PDA

View Full Version : Not as bad as I thought



Three7s
09-16-2007, 09:09 PM
Yes, the Chiefs lost, yes a lot of us were thinking they'd lose, but I was impressed overall by how we played actually. At first, it looked like it was gonna get ugly. After a turnover the Chiefs do nothing with, the Bears drive down the field for the only offensive TD they get. Then right after that, Hester takes it to the house, as well as add on a FG to make it 17-0. I'm just thinking, how bad is this gonna get? Then, the offense suprises me, marches down the field 4 plays which end up with our first TD of the season, with a nice pass to Bowe.(or was it TG?!) The Bears get a FG after yet another good Hester return to make it 20-7. The Chiefs answer right back with a FG of their own after a Grossman pick.
The Bears go 3 and our after that and the Chiefs are marching down the field. Huard throws a strike to Bowe, which would've been a TD to make it 20-17. However, the referees kill us with an Illegal Shift. I call BS. Who actually calls that nowadays anyways? Anyways, the Bears get the ball back, but Grossman gets picked again. A couple plays later, Huard throws a pretty good pass, can't remember to who, but it's batted away thanks to very good coverage, sadly right at another Bear. They go 3 and out once again and Herm decides to put in Croyle. Croyle was pretty impressive, throwing a 30+ yard bomb which got us into the redzone. However, Bennet fumbled a play later after being greedy for yardage. That, was the game.
Yes, we lost, but we played better than we did last week. The offense showed signs of life, and the defense kept us in the game and caused turnovers. One of our turnovers was unlucky, the other was thanks to the shape the game was in already. The referees took a TD away from us, and even if it was a penalty, I still think it's dumb, I see teams get away with it all the time. Overall, the two reasons we lost were that call by the refs and Hester's impact on the game. However, if we play like this for the rest of the season, we may be better than we think.

anaeelbackwards
09-16-2007, 09:14 PM
3 Turnovers, and NO points off it. THATS BAD PLAY CALLING.

I believe the defense did their job and held us in the game.

The offense on the other hand, was just plain ugly. I don't know what they are going to do about that.

And yes, the pass to TONY GUN *ahem* DBOWE, was spectacular!

Canada
09-16-2007, 09:16 PM
Can someone explain why the kickoff that Hester caught and stepped out on the 3 yard line was a penalty against the Chiefs??

Three7s
09-16-2007, 09:18 PM
Illegal block in the back.

wolfpack
09-16-2007, 09:20 PM
Can someone explain why the kickoff that Hester caught and stepped out on the 3 yard line was a penalty against the Chiefs??

Can someone explain why we are 3rd and 1, in field goal range, and throw a endzone pass to little Parker? mr. i cant go up for it-hands parker? the only time we really moved the ball is when hermmie took the leash of his lap dog solai and they shifted and really mixed it up.

LAChief
09-16-2007, 09:24 PM
I admit its a lot easier watching a Chiefs game when you know there going to lose. There were bright spots but a lot of bad ones also. I thought Solari's game plan sucked, never tried to get it to 88. I wish our offense would expand their game plan from 5 plays to at least 10 different plays. It would definitely put a little bit more pressure on the other teams defense.

Can someone tell me how two coaches from the same background can play such different styles of defense. Edwards defense is soft, never puts any pressure on the QB, always covering empty spaces, while Lovey's defense is always pressuring, never letting receivers run free, and always hitting people hard.

Canada
09-16-2007, 09:25 PM
Illegal block in the back.

That is a 37 yard penalty??

anaeelbackwards
09-16-2007, 09:25 PM
whos play callin here?

:mob:

its 3rd and 1... why not give the ball to LJ?

they paid him all that money, why not USE HIM?

no excuses for that.
:beer:

anaeelbackwards
09-16-2007, 09:26 PM
i agree. i believe there was a lot of missed tackles on the CHIEFS part.

although that lick DJ had on Grossman was pretty sweeeeet.

wolfpack
09-16-2007, 09:28 PM
I admit its a lot easier watching a Chiefs game when you know there going to lose. There were bright spots but a lot of bad ones also. I thought Solari's game plan sucked, never tried to get it to 88. I wish our offense would expand their game plan from 5 plays to at least 10 different plays. It would definitely put a little bit more pressure on the other teams defense.

Can someone tell me how two coaches from the same background can play such different styles of defense. Edwards defense is soft, never puts any pressure on the QB, always covering empty spaces, while Lovey's defense is always pressuring, never letting receivers run free, and always hitting people hard.
irt was easier to watch the game knowing how bad our offense is.

zona chief
09-16-2007, 09:28 PM
What they said was because he caught the ball with one foot out of bounds it makes the kick out of bounds. Therefore the penalty for an out of bounds kick-off.

Stupid to me, never heard of it before.

wolfpack
09-16-2007, 09:33 PM
our offense is bad. our defense is just above average so our margin of error is next to nill. the bad thing is nill is named herme edwards.

Cornflake
09-16-2007, 10:09 PM
yeah i dont like that call about the one foot being out of bounds, whatever.
That game was so annoying to watch, i threw my couch pillows a couple times. Glad the gf wasnt around to see that haha.
I just didnt like alot of play calls like running the ball on 3rd and 9. Not that we deserved to win that game at all..but the offense was horrid. But the play calling was just as bad. I totally agree that they need to expand a little more of a playbook.

Three7s
09-16-2007, 10:26 PM
I don't understand why everyone is going off on our offense when we already knew it was gonna be bad. Quite frankly, I was suprised we did as much as we did, when everyone in the world predicted a possible shut out. As far as that penalty goes, I was thinking of a different kickoff. I don't think I saw that one. At least Croyle had a good drive going before Bennet screwed it up!

chief31
09-16-2007, 10:27 PM
Can someone explain why the kickoff that Hester caught and stepped out on the 3 yard line was a penalty against the Chiefs??


What they said was because he caught the ball with one foot out of bounds it makes the kick out of bounds. Therefore the penalty for an out of bounds kick-off.

Stupid to me, never heard of it before.

I am pretty sure that it was a bad call. Hester cught the ball, then stepped out of bounds. The Bears should have had the ball right there. The part that I'm not sure about is if the possession rule there is the same as it is for receptions. I am pretty sure that I saw a similar play, where the returner was ruled to have cught the ball, then stepped out. Your ball, right where you stepped out. Hopefully, NFL Network will bring that play to the head of the NFL officials, as they discuss certain plays with him weekly.

