PDA

View Full Version : New fatlock rumblings,mightbe true



wolfpack
09-17-2007, 10:41 AM
CHICAGO | Thatís how you get fired. Thatís how you lose credibility in your locker room, with your fan base, with members of the media and the man who signs your check.

You throw a fade to Samie Parker, your smallest receiver, on third and 1 deep inside Bears territory late in the fourth quarter when Rex Grossman is desperately trying to let you back in the game.

In that situation, given your running back, a pass play is indefensible, a floater to Parker is a fireable offense, and the subsequent interception is exactly what you deserve.

Chiefs fans have every right to jump ship on head coach Herm Edwards, offensive coordinator Mike Solari and offensive manipulator/assistant head coach/locker-room snitch/clock manager Dick Curl.

Sundayís 20-10 loss to the Bears was an offensive coaching nightmare.

ďWeíre playing like a bad team right now, especially on offense,Ē surmised guard Brian Waters.

Itís bigger than one play, but the fourth-quarter throw to Parker was a doozy.

Edwards said the play was designed to go to tight end Tony Gonzalez and that Parker was the third option. Quarterback Damon Huard said he threw to Parker because the defensive alignment ó man-to-man on Parker with a safety in the middle of the field ó pretty much dictated a throw to Kansas Cityís 5-foot-9, 180-pound receiver.

I say: So what?

Why was a pass play called? Did anyone consider the Bears mightíve run that scheme in hopes of baiting the Chiefs into throwing the ball to Parker? It worked in the Bearsí favor in the first quarter when Huard tried to hit Parker deep on third and 2 at the Chicago 42.

ďWe were trying to make a play,Ē Huard said.

Why not try and make one with your $45 million running back/rapper, Larry Johnson? Didnít the Chiefs give him all that money to make plays on third and short? If youíre going to throw a fade, why not put Dwayne Bowe and/or Jeff Webb in Parkerís slot? Bowe and Webb are both 6-2 and over 200 pounds.

Next week look for the Chiefs to run toss sweeps with Jason Dunn. The Vikings will never see that coming.

Poorly coached teams try too hard to be ďunpredictable.Ē It doesnít happen naturally, and the teams wind up looking completely foolish. Kansas Cityís offensive game plan was high school-ish.

Yes, in order to beat the Bears, you have to occasionally throw when theyíre expecting run and run when theyíre expecting pass. But the Chiefs threw on third and short three times and they ran on third and long too many times to count.

Edwards, Solari and Curl owe their players an apology. I canít find fault with the effort of any of Kansas Cityís players with the exception of return man/punt-coverage gunner Eddie Drummond, who got destroyed on Devin Hesterís TD return. Drummond is 0-2 (a fumble in the season opener) and should be released this week.

I donít have a problem with Huard. Thereís going to be a quarterback controversy this week because Brodie Croyle came in at mop-up time and completed four passes, including a 34-yarder. No quarterback can fix this offensive coaching mess.

I certainly donít have a problem with Kansas Cityís defensive players. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. Donnie Edwards and Napoleon Harris intercepted Rex Grossman. Bernard Pollard ripped the ball from the arms of a Chicago receiver. The Bears sustained one drive.

The Chiefs are 0-2 and a laughingstock because their offense stinks. The knock on Herm Edwards is that he canít put together a sound offensive team. Itís the same knock that chased his mentor Tony Dungy out of Tampa Bay and into the loving arms of Peyton Manning and Indy offensive coordinator Tom Moore. Itís the same knock that is dogging Lovie Smith, another Cover 2 defensive coach who canít produce an offense.

Do the Chiefs have a Peyton Manning to save Herm? Are the Chiefs moving to the horrid NFC anytime soon?

Herm better find an offensive clue soon or heís going to get swept out of town by the same hurricane thatís coming for King Carl Peterson. __________________
Jason Whitlocks and my theme for 2007:

he does make a good point. now i feel like i need a shower for agreeing with him.

Chiefster
09-17-2007, 11:00 AM
Wow! I can't believe I'm saying this but :fatlock: has a point. I feel so dirty.

chief31
09-17-2007, 01:18 PM
The play to Parker was a good one... if it were to an NFL reciever. Sammie had his man beat, the safety was extremely late, in his help, and Huard made a nice toss. The problem was that Parker "gave way" to the CB. He curled his body up, underneath the CB and allowed him to get to the ball, without the slightest contact.

