Creating Losers

  It’s common to hear coaches say, "This team needs to learn how to win."  But what does that mean?  All players in the NFL know how to win.  Otherwise, they wouldn’t have made it to the NFL.  What the coaches ought to say (but rarely do) is, "This team needs to quit worrying about losing." 

Both ideas sound the same, but they aren’t.  For obvious reasons, the game against the Philadelphia Eagles doesn’t work as an example.  The games coming up against the New York Giants and the Dallas Cowboys probably won’t be any better.  The performance of the Chiefs during the close loss to the Oakland Raiders was a perfect example, so I’m going to regress a bit (and who wants to think about the Philly loss anyway).

In the Raiders game, whenever there was plenty of time on the clock, the Chiefs usually played the way Haley says he wants them to play: Smart, tough, and conditioned.  But when the clock started to tick toward 0:00, both at the end of the first half and the end of the game, the Chiefs did their impression of the Bad News Bears.  Why the meltdown?  The simple answer is:  They were playing not to lose.

The difference between playing to win and playing not to lose is where a player’s thoughts are directed.  If a player’s thinking about how to win, they’ll subconsciously visualize what they need to do to make that happen.  If they’re thinking about how not to lose, they will again subconsciously visualize the mistakes they’re trying to avoid.  I’m not trying to go all zen-like here, but thought patterns really do make a difference.  For the Chiefs, I believe this way of thinking is what will make the difference this season between the Chiefs winning the games they have a chance to win and losing all 16 games.

Let’s look at the facts.  The overall statistics from the Chiefs first game against the Baltimore Ravens indicates that Baltimore was the better team.  The Ravens had 32 first downs versus the Chiefs 11.  The Ravens had 501 total net yards.  The Chiefs had only 188.  Yet, the Chiefs were still in the game at the end.  I believe part of the reason they eventually lost was because they started thinking about how not to lose. 

Judging by the stats, the Ravens are a better team than the Chiefs.  Perhaps the Chiefs were destined to lose—zen or no zen.  Just look at the Eagles game!  But in the Raiders game, that wasn’t the case.

The overall statistics from the Chiefs second game indicates that Kansas City was the better team.  The Chiefs had 25 first downs.  The Raiders had 11.  The Chiefs had 409 total net yards.  The Raiders managed just 166 with a third coming on the final drive.  Yet, the Raiders were in the game at the end, and unlike the Chiefs the previous week, they won.  Why?

Because the Chiefs started thinking about losing and the Raiders started thinking about winning.

Let’s look at some more evidence.  At the end of the first half, the Chiefs had the ball on the nine yard line.  Instead of throwing into the end zone, Cassel’s pass went short to Savage who gained only one yard and couldn’t get out of bounds.  If Cassel had it to do over, surely he’d throw the ball away.  Two questions come up:  1) Why was Savage running a short worthless pattern in that situation (instead of staying in to block)? and 2) Why didn’t Cassel throw it out the back of the end zone?  Lots of reasons are possible.  I believe the Chiefs were trying not to lose that opportunity (by throwing an interception or taking a sack), and so lost that opportunity.  By playing not to lose, they lost.

It’s easy to poke holes in this theory, but think about the classic example of Joe Montana throwing to Dwight Clark in the NFL Playoff game (January 10, 1982).  Joe later admitted he was trying to throw the ball away.  But Dwight Clark made an incredible catch and the 49ers won.  Matt Cassel’s no Joe Montana!  But Joe Montana wasn’t Joe Montana then either.  He had yet to win his first Super Bowl.  The Cowboys were supposed to win.  And yet he threw a pass that could have been picked off.  Not because he was too stupid to know the difference, but because he was trying to win.

Montana to Clark - The Catch (via mattschauer)

Take the more recent example of Brett Favre at the end of the Vikings game against the Forty-niners.  Brett scrambled around for six seconds.  If he’d been sacked, the game would have ended.  They would have lost.  But when he threw the ball, he threw it out the back of the end zone.  If his receiver didn’t catch it, they’d get another play.  He wasn’t playing stupid, but he was playing to win.