YZILLA
09-16-2007, 10:39 PM
I dont care how much MOST of you thought about how bad we are. I for one saw a much different game in the aspect of us actually remembering how to score again. That Touchdown called back for an illegal shift and its 20-17 against the team that was in the Superbowl last year on their Home field . Considering how poor we play on the road , that game gave me huge hope for the rest of the season. Our offense started gelling and moved the ball down the field, The game was nowhere perfect but damn ease up on all the we suck stuff and look at the positives or keep the negaitives to a minimum. We are a support group for our favorite team here not a bashing group . Im getting to the point of never posting in here anymore because its always such a negative experience . Its no fun coming in here and reading post after post of what we did wrong and how bad our team can be at times. Maybe its just me and I should be appologizing for what I am saying . I love the CHIEFS and I thought the game was very poorly played on both sides , but I really loved watching the Team find the endzone again. It was like a weight being lifted off of our shoulders. The positive vibe was in the air . It seemed like Chicago was on the ropes near the end to me. GO Chiefs !!!! BOO to the Negative people ! Again I am not calling anyone out in general , Alot of you seemed to try and find the positive in this team. Just lately in general, Many people have really gotten negative in here and its really keeping me from posting . I dont want to be part of that . I really enjoy most of you that post in here on a steady basis because you never waiver in your loyalty to the chiefs.

Canada
09-16-2007, 10:53 PM
Take Hester out of the mix and that is 10 points off the Bears score.

Three7s
09-16-2007, 11:20 PM
Hester and that questionable call by the refs is why we lost. No one thought it would come down to something like that. I still think we played great considering it was on the road. If we play like that, we may be ok. I really hope Herm saw something though. I noticed Solari opened up the playbook when we got down 17-0, and got that TD. It looked so impressive, maybe now Herm will start letting Solari go down the field more, especially before 3rd down. Overall, a loss is a loss, but we played ok. The only major problem I saw were penalties, please stop being stupid!

Sick Dog
09-16-2007, 11:20 PM
They could have and should have won that game! So many missed opportunities.:sign0080: But with all that being said I think they took a step forward!:D Bowe is starting to show why he is the first round pick, the defense is looking pretty good and they get Allen back next week.:yahoo:Now they go home and I tell you they will be 4-3 going into the bye week.:bananen_smilies046:

texaschief
09-17-2007, 12:02 AM
I am pretty sure that it was a bad call. Hester cught the ball, then stepped out of bounds. The Bears should have had the ball right there. The part that I'm not sure about is if the possession rule there is the same as it is for receptions. I am pretty sure that I saw a similar play, where the returner was ruled to have cught the ball, then stepped out. Your ball, right where you stepped out. Hopefully, NFL Network will bring that play to the head of the NFL officials, as they discuss certain plays with him weekly.

the call was correct. when recieving a kickoff and catching the ball, the same concept applies as if you were catching a pass. you're only ruled in bounds if BOTH feet are in bounds...which his weren't. Those kinds of plays/rules are understood and practiced during the week. By catching the ball with one foot in and one out, he emphatically makes it clear to the ref that the ball is out of bounds rather than letting it bounce again and risking it skipping thru the end zone, thus causing a touchback. The play won't be scrutinized on the NFL network. they got the call right.

the only call i saw that was questionable was the illegal shift call. they tried to explain it on TV, but i kept rewinding the play and couldn't see an illegal shift. there are plenty of shifts that have more than 1 player moving. i thought that was pretty bogus and the LATE FLAG handed the game over...but, so did Huard and Bennett.

PLAY CROYLE!!!

Canada
09-17-2007, 12:09 AM
He had one foot in bounds (established in the field of play) and caught the ball before his right foot stepped out. I don't see how that is kicking the ball out of bounds

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 12:13 AM
Yes, the Chiefs lost, yes a lot of us were thinking they'd lose, but I was impressed overall by how we played actually. At first, it looked like it was gonna get ugly. After a turnover the Chiefs do nothing with, the Bears drive down the field for the only offensive TD they get. Then right after that, Hester takes it to the house, as well as add on a FG to make it 17-0. I'm just thinking, how bad is this gonna get? Then, the offense suprises me, marches down the field 4 plays which end up with our first TD of the season, with a nice pass to Bowe.(or was it TG?!) The Bears get a FG after yet another good Hester return to make it 20-7. The Chiefs answer right back with a FG of their own after a Grossman pick.
The Bears go 3 and our after that and the Chiefs are marching down the field. Huard throws a strike to Bowe, which would've been a TD to make it 20-17. However, the referees kill us with an Illegal Shift. I call BS. Who actually calls that nowadays anyways? Anyways, the Bears get the ball back, but Grossman gets picked again. A couple plays later, Huard throws a pretty good pass, can't remember to who, but it's batted away thanks to very good coverage, sadly right at another Bear. They go 3 and out once again and Herm decides to put in Croyle. Croyle was pretty impressive, throwing a 30+ yard bomb which got us into the redzone. However, Bennet fumbled a play later after being greedy for yardage. That, was the game.
Yes, we lost, but we played better than we did last week. The offense showed signs of life, and the defense kept us in the game and caused turnovers. One of our turnovers was unlucky, the other was thanks to the shape the game was in already. The referees took a TD away from us, and even if it was a penalty, I still think it's dumb, I see teams get away with it all the time. Overall, the two reasons we lost were that call by the refs and Hester's impact on the game. However, if we play like this for the rest of the season, we may be better than we think.

Well that is a nice positive spin. The truth of the matter is that they played just well enough to loose 20-10.




That is all.