After all of the complaining that we did about running directly into the Colts' defense, I think that it was a great call, to throw for the endzone. I would have prefered to have seen it go to anyone but Parker, but still like the call.

We can't complain about being predictable, then complain about being too risky, on the next play.

rbedgood
09-17-2007, 08:16 PM
Wow! I can't believe I'm saying this but :fatlock: has a point. I feel so dirty.

:bananen_smilies045:


The play to Parker was a good one... if it were to an NFL reciever. Sammie had his man beat, the safety was extremely late, in his help, and Huard made a nice toss. The problem was that Parker "gave way" to the CB. He curled his body up, underneath the CB and allowed him to get to the ball, without the slightest contact.

After all of the complaining that we did about running directly into the Colts' defense, I think that it was a great call, to throw for the endzone. I would have prefered to have seen it go to anyone but Parker, but still like the call.

We can't complain about being predictable, then complain about being too risky, on the next play.

Very true...

m0ef0e
09-17-2007, 09:05 PM
You gotta admit... You can tell where the guy's loyalties lie. He gets so mad when the Chiefs lose. It's almost comical. I can't believe I'm saying this but he pretty much nailed it. Chief31's got a good point about the play call. It may have been okay had it gone to anybody but Parker. The ball was on target, it was just a great defensive play coupled with the fact that Parker made no attempt to attack the ball. I still think we could have simply gotten the first down with LJ, though. What made the play bad was poor effort and execution. It was more bad positioning of personnel than a bad play. Bowe should have been over there instead of Parker. I still would like to see our 50 million dollar back earn some of that cash on 3rd and short in the red zone. Then try to hit them up on an end zone strike after you get more downs to work with.

Chiefster
09-18-2007, 01:29 AM
The play to Parker was a good one... if it were to an NFL reciever. Sammie had his man beat, the safety was extremely late, in his help, and Huard made a nice toss. The problem was that Parker "gave way" to the CB. He curled his body up, underneath the CB and allowed him to get to the ball, without the slightest contact.

After all of the complaining that we did about running directly into the Colts' defense, I think that it was a great call, to throw for the endzone. I would have prefered to have seen it go to anyone but Parker, but still like the call.

We can't complain about being predictable, then complain about being too risky, on the next play.

Agreed.

Three7s
09-18-2007, 02:36 AM
I agree with just about every word Whitlock said. I don't care about the pass play, yeah Parker was the wrong guy, even though, we did force them to make a play, and they did. I wouldn't have ran it though. Think about it, we were inside the 20, or close to it, and the Bears are a cover 2 defense, which means it's hard to score since they give you almost no room. If you run up the middle, they're gonna be ready for it and you get no gain. If you pass, you saw the result.
I think the only play that would've worked with the greatest success rate is actually something I've seen the Chiefs do a lot. Either a quick slant or a screen and hope they don't completely kill the receiver.
It feels like every week we face a very tough defense. Vikings aren't bad, but they're no Bears or Texans, we should finally get a break. Maybe this is what we need to get some confidence.

Chiefster
09-18-2007, 08:47 AM
I agree with just about every word Whitlock said. I don't care about the pass play, yeah Parker was the wrong guy, even though, we did force them to make a play, and they did. I wouldn't have ran it though. Think about it, we were inside the 20, or close to it, and the Bears are a cover 2 defense, which means it's hard to score since they give you almost no room. If you run up the middle, they're gonna be ready for it and you get no gain. If you pass, you saw the result.
I think the only play that would've worked with the greatest success rate is actually something I've seen the Chiefs do a lot. Either a quick slant or a screen and hope they don't completely kill the receiver.
It feels like every week we face a very tough defense. Vikings aren't bad, but they're no Bears or Texans, we should finally get a break. Maybe this is what we need to get some confidence.


Hit the nail on the head.

wolfpack
09-18-2007, 09:10 AM
quick slants they are throwing alot of. it wont take long for the other team to figure it out.

chief31
09-18-2007, 10:03 AM
I agree with just about every word Whitlock said. I don't care about the pass play, yeah Parker was the wrong guy, even though, we did force them to make a play, and they did. I wouldn't have ran it though. Think about it, we were inside the 20, or close to it, and the Bears are a cover 2 defense, which means it's hard to score since they give you almost no room. If you run up the middle, they're gonna be ready for it and you get no gain. If you pass, you saw the result.
I think the only play that would've worked with the greatest success rate is actually something I've seen the Chiefs do a lot. Either a quick slant or a screen and hope they don't completely kill the receiver.
It feels like every week we face a very tough defense. Vikings aren't bad, but they're no Bears or Texans, we should finally get a break. Maybe this is what we need to get some confidence.