Brett Favre Game Winning TD Pass to Greg Lewis..Vikings vs. 49ers (via BSONFL)

When Matt Cassel threw the ball deep to Dwayne Bowe in the Raiders game, he was trying to win.  When he threw it to Bradley on a fade route in the Philadelphia game, he was trying to win.  Bowe and Bradley weren’t wide open.  Those balls could have easily been picked off.  But instead they were great plays and they were touchdowns.  When Matt Cassel threw the two interceptions in the Raiders game, he was trying to win.  Those didn’t turn out so well, but he’d been squeezing the ball into tight coverage most of the day.  Those throws were just a bit off.

Compare the Chiefs at the end of the first half to the Raiders last drive.  Jamarcus Russell, who had been truly terrible all day, threw four deep passes on that drive.  Granted, two of these were incompletions, but that’s exactly the point.  After the game, several announcers talked about Russell being great on that last drive, but he wasn’t.  He dropped back to pass eight times.  He threw three incompletions and took a sack.  But he threw the ball deep four times out of those eight drop-backs.

Now fast-forward a few seconds to Kansas City’s last drive.  First down:  Pass of 9 yards to Dantrell Savage.  Second down:  Incompletion intended for Dantrell Savage.  Third down, sack, but according to Todd Haley, he considered the call on third and one to be almost like a run because he had something short planned to Dantrell Savage.  Fourth down:  Incompletion intended for Jake O’Connell.

Four pass attempts.  All short.  With Kansas City’s pass protection, that’s probably the smart set of play calls to make.  But to me, this is the essential difference.  The same could be said of Jamarcus Russell and the Raiders last drive.  Remember, Jamarcus Russell was only 3 of 17 at that point.  He’d also been sacked once.  At the start of Cassel’s last drive, he’d been sacked only once and had completed 64% of his passes.  And yet, the Chiefs attempt four short passes to a backup running back and a journeyman tight end.  The Raiders attempted seven passes, two to running backs and five to wide receivers.  And not to proven pro-bowl wide receivers, either.  Louis Murphy’s a rookie fourth round pick and Todd Watkins is a Haley reject from Arizona.

On the Chiefs last drive, where was Dwayne Bowe?  Where was Bobby Wade?  Covered, probably.  Thinking about what they needed to do so they didn’t lose?  Possibly.  Just not used to being in that situation?  Definitely.

To end this, I want to point out two facts.  1) Haley says nobody on the team is safe.  Anyone can be replaced at any time.  Whoever gives them the best chance to win will play.  2) Tom Cable said he never considered pulling Jamarcus Russell from the game (and I believe him).

Given those two facts, it’s not surprising that Jamarcus Russell claims he never considered the idea he might be pulled.  Could Matt Cassel say the same?  After Haley’s comments over the past week, it’s pretty clear he couldn’t.  While making sure everyone does their best is great, if a player’s going to worry about his job every week, he’s also going to worry about what he might do wrong that will lose him his job.  That means he’s going to worry about how not to lose, and to me, at least, that’s where the problem starts.

For example, in the Philadelphia Eagles game, on the touchdown play by DeSean Jackson, Maurice Leggett was trying to win.  He was stuck in close coverage with DeSean Jackson and when the perfect pass was thrown, Maurice did his best to knock it down.  He failed to make the tackle, but he was a hair’s breadth from knocking the ball down and he was in position to make an interception if the pass was just a bit off.

DeSean Jackson's Touchdown against the Chiefs (via RandomSportzClipz)

And his reward for trying to win and making one small mistake against a great player?  He was benched for the rest of the game in favor of the hapless rookie Donald Washington.  While it’s true Washington may someday become a great player, on this day, Leggett was clearly better.  The worst part of this play was that the true foul-up wasn’t made by Leggett at all.  Instead, it was Monty Beisel, who took the wrong angle in pass coverage, overran the play, and allowed DeSean Jackson to break into the clear.  Never mind the multitude of other players who Jackson simply ran by on his way to the end zone.  But Haley hadn’t studied the tape.  He just saw Leggett on the ground and Jackson running for a touchdown.

And that’s the problem with "punishing" players.

To fix the problem, Haley needs to start communicating.  Tell players who’ve been benched why they’ve been benched.  Let them know it will take more than one mistake to get them bench, inactivated, or worse (put on the waiver wire).  Make it clear that mistakes are not to be repeated, but also make it clear that trying to win will not cost a player his starting position, his time on the field, or his job.  The competition in training camp was great, but now the day-to-day competition’s over.  We have the team that gives us the best chance to win.  It’s time Haley started allowing them to play to win.