YZILLA
09-17-2007, 12:53 AM
Huard held up and played like a man considering his age and the beating he took. He was handing the ball off with his opposite hand because he hurt so bad and didnt want to be taken out . True class if you ask me. I was very impressed with the way Croyle came in and looked calm and collected. Also the bennett fumble was just a case of trying to do too much on one play. He wanted the endzone bad and he just had tough luck. Could have happened to LJ . We went down swinging and im proud of them that they kept fighting when they could have rolled over and gave up. GO CHIEFS !! :sign0098:

luv
09-17-2007, 12:57 AM
Huard held up and played like a man considering his age and the beating he took. He was handing the ball off with his opposite hand because he hurt so bad and didnt want to be taken out . True class if you ask me. I was very impressed with the way Croyle came in and looked calm and collected. Also the bennett fumble was just a case of trying to do too much on one play. He wanted the endzone bad and he just had tough luck. Could have happened to LJ . We went down swinging and im proud of them that they kept fighting when they could have rolled over and gave up. GO CHIEFS !! :sign0098:
So, you'd rather have someone play injured, then go ahead and sit out? I get what you're saying, but do you play a RB or WR with a hurt foot? You shouldn't play a QB knowing his hand is hurt. THat's what you have a backup for. I think Croyle should have come in a bit sooner.

YZILLA
09-17-2007, 01:02 AM
well he did sit out when they found out he couldnt play anymore. He wouldnt let them know he was hurt that bad. The coachs arent stupid.I know your a huge Croyle fan so I will take remarks as such. I just said Huard showed alot of class fighting through his pain . and I also said I was impressed with Croyle also. I dont get the trying to lure me into an argument about something me trying to be a fan and state my happiness with how our team battled it out today.

luv
09-17-2007, 01:07 AM
well he did sit out when they found out he couldnt play anymore. He wouldnt let them know he was hurt that bad. The coachs arent stupid.I know your a huge Croyle fan so I will take remarks as such. I just said Huard showed alot of class fighting through his pain . and I also said I was impressed with Croyle also. I dont get the trying to lure me into an argument about something me trying to be a fan and state my happiness with how our team battled it out today.
I wasn't trying to lure you into an argument. I apologize if that's how that came across. I'm just saying why play through pain? Why wouldn't you let someone know? I'm saying I think the effort was valiant, but not necessary. I wasn't speaking as Croyle fan. I just don't think playing injured is the smartest move in this case. It could just make it worse.

Canada
09-17-2007, 01:09 AM
They played hard and showed signs of life. They want to win and it is a contact sport. Every guy on the field is hurt to some degree, should they all sit down as soon as they have their first bump of bruise??

luv
09-17-2007, 01:10 AM
They played hard and showed signs of life. They want to win and it is a contact sport. Every guy on the field is hurt to some degree, should they all sit down as soon as they have their first bump of bruise??
Geez. Never mind. Forget I said anything. I am starting to be viewed as nothing but a troublemaker around here.

YZILLA
09-17-2007, 01:12 AM
my bad also, I guess I should have said " Its a man thing " Men dont wanna let someone know they are hurt . Especially when the title starting quarterback is on the line , No offense intended LUV. A man just doesnt want his buddies thinking hes a wuss . Its a pride thing not a intellect thing. Peace LUV !

timsatt1
09-17-2007, 01:12 AM
Geez. Never mind. Forget I said anything. I am starting to be viewed as nothing but a troublemaker around here.


EDITED...whoops i was responding to the wrong guy.

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 01:14 AM
FWIW I see luv's point; you don't do yourself or your team any favors by trying to play beyond your physical capacity.

YZILLA
09-17-2007, 01:16 AM
Like I said , Its a pride thing , not an intellect thing.

Canada
09-17-2007, 01:16 AM
So, you'd rather have someone play injured, then go ahead and sit out? I get what you're saying, but do you play a RB or WR with a hurt foot? You shouldn't play a QB knowing his hand is hurt. THat's what you have a backup for. I think Croyle should have come in a bit sooner.


They played hard and showed signs of life. They want to win and it is a contact sport. Every guy on the field is hurt to some degree, should they all sit down as soon as they have their first bump of bruise??


Geez. Never mind. Forget I said anything. I am starting to be viewed as nothing but a troublemaker around here.

sorry for responding to your question....won't happen again

luv
09-17-2007, 01:17 AM
EDITED...whoops i was responding to the wrong guy.
For the record, I'm not a guy.

YZILLA
09-17-2007, 01:19 AM
LOL you da m... girl Luv !

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 01:22 AM
Ok everyone, take a deep breath. We have diverse opinions that we are all entitled to; no one is being viewed as a trouble maker.

YZILLA
09-17-2007, 01:23 AM
I thought we jus made up - I dont have any hard feelings about a miscommunication between LUV and I !

luv
09-17-2007, 01:25 AM
LOL you da m... girl Luv !
That's Miss Luv to you! :p

YZILLA
09-17-2007, 01:27 AM
Wont happen again MISS Luv !:bananen_smilies046:

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 01:27 AM
That's Miss Luv to you! :p

Oh, there ya go advertising again! :D

Three7s
09-17-2007, 01:35 AM
We did miss a lot of opportunities. If we cashed in on all of them where we had a really good chance to score, I think it adds up to around 24pts for us. The Chiefs know that they're missing these opportunities and it's obvious that they're mad and frustrated by it. When that happens, there's only one thing to do.
I'll give an example, the Browns played the Bengals today, and I thought for sure that the Bengals would kill them after they were about as good as the Chiefs last week, only scoring a FG. They make a QB change and what happens? They only score 51pts and beat the Bengals 51-45, which shocked the media and myself.
The Chiefs keep saying they're so frustrated and everything with how they can't get the ball in from the redzone. That's a key sign to put in the new guy. What do you have to lose? It's time to take a step in the right direction, who knows, you may just score 50+!:D Just my thoughts.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, I didn't think Huard played all that bad, in fact he made some nice throws. I just think it'd be good change of pace for the team and for the team's growth.

anaeelbackwards
09-17-2007, 01:39 AM
The Chiefs keep saying they're so frustrated and everything with how they can't get the ball in from the redzone. That's a key sign to put in the new guy. What do you have to lose? It's time to take a step in the right direction, who knows, you may just score 50+!:D Just my thoughts.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, I didn't think Huard played all that bad, in fact he made some nice throws. I just think it'd be good change of pace for the team and for the team's growth.

HUARD didn't do a bad job at all. He was just set up with the wrong play calls and also a kind of weak o-line to begin with.