The cover-2 argument would be valid, had the Bears benn in a cover-2 defense. They weren't. They were stacked very heavily in the box, with all man-to-man coverage, with one safety. The slant would have been too risky, considering how tight the DBs were, to the recievers. A screen may have been a decent bet, but with ten defenders within three yards of the line of scrimmage, it would have been tough and the Bears are very good at sniffing-out screens.

As with the play that was called, any of those would have been the right call, had it worked. But based upon the defensive front that the Bears were showing, I think they made the right play call.

wolfpack
09-18-2007, 10:09 AM
a good ol`fashion play action might have worked but to tony g or bowe. let their size be used. but haurd isnt the best seller of fakes.

Chiefster
09-18-2007, 10:13 AM
quick slants they are throwing alot of. it wont take long for the other team to figure it out.

True, I don't think he meant to use them all the time.


The cover-2 argument would be valid, had the Bears benn in a cover-2 defense. They weren't. They were stacked very heavily in the box, with all man-to-man coverage, with one safety. The slant would have been too risky, considering how tight the DBs were, to the recievers. A screen may have been a decent bet, but with ten defenders within three yards of the line of scrimmage, it would have been tough and the Bears are very good at sniffing-out screens.

As with the play that was called, any of those would have been the right call, had it worked. But based upon the defensive front that the Bears were showing, I think they made the right play call.

Possibly, the problem is consistency; I've yet to see our offense have consistent success.

DrunkHillbilly
09-18-2007, 12:29 PM
How about a little play action????? God knows the QB will be running for his life anyway, why not be proactive instead of reactive??

Sorry wolfpack, didn't see you post til now!!!

chief31
09-18-2007, 05:11 PM
How about a little play action????? God knows the QB will be running for his life anyway, why not be proactive instead of reactive??

Sorry wolfpack, didn't see you post til now!!!

The purpose of play-action is to convince the defense that you are running. Well, they were already convinced. The only problem that I see with that call, was Sammie Parkers presence on the field.

DrunkHillbilly
09-18-2007, 05:22 PM
The purpose of play-action is to convince the defense that you are running. Well, they were already convinced. The only problem that I see with that call, was Sammie Parkers presence on the field.

Man I love it when you break out the telestrater!!!

Thanks for the lesson!!:yahoo:

chief31
09-18-2007, 05:23 PM
Man I love it when you break out the telestrater!!!

Thanks for the lesson!!:yahoo:

Anytime. :D

DrunkHillbilly
09-18-2007, 05:27 PM
The purpose of play-action is to convince the defense that you are running. Well, they were already convinced. The only problem that I see with that call, was Sammie Parkers presence on the field.

As you know, I think teams are going to load the box against us more times than not and if we roll out once in a while, we may be able to get some yards in chunks. Put TG and Bowe on one side and Parker as far to the other side as possible, like in the parking lot!!

m0ef0e
09-18-2007, 05:38 PM
As you know, I think teams are going to load the box against us more times than not and if we roll out once in a while, we may be able to get some yards in chunks. Put TG and Bowe on one side and Parker as far to the other side as possible, like in the parking lot!!

:lol: Bang on! I couldn't agree more with this.

Chiefster
09-18-2007, 08:43 PM
As you know, I think teams are going to load the box against us more times than not and if we roll out once in a while, we may be able to get some yards in chunks. Put TG and Bowe on one side and Parker as far to the other side as possible, like in the parking lot!!

You speak with wisdom beyond your years.

stlchief
09-18-2007, 11:24 PM
I hope I don't get 15 yards for piling on, but it was the right call. 3rd and one against the most predictable offense in the NFL, of course they were stacked in the middle. Johnson gets hit for a loss of 2 and everyone on this board is screaming for Solari's unnatural demise for running something everyone and his brother knew was coming.

Running the ball every time you get to 3rd and 1 just because you have a great back will still get you to a lot of 3 and outs...

And for the record: I think the flea-flicker will do wonders for us next week. If we can pull that out against the Bears, why would we hesitate against a lower-rated defense? Hopefully it will help to open things up, keep a safety back a second longer, etc.

