am.

by KCking on Sep 10, 2008 6:33 PM CDT up 1 recs

=)

HA!

by PVChiefsfan on Sep 11, 2008 9:19 AM CDT up 0 recs

The Chiefs almost beat Indianapolis

last year and and almost beat the Patriots this year. Humnh? Well, we could almost go to the Super Bowl except for the scoreboard. Loss number ten. No offense. Enough said.

by G.L. on Sep 11, 2008 11:15 AM CDT 0 recs

"Almost"

Only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear warfare. And apparently in the mind of Carl Peterson when he rates himself on his greatness as the Chiefs’ G.M.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Sep 11, 2008 12:28 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'd rather lose by 7 to a team that went 18-1

than by 27 to a team that went 7-9 ;)

by PVChiefsfan on Sep 11, 2008 4:10 PM CDT 0 recs

I'll Say This

If the Chiefs had played as badly as the Raiders played on Monday night, I’d be writing a 10 page screed in the fanposts demanding the head of every single coach, front office employee, and advance scout in the organization. From DeAngelo Hall’s meltdown to the botched handoff from Fargas on the reverse, those players performed like they’d never met each other before game time.

Of course, as we all know with Oakland, that’s not really the fault of the coaching staff and the front office person who’s entirely responsible is never going to get fired. But if the Chiefs got steamrolled like that I’m pretty sure somebody’s head would end up on the chopping block by the end of the week.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Sep 11, 2008 4:45 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'm waiting for that one.

You know it’s going to happen. We’re going to get whacked like that Steelers game from a few years ago where we partied all night. And how we react to that loss will say a lot about our team, our coaching staff our front office, and our fanbase. And I’m not even sure what way we should react.

But Eli’s coming. Hide your heart, girl. And I don’t mean Peyton’s brother.

by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 12, 2008 12:52 AM CDT up 0 recs

I'm Not Sure A Blowout Is Coming

I do see a lot of promise in the defense, and I don’t know that there’s anyone out there who will likely run up the score on us. Biggest problem I have with the team, though, is the QB situation, which I think the front office lives in a state of complete denial about.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Sep 12, 2008 11:40 AM CDT up 0 recs