Canada
09-17-2007, 01:40 AM
We did miss a lot of opportunities. If we cashed in on all of them where we had a really good chance to score, I think it adds up to around 24pts for us. The Chiefs know that they're missing these opportunities and it's obvious that they're mad and frustrated by it. When that happens, there's only one thing to do.
I'll give an example, the Browns played the Bengals today, and I thought for sure that the Bengals would kill them after they were about as good as the Chiefs last week, only scoring a FG. They make a QB change and what happens? They only score 51pts and beat the Bengals 51-45, which shocked the media and myself.
The Chiefs keep saying they're so frustrated and everything with how they can't get the ball in from the redzone. That's a key sign to put in the new guy. What do you have to lose? It's time to take a step in the right direction, who knows, you may just score 50+!:D Just my thoughts.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, I didn't think Huard played all that bad, in fact he made some nice throws. I just think it'd be good change of pace for the team and for the team's growth.

That would be a good idea if we were trying to decide between Frye and Anderson. However I don't think that Huard is the problem. It's the play calling. If you wanted to take out Herm/Solari and put in me and Chiefster, then yes it would be a good idea. Huard is the starter and should remain that way until the SB or we are eliminated. (and yes I would have said the same thing if Croyle was our starter)

luv
09-17-2007, 01:43 AM
That would be a good idea if we were trying to decide between Frye and Anderson. However I don't think that Huard is the problem. It's the play calling. If you wanted to take out Herm/Solari and put in me and Chiefster, then yes it would be a good idea. Huard is the starter and should remain that way until the SB or we are eliminated. (and yes I would have said the same thing if Croyle was our starter)
I completely agree. I don't know how many times I was thinging, "Why the hell are we throwing?" when I thought we should have ran it, or, "Why the hell did we run that?" when I thought it made more sense to pass it. Of course, I don't have the expert eye that I'm sure you guys do. ;)

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 01:48 AM
That would be a good idea if we were trying to decide between Frye and Anderson. However I don't think that Huard is the problem. It's the play calling. If you wanted to take out Herm/Solari and put in me and Chiefster, then yes it would be a good idea. Huard is the starter and should remain that way until the SB or we are eliminated. (and yes I would have said the same thing if Croyle was our starter)

Heh! The couldn't afford our expertise Canada; they gotta pay LJ. :D

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 01:49 AM
I completely agree. I don't know how many times I was thinging, "Why the hell are we throwing?" when I thought we should have ran it, or, "Why the hell did we run that?" when I thought it made more sense to pass it. Of course, I don't have the expert eye that I'm sure you guys do. ;)


Exactly!

...Now, where did I put my trifocals???:11:

rbedgood
09-17-2007, 01:51 AM
the call was correct. when recieving a kickoff and catching the ball, the same concept applies as if you were catching a pass. you're only ruled in bounds if BOTH feet are in bounds...which his weren't. Those kinds of plays/rules are understood and practiced during the week. By catching the ball with one foot in and one out, he emphatically makes it clear to the ref that the ball is out of bounds rather than letting it bounce again and risking it skipping thru the end zone, thus causing a touchback. The play won't be scrutinized on the NFL network. they got the call right.

the only call i saw that was questionable was the illegal shift call. they tried to explain it on TV, but i kept rewinding the play and couldn't see an illegal shift. there are plenty of shifts that have more than 1 player moving. i thought that was pretty bogus and the LATE FLAG handed the game over...but, so did Huard and Bennett.

PLAY CROYLE!!!

Absolutely right on both counts...the kick was properly considered out of bounds, and the illegal shift was bogus.

Canada
09-17-2007, 01:52 AM
Absolutely right on both counts...the kick was properly considered out of bounds, and the illegal shift was bogus.

He did not have his foot out of bounds when he caught the ball

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 01:55 AM
He did not have his foot out of bounds when he caught the ball

I think what is being conveyed though is that both feet must come down in bounds. But, I've been wrong before.

Canada
09-17-2007, 02:00 AM
I think what is being conveyed though is that both feet must come down in bounds. But, I've been wrong before.

But he started in bounds, had no part of his body out of bounds when he caught it, then stepped out of bounds.

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 02:09 AM
But he started in bounds, had no part of his body out of bounds when he caught it, then stepped out of bounds.

I'll take your word for it since I was unable to see that part of the game. :wheelchair:

rbedgood
09-17-2007, 03:10 AM
He did not have his foot out of bounds when he caught the ball


I think what is being conveyed though is that both feet must come down in bounds. But, I've been wrong before.

One foot in, second foot came down 'out of bounds'. Just like a receiver on a pass, that would be considered out of bounds. Kick out of bounds comes back to the 40. It was a very intelligent move by Hester to catch it rather than taking a chance at the touchback...what would've been funny is if the 2nd foot had come down in bounds...but alas it was called correctly according to the way the rules are written.

sling58
09-17-2007, 08:06 AM
I dont care how much MOST of you thought about how bad we are. I for one saw a much different game in the aspect of us actually remembering how to score again. That Touchdown called back for an illegal shift and its 20-17 against the team that was in the Superbowl last year on their Home field . Considering how poor we play on the road , that game gave me huge hope for the rest of the season. Our offense started gelling and moved the ball down the field, The game was nowhere perfect but damn ease up on all the we suck stuff and look at the positives or keep the negaitives to a minimum. We are a support group for our favorite team here not a bashing group . Im getting to the point of never posting in here anymore because its always such a negative experience . Its no fun coming in here and reading post after post of what we did wrong and how bad our team can be at times. Maybe its just me and I should be appologizing for what I am saying . I love the CHIEFS and I thought the game was very poorly played on both sides , but I really loved watching the Team find the endzone again. It was like a weight being lifted off of our shoulders. The positive vibe was in the air . It seemed like Chicago was on the ropes near the end to me. GO Chiefs !!!! BOO to the Negative people ! Again I am not calling anyone out in general , Alot of you seemed to try and find the positive in this team. Just lately in general, Many people have really gotten negative in here and its really keeping me from posting . I dont want to be part of that . I really enjoy most of you that post in here on a steady basis because you never waiver in your loyalty to the chiefs.