Chiefster
09-18-2007, 11:29 PM
Flea-flicker, play action and screens are all viable options that I, too, wish Herm Peterson would explore more.

luv
09-18-2007, 11:43 PM
Flea-flicker, play action and screens are all viable options that I, too, wish Herm Peterson would explore more.
Both times I have seen the flea flicker executed, it has been done so flawlessly. Last year by Trent, and Sunday by Damon.

Guru
09-19-2007, 12:30 AM
Both times I have seen the flea flicker executed, it has been done so flawlessly. Last year by Trent, and Sunday by Damon.

I am sure that both times, Herm nearly passed out from holding his breath. Scared to death of the impending turnover.

rbedgood
09-19-2007, 12:37 AM
What Herm doesn't get is if you pass the ball 30+ yards downfield, in addition to stretching the defense, spreading the field and possibly getting a lump of yardage quickly...worse case is a turnover likely is equal to a PUNT which his current offense does on nearly every drive anyhow.

stlchief
09-19-2007, 02:49 AM
What Herm doesn't get is if you pass the ball 30+ yards downfield, in addition to stretching the defense, spreading the field and possibly getting a lump of yardage quickly...worse case is a turnover likely is equal to a PUNT which his current offense does on nearly every drive anyhow.

I agree. I'm surprised we haven't seen the quick kick on 3rd down yet.

rbedgood
09-19-2007, 03:00 AM
Heck at least Hester wouldn't have returned that one...actually now that I think about it a few of those and that game might have gone to overtime...

Three7s
09-19-2007, 03:51 AM
The flea flicker against the Bears last week was the absolute perfect play call at that time. It completely caught the Bears off guard, shame it got brought back. I never really saw it as a big deal until that Jaguars game last season. With the way our offense is, it could be a great trick play for us, especially early.

wolfpack
09-19-2007, 09:16 AM
yesterday on his rambling news conference,hermmie said LJ told him he wanted to run the ball 40 times. he told LJ no but said something of the sort that it would be great to run that much and only throw 20 times. another sad,sad remark by hermmie and the reason duck tape shouldbe used over the mouth.

DrunkHillbilly
09-19-2007, 09:23 AM
yesterday on his rambling news conference,hermmie said LJ told him he wanted to run the ball 40 times. he told LJ no but said something of the sort that it would be great to run that much and only throw 20 times. another sad,sad remark by hermmie and the reason duck tape shouldbe used over the mouth.

Hell I would only throw 20 times as well with our QB play!!

rbedgood
09-19-2007, 11:01 AM
Hell I would only throw 20 times as well with our QB play!!

I would throw closer to 30, but 10-12 of those would be short flare/screen passes to either LJ, TG, or Bowe...giving those guys opportunities to make plays, and building the QBs confidence...(oh p.s. those play tend to neutralize the opponents pass rush)

m0ef0e
09-19-2007, 12:44 PM
I would throw closer to 30, but 10-12 of those would be short flare/screen passes to either LJ, TG, or Bowe...giving those guys opportunities to make plays, and building the QBs confidence...(oh p.s. those play tend to neutralize the opponents pass rush)

Agreed. I like how you think. :sign0098:

wolfpack
09-19-2007, 01:04 PM
me 55 to 60% of the "o" wouldbe passes with atleast 20% of those 20 yards or more. the screen and our famous 1 to3 yard passes being the least. even with our qb`s.

hermhater
09-19-2007, 01:53 PM
What Herm doesn't get is if you pass the ball 30+ yards downfield, in addition to stretching the defense, spreading the field and possibly getting a lump of yardage quickly...worse case is a turnover likely is equal to a PUNT which his current offense does on nearly every drive anyhow.

Thank god for Colquitt. It's always reassuring when the punter gets the game ball...

m0ef0e
09-19-2007, 02:02 PM
Thank god for Colquitt. It's always reassuring when the punter gets the game ball...

He's going to hold out next year. :lol:

hermhater
09-19-2007, 02:04 PM
He's going to hold out next year. :lol:


Why doesn't he try out for kicker?

That would be something to see.

m0ef0e
09-19-2007, 02:26 PM
That's what we should do with these crappy kickers we keep getting. Tell them that if they don't make their kicks, they will soon be holding for Colquitt, lol..