I am with you man. I will always love the Chiefs and will never WAIVER!!!!!!!!! GO CHIEFS!!!! I saw a lot of positives. Hester won the game for the Bears. I know that if we open up the play book some more we will be great.

wolfpack
09-17-2007, 11:29 AM
yes there was positive things. Svite(or whatever) played alot better than in preseason, bowe looked like a #1 receiver, the defense looked pretty good. Wilson is on his way to a 150 catch season with a total of 100 yards. and i think hermmie went the whole press con with out saying "you play to win the game"

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 12:11 PM
I dont care how much MOST of you thought about how bad we are. I for one saw a much different game in the aspect of us actually remembering how to score again. That Touchdown called back for an illegal shift and its 20-17 against the team that was in the Superbowl last year on their Home field . Considering how poor we play on the road , that game gave me huge hope for the rest of the season. Our offense started gelling and moved the ball down the field, The game was nowhere perfect but damn ease up on all the we suck stuff and look at the positives or keep the negaitives to a minimum. We are a support group for our favorite team here not a bashing group . Im getting to the point of never posting in here anymore because its always such a negative experience . Its no fun coming in here and reading post after post of what we did wrong and how bad our team can be at times. Maybe its just me and I should be appologizing for what I am saying . I love the CHIEFS and I thought the game was very poorly played on both sides , but I really loved watching the Team find the endzone again. It was like a weight being lifted off of our shoulders. The positive vibe was in the air . It seemed like Chicago was on the ropes near the end to me. GO Chiefs !!!! BOO to the Negative people ! Again I am not calling anyone out in general , Alot of you seemed to try and find the positive in this team. Just lately in general, Many people have really gotten negative in here and its really keeping me from posting . I dont want to be part of that . I really enjoy most of you that post in here on a steady basis because you never waiver in your loyalty to the chiefs.


To express my disappointment with the loss does not mean I am wavering in my loyalty to the Chiefs; on Sunday afternoon I'm as big a Chiefs Homer as they come, but after a loss I'll take down my rose colored stain glass window from which I viewed the world during that Sunday afternoon Chiefs debacle. If my negativity inhibits you from posting here then then I would suggest that you ignore what it is I have to say; no one is holding a gun to your head and making you read my replies.

YZILLA
09-17-2007, 01:18 PM
Like I said , I wasnt pointing fingers , and the few who post all the time arent the ones Im talking about. I appreciate your thoughts on the game . I have seen many people just plain bashing the chiefs and not building them up. !Thats why I hesitate to reply to the many, many topics of how bad the chiefs play. No offense intended to anyone in general . But I would rather invest my time in promoting the positives about the chiefs instead of the negatives all the time.. This is how I feel and I respect your right to say otherwise. Take care all! GO Chiefs !!

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 01:20 PM
Like I said , I wasnt pointing fingers , and the few who post all the time arent the ones Im talking about. I appreciate your thoughts on the game . I have seen many people just plain bashing the chiefs and not building them up. !Thats why I hesitate to reply to the many, many topics of how bad the chiefs play. No offense intended to anyone in general . But I would rather invest my time in promoting the positives about the chiefs instead of the negatives all the time.. This is how I feel and I respect your right to say otherwise. Take care all! GO Chiefs !!

We agree; and there was no offense taken.

And, the site relies on those intelligent, positive points of view to offset the negativity.

luv
09-17-2007, 01:49 PM
yes there was positive things. Svite(or whatever) played alot better than in preseason, bowe looked like a #1 receiver, the defense looked pretty good. Wilson is on his way to a 150 catch season with a total of 100 yards. and i think hermmie went the whole press con with out saying "you play to win the game"
Our special teams looked better in preseason, too.

chief31
09-17-2007, 02:56 PM
Ok everyone, take a deep breath. We have diverse opinions that we are all entitled to; no one is being viewed as a trouble maker.

Since drunkhillbilly isn't here right now, I will speak on his behalf.

There are those of us who pride ourselves on our ability to "stir up s***"!!!!! Chiefster, you are walking a thin line with us. How dare you undermine our attempts!!! We will not take these kind of insults lying down!!!

luv
09-17-2007, 02:59 PM
Since drunkhillbilly isn't here right now, I will speak on his behalf.

There are those of us who pride ourselves on our ability to "stir up s***"!!!!! Chiefster, you are walking a thin line with us. How dare you undermine our attempts!!! We will not take these kind of insults lying down!!!
Damn. :p

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 03:06 PM
Since drunkhillbilly isn't here right now, I will speak on his behalf.

There are those of us who pride ourselves on our ability to "stir up s***"!!!!! Chiefster, you are walking a thin line with us. How dare you undermine our attempts!!! We will not take these kind of insults lying down!!!


No you'll take 'em standin up, and that's Mr. Chiefster to you! :p

m0ef0e
09-17-2007, 03:24 PM
The kickoff penalty was called properly by the rules. I think this is a rule the league needs to review, though. Really, really dumb that they call that kicking out of bounds because the path of the ball was interfered with by a player. It's really no different than batting the ball out of bounds from 5 yards in and blaming the kicker for kicking it out of bounds. It seems the only thing this rule does is force kickers to just kick the ball directly down the center of the field, into the returner's hands. It's just a stupid rule that needs changed.

The illegal shift is totally bogus. The commentators couldn't tell where it was and neither could I. It seems that this is one violation I ONLY see called against the Chiefs. I can't recall seeing any of these called on any other teams off the top of my head but I see this get called probably every other game on the Chiefs. I'm sure other teams get hit with this call every now and then but if you think back to the last couple of years, this is a call we have actually seen quite often against the Chiefs... Bogus.

All that being said, probably the main reason we lost is because we could not capitalize off of turnovers. After getting the first fumble early in the game, we should have opened it up and possibly run a trick play to try and get a quick score and early lead. That would have worked well into the gameplan we want to run as the game progressed and getting up early and taking the crowd out of the game is one of the best ways to win on the road in the NFL.

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 03:36 PM
The kickoff penalty was called properly by the rules. I think this is a rule the league needs to review, though. Really, really dumb that they call that kicking out of bounds because the path of the ball was interfered with by a player. It's really no different than batting the ball out of bounds from 5 yards in and blaming the kicker for kicking it out of bounds. It seems the only thing this rule does is force kickers to just kick the ball directly down the center of the field, into the returner's hands. It's just a stupid rule that needs changed.

The illegal shift is totally bogus. The commentators couldn't tell where it was and neither could I. It seems that this is one violation I ONLY see called against the Chiefs. I can't recall seeing any of these called on any other teams off the top of my head but I see this get called probably every other game on the Chiefs. I'm sure other teams get hit with this call every now and then but if you think back to the last couple of years, this is a call we have actually seen quite often against the Chiefs... Bogus.

All that being said, probably the main reason we lost is because we could not capitalize off of turnovers. After getting the first fumble early in the game, we should have opened it up and possibly run a trick play to try and get a quick score and early lead. That would have worked well into the gameplan we want to run as the game progressed and getting up early and taking the crowd out of the game is one of the best ways to win on the road in the NFL.

I absolutely agree; in this case if a penalty must be called against the kicking team then back them up five or ten yards and make them kick it again. Or treat it like a kick off that was diverted out of bounds by coming in contact with a member of the receiving team and set up the line of scrimmage where it went out of bounds, and I think you're on to something.

chief31
09-17-2007, 03:48 PM
I'm still not sold on the ruling. As stated, If he were to just slap the ball out of bound... I think I have seen this before and the outcome was different. Once th recieving team makes contact, in bounds, the ball is live. If he should then step ou of bounds, he is down, right there.

If someone has time to find the rulebook, I would love to see this page.

luv
09-17-2007, 03:49 PM
All that being said, probably the main reason we lost is because we could not capitalize off of turnovers. After getting the first fumble early in the game, we should have opened it up and possibly run a trick play to try and get a quick score and early lead. That would have worked well into the gameplan we want to run as the game progressed and getting up early and taking the crowd out of the game is one of the best ways to win on the road in the NFL.
Totally agree 100%. Getting those turnovers is pointless when the other team still seems to be scoring, and you're not capitalizing from them.

luv
09-17-2007, 03:53 PM
I'm still not sold on the ruling. As stated, If he were to just slap the ball out of bound... I think I have seen this before and the outcome was different. Once th recieving team makes contact, in bounds, the ball is live. If he should then step ou of bounds, he is down, right there.

If someone has time to find the rulebook, I would love to see this page.
When a receiver catches a ball, both feet must touch inbounds for it to be considered complete. It sucks, but I don't see why the same rule shouldn't apply to returners. If both feet aren't in-bounds, he was out. If anything, I think they should re-kick in that situation.

m0ef0e
09-17-2007, 03:55 PM
I'm still not sold on the ruling. As stated, If he were to just slap the ball out of bound... I think I have seen this before and the outcome was different. Once th recieving team makes contact, in bounds, the ball is live. If he should then step ou of bounds, he is down, right there.

If someone has time to find the rulebook, I would love to see this page.

Well, by the rules, if you are in bounds and you slap the ball out of bounds, it is your team's ball where it went out. If you catch the ball while your foot is out of bounds, it is considered kicking it out of bounds. I know that Hester caught the ball, then put his foot down out of bounds. It was so close though that to review it in real time would not have gotten it overturned. Wether called correctly or not, it's a dumb rule that needs changed.

Batting the ball out and catching it while out are not the same, I was just illustrating that catching the ball while out is the same as batting it from in bounds because the path of the ball is interfered with by a player.

chief31
09-17-2007, 04:05 PM
When a receiver catches a ball, both feet must touch inbounds for it to be considered complete. It sucks, but I don't see why the same rule shouldn't apply to returners. If both feet aren't in-bounds, he was out. If anything, I think they should re-kick in that situation.

Because of what happens if you bobble the ball.


Well, by the rules, if you are in bounds and you slap the ball out of bounds, it is your team's ball where it went out. If you catch the ball while your foot is out of bounds, it is considered kicking it out of bounds. I know that Hester caught the ball, then put his foot down out of bounds. It was so close though that to review it in real time would not have gotten it overturned. Wether called correctly or not, it's a dumb rule that needs changed.

Batting the ball out and catching it while out are not the same, I was just illustrating that catching the ball while out is the same as batting it from in bounds because the path of the ball is interfered with by a player.

I know about catching the ball while you are out of bounds, But that is not what happened. He cuaght it and stepped out of bounds. You can't use the same rules as a catch, because it isn't a catch. If you bobble it, then there are much different circumstances. So the rules cannot be identicle to the rules about receptions. Now there could be an added rule about getting two feet down, but it can't follow the same guidlines.

m0ef0e
09-17-2007, 04:16 PM
Bottom line is that the ruling was completely stupid and bogus. If it was correct and by the book. Then the book needs to be changed. If the refs just screwed us, it's about time they stopped because I'm gonna start blowing up any black vans and helicopters I see.

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 05:28 PM
Bottom line is that the ruling was completely stupid and bogus. If it was correct and by the book. Then the book needs to be changed. If the refs just screwed us, it's about time they stopped because I'm gonna start blowing up any black vans and helicopters I see.


Agreed, the rule is stupid, but the refs made the right call according to the stupid rule. The refs didn't screw us on this one; the rule did.

Canada
09-17-2007, 05:29 PM
Agreed, the rule is stupid, but the refs made the right call according to the stupid rule. The refs didn't screw us on this one; the rule did.

I still say it was the refs as
Hester was in bounds when he caught the ball and then stepped out.

sling58
09-17-2007, 06:10 PM
Agreed, the rule is stupid, but the refs made the right call according to the stupid rule. The refs didn't screw us on this one; the rule did.

Good Point!

OTR Chiefs fan
09-17-2007, 06:24 PM
Yes, the Chiefs lost, yes a lot of us were thinking they'd lose, but I was impressed overall by how we played actually. At first, it looked like it was gonna get ugly. After a turnover the Chiefs do nothing with, the Bears drive down the field for the only offensive TD they get. Then right after that, Hester takes it to the house, as well as add on a FG to make it 17-0. I'm just thinking, how bad is this gonna get? Then, the offense suprises me, marches down the field 4 plays which end up with our first TD of the season, with a nice pass to Bowe.(or was it TG?!) The Bears get a FG after yet another good Hester return to make it 20-7. The Chiefs answer right back with a FG of their own after a Grossman pick.
The Bears go 3 and our after that and the Chiefs are marching down the field. Huard throws a strike to Bowe, which would've been a TD to make it 20-17. However, the referees kill us with an Illegal Shift. I call BS. Who actually calls that nowadays anyways? Anyways, the Bears get the ball back, but Grossman gets picked again. A couple plays later, Huard throws a pretty good pass, can't remember to who, but it's batted away thanks to very good coverage, sadly right at another Bear. They go 3 and out once again and Herm decides to put in Croyle. Croyle was pretty impressive, throwing a 30+ yard bomb which got us into the redzone. However, Bennet fumbled a play later after being greedy for yardage. That, was the game.
Yes, we lost, but we played better than we did last week. The offense showed signs of life, and the defense kept us in the game and caused turnovers. One of our turnovers was unlucky, the other was thanks to the shape the game was in already. The referees took a TD away from us, and even if it was a penalty, I still think it's dumb, I see teams get away with it all the time. Overall, the two reasons we lost were that call by the refs and Hester's impact on the game. However, if we play like this for the rest of the season, we may be better than we think.

I agree, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. I knew that the defense was going to have to play good to keep us in the game, and they did their part. I thought the O-line played better and Bowe looks like he might be worth the 1st round pick. But the offense doesn't have that killer instinct right now to put a game away when the opportunity arises. The defense on three different occasions came up with turnovers and put us in position to score points, points that would have won us the game and the offense didn't come through. I hope the offense gels quickly, because we are leaving our defense on the field for too long and by the fourth quarter they are worn out. :D

luv
09-17-2007, 06:26 PM
I still say it was the refs as
Hester was in bounds when he caught the ball and then stepped out.
He wasn't in bounds due to both feet not landing in bounds.

chief31
09-17-2007, 06:44 PM
Again, I haven't seen anything verifying the rule. I know that when the returner has one foot out of bounds and touches the ball, it is out of bounds, right there. But, he was in bounds when he touched it. Then stepped out of bounds. If you look at Hester, on the play, you could tell that heknew he had f***ed up. Then, when the refs made their ruling, he seemed relieved.

Canada
09-17-2007, 07:01 PM
He wasn't in bounds due to both feet not landing in bounds.

He ran from te middle of the field to the sidelines. Caught the ball then stepped out. He had like 40 steps in bounds. (not trying to start a fight!! :lol:)

chief31
09-17-2007, 07:11 PM
He wasn't in bounds due to both feet not landing in bounds.

I am pretty sure that the ref made a bad call.

hermhater
09-17-2007, 07:18 PM
It doesn't matter if his foot was in or out the ref is watching down the sideline for when the ball crosses the threshold (the sideline) in the air.

Feet don't matter if the kick sails out of bounds before he touches it.

It looked to me like Hester was standing straddling the sideline so that it was obvious it was out of bounds.

When considering rulings on the field start with the basics.

chief31
09-17-2007, 07:57 PM
It doesn't matter if his foot was in or out the ref is watching down the sideline for when the ball crosses the threshold (the sideline) in the air.

Feet don't matter if the kick sails out of bounds before he touches it.

It looked to me like Hester was standing straddling the sideline so that it was obvious it was out of bounds.

When considering rulings on the field start with the basics.

The basic facts are that A) Hester touched the ball while he was in bounds. B) The football was still in bounds. C) He then stepped out of bounds.

The feet do matter if Hester is in bounds and touches the ball, even if the ball has crossed the threshold.

hermhater
09-17-2007, 08:09 PM
Kickoff

1. The kickoff shall be from the kicking teamís 30-yard line at the start of each half and after a field goal and try. A kickoff is one type of free kick.
2. A one-inch tee may be used (no tee permitted for field goal, safety kick, or try attempt) on a kickoff. The ball is put in play by a placekick.
3. A kickoff may not score a field goal.
4. A kickoff is illegal unless it travels 10 yards OR is touched by the receiving team. Once the ball is touched by the receiving team or has gone 10 yards, it is a free ball. Receivers may recover and advance. Kicking team may recover but NOT advance UNLESS receiver had possession and lost the ball.
5. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again.
6. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines and is touched last by receiving team, it is receiverís ball at out-of-bounds spot.
7. If the kicking team either illegally kicks off out of bounds or is guilty of a short free kick on two or more consecutive onside kicks, receivers may take possession of the ball at the dead ball spot, out-of-bounds spot, or spot of illegal touch.



I got this from http://www.supernfl.com/NFLRules.html and I think number 5 says what I'm saying.



Hester was not out of bounds when he caught the ball, yet it had already crossed the sideline.


I disagree with your B statement. The ball had already crossed the threshold.

chief31
09-17-2007, 08:19 PM
Kickoff

1. The kickoff shall be from the kicking teamís 30-yard line at the start of each half and after a field goal and try. A kickoff is one type of free kick.
2. A one-inch tee may be used (no tee permitted for field goal, safety kick, or try attempt) on a kickoff. The ball is put in play by a placekick.
3. A kickoff may not score a field goal.
4. A kickoff is illegal unless it travels 10 yards OR is touched by the receiving team. Once the ball is touched by the receiving team or has gone 10 yards, it is a free ball. Receivers may recover and advance. Kicking team may recover but NOT advance UNLESS receiver had possession and lost the ball.
5. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again.
6. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines and is touched last by receiving team, it is receiverís ball at out-of-bounds spot.
7. If the kicking team either illegally kicks off out of bounds or is guilty of a short free kick on two or more consecutive onside kicks, receivers may take possession of the ball at the dead ball spot, out-of-bounds spot, or spot of illegal touch.



I got this from http://www.supernfl.com/NFLRules.html and I think number 5 says what I'm saying.



Hester was not out of bounds when he caught the ball, yet it had already crossed the sideline.


I disagree with your B statement. The ball had already crossed the threshold.


Rather the ball had crossed the threshhold, or not, it can't be ruled out of bounds until it lands. Then they determine the threshhold break. But, I am looking at it now and it was cleary still in bounds(By the threshhold standard.)

If you look at number six..... I think this is where the real information lies. I am positive that the refs made a mistake. Not that it was a big one, but it was still a mistake.

hermhater
09-17-2007, 08:21 PM
Sadly I don't have the replay to look at (I record on my computer and last week my vid card went t!ts up!) so if it wasn't out of bounds I stand corrected. Just looked that way on the one or two replays I was watching last night.

To be fair I was ten beers in.

Shrug...

luv
09-17-2007, 08:22 PM
Rather the ball had crossed the threshhold, or not, it can't be ruled out of bounds until it lands. Then they determine the threshhold break. But, I am looking at it now and it was cleary still in bounds(By the threshhold standard.)

If you look at number six..... I think this is where the real information lies. I am positive that the refs made a mistake. Not that it was a big one, but it was still a mistake.
Did he catch it before it hit the ground, or off the bounce? I can't remember.

hermhater
09-17-2007, 08:23 PM
He caught it before it hit the ground.

I guess we should be used to bad calls on the Chiefs. It's been happening since the merger.

Lamar Hunt angered quite a few people with the AFL.

They know how to hold a grudge in the NFL.

Sad.

chief31
09-17-2007, 08:34 PM
Did he catch it before it hit the ground, or off the bounce? I can't remember.

It had already bounced at least once, in bounds.

luv
09-17-2007, 08:36 PM
It had already bounced at least once, in bounds.
Okay, so it still counts as out of bounds if it goes out before it gets to the goal line and no one touches it. I guess the rule is based on the idea that if a returner can't get to the ball with both feet being in bounds then it would have gone out anyway. Stupid rule, either way.

hermhater
09-17-2007, 08:36 PM
Wow, are you serious? Where did it bounce.

I hate not having my replay.

At least I will be able to get a new all in wonder card and record the rest of the season after this month.

Blew my wad on useless stuff like rent and insurance. Should have bought the vid card.

chief31
09-17-2007, 08:38 PM
Wow, are you serious? Where did it bounce.

I hate not having my replay.

At least I will be able to get a new all in wonder card and record the rest of the season after this month.

Blew my wad on useless stuff like rent and insurance. Should have bought the vid card.

Yeah, it was bouncing a couple of times. They usually do, when they go that near the sideline.

If you are going to have game footage online, you will be a great ally.

rbedgood
09-17-2007, 08:39 PM
Kickoff


In addition to a kickoff, the other free kick is a kick after a safety (safety kick). A punt may be used (a punt may not be used on a kickoff).
On a safety kick, the team scored upon puts ball in play by a punt, dropkick, or placekick without tee. No score can be made on a free kick following a safety, even if a series of penalties places team in position. (A field goal can be scored only on a play from scrimmage or a free kick after a fair catch.)
A kickoff may not score a field goal.
A kickoff is illegal unless it travels 10 yards OR is touched by the receiving team. Once the ball is touched by the receiving team or has gone 10 yards, it is a free ball. Receivers may recover and advance. Kicking team may recover but NOT advance UNLESS receiver had possession and lost the ball.
When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again.
When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines and is touched last by receiving team, it is receiverís ball at out-of-bounds spot.
If the kicking team either illegally kicks off out of bounds or is guilty of a short free kick on two or more consecutive onside kicks, receivers may take possession of the ball at the dead ball spot, out-of-bounds spot, or spot of illegal touch.
I copied this from NFL.com at the following link

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kickoff

#5 discusses out of bounds kickoffs, but it doesn't specify what defines out of bounds. Below I have pasted the definition of an inbounds catch also from this website.

8. A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot.

chief31
09-17-2007, 08:42 PM
Kickoff

In addition to a kickoff, the other free kick is a kick after a safety (safety kick). A punt may be used (a punt may not be used on a kickoff).
On a safety kick, the team scored upon puts ball in play by a punt, dropkick, or placekick without tee. No score can be made on a free kick following a safety, even if a series of penalties places team in position. (A field goal can be scored only on a play from scrimmage or a free kick after a fair catch.)
A kickoff may not score a field goal.
A kickoff is illegal unless it travels 10 yards OR is touched by the receiving team. Once the ball is touched by the receiving team or has gone 10 yards, it is a free ball. Receivers may recover and advance. Kicking team may recover but NOT advance UNLESS receiver had possession and lost the ball.
When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again.
When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines and is touched last by receiving team, it is receiverís ball at out-of-bounds spot.
If the kicking team either illegally kicks off out of bounds or is guilty of a short free kick on two or more consecutive onside kicks, receivers may take possession of the ball at the dead ball spot, out-of-bounds spot, or spot of illegal touch.I copied this from NFL.com at the following link

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kickoff

#5 discusses out of bounds kickoffs, but it doesn't specify what defines out of bounds. Below I have pasted the definition of an inbounds catch also from this website.

8. A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot.

Nice. lbra beat you to that, but nice. Number six is the one that covers it. The recieving teams player touched it before it went out of bounds.

hermhater
09-17-2007, 08:42 PM
What do you mean "footage online"?

Discussing while watching footage or posting vids?

Are we allowed to do that? (copyright?)

chief31
09-17-2007, 08:46 PM
What do you mean "footage online"?

Discussing while watching footage or posting vids?

Are we allowed to do that? (copyright?)

I don't know. For example.. If you had the game on your computer, maybe you could send the snipit of Hesters out-of-bounds return to some of the members.

hermhater
02-15-2008, 05:25 AM
Yeah, it was bouncing a couple of times. They usually do, when they go that near the sideline.

If you are going to have game footage online, you will be a great ally.

This worked out well.

Since I got that dang video capture card the Chiefs have not won a game.

Maybe that is what went wrong with the season, and it wasn't really Herm.

:11:

Chiefster
02-15-2008, 10:17 PM
This worked out well.

Since I got that dang video capture card the Chiefs have not won a game.

Maybe that is what went wrong with the season, and it wasn't really Herm.

:11:

Yes, that's right Herm only became an idiot after you got the video caption card. :rolleyes:

hermhater
02-16-2008, 01:20 AM
Yes, that's right Herm only became an idiot after you got the video caption card. :rolleyes:

Well since he knew I got it, he wanted to make sure he performed to the worst of his ability!

:bananen_smilies046::lol:

Chiefster
02-16-2008, 10:18 PM
Well since he knew I got it, he wanted to make sure he performed to the worst of his ability!

:bananen_smilies046::lol:

Well he really overachieved at underachieving. :D

hermhater
02-17-2008, 02:21 PM
Well he really overachieved at underachieving. :D


Let's just hope his incompetence can be justified by us getting Jake Long in the draft!

Knowing Herm though he will probably go for a CB in the first round.