PDA

View Full Version : Ending my Silence, End of Season Thoughts



jap1
01-09-2011, 06:02 PM
Hey guys. Long time no post. I have resisted posting all season, not because I dont love you guys, but because of superstition. I missed the first couple of weeks because I was living in a tent in the middle of the desert ... and we were 3-0. I continued my forum silence hoping it was helping the Chiefs win.

I have been following the Crowd all season, though. But now it is time for me to give my 2 cents.

So here are some of my thoughts.

1. We need a true FS. Almost everytime Todd Heap caught the ball it was because McGraw was beaten. He also blew some zone coverages. Everytime Berry was playing up on Todd Heap, he either broke up the play or Heap made a great catch. We need another starting quality FS (either draft or a veteran) to play across Berry. This is by far our weakest link in the secondary, and on the defense as a whole.

2. Our defensive front 7 is surprisingly great this year. Our only need is to bring in some youth and or size at NT.

3. Our OL is old, and has a tendency to get beat. We better start/continue to draft some more youth.

4. We need to give Cassel another target other than Bowe and Moeaki. We have had what, something like 5 different people starting across from Bowe? We need some consistency at the other WR spot. It will pull the double teams off Bowe, leaving him, Moeaki open more often, and also keeping the defense off the run game and Jamaal Charles.

5. The OC situation. I think Weis put in a great system and has a great playbook, and he has done a great job with Cassel's improvement, but I didnt like his playcalling for much of the season. Especially the last two games. I think he has completely checked out mentally. I dont like McDaniels as a person. I also think he had no discipline in Denver. They had a ton of off the field problems. However, I dont know who would be a better option.

6. Overall, this was a great season. I am worried that we only beat one or two teams that were better than .500, but we are still early in the rebuilding process. We saw some real development in our LBs (thank you Romeo!), DL (thank you again Romeo!), and OL. I really look forward to this offseason.

7. Most importantly, I won a new jersey off what was initially a drunken bet http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/smilies/drunkhillbilly.gif with my SD Chargers friend. Whoever finished higher in the division gets a jersey from the winner. Now I have to decide whose jersey I want?!?!?!?!

Coach
01-09-2011, 06:28 PM
Hey guys. Long time no post. I have resisted posting all season, not because I dont love you guys, but because of superstition. I missed the first couple of weeks because I was living in a tent in the middle of the desert ... and we were 3-0. I continued my forum silence hoping it was helping the Chiefs win.

I have been following the Crowd all season, though. But now it is time for me to give my 2 cents.

So here are some of my thoughts.

1. We need a true FS. Almost everytime Todd Heap caught the ball it was because McGraw was beaten. He also blew some zone coverages. Everytime Berry was playing up on Todd Heap, he either broke up the play or Heap made a great catch. We need another starting quality FS (either draft or a veteran) to play across Berry. This is by far our weakest link in the secondary, and on the defense as a whole.

2. Our defensive front 7 is surprisingly great this year. Our only need is to bring in some youth and or size at NT.

3. Our OL is old, and has a tendency to get beat. We better start/continue to draft some more youth.

4. We need to give Cassel another target other than Bowe and Moeaki. We have had what, something like 5 different people starting across from Bowe? We need some consistency at the other WR spot. It will pull the double teams off Bowe, leaving him, Moeaki open more often, and also keeping the defense off the run game and Jamaal Charles.

5. The OC situation. I think Weis put in a great system and has a great playbook, and he has done a great job with Cassel's improvement, but I didnt like his playcalling for much of the season. Especially the last two games. I think he has completely checked out mentally. I dont like McDaniels as a person. I also think he had no discipline in Denver. They had a ton of off the field problems. However, I dont know who would be a better option.

6. Overall, this was a great season. I am worried that we only beat one or two teams that were better than .500, but we are still early in the rebuilding process. We saw some real development in our LBs (thank you Romeo!), DL (thank you again Romeo!), and OL. I really look forward to this offseason.

7. Most importantly, I won a new jersey off what was initially a drunken bet http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/smilies/drunkhillbilly.gif with my SD Chargers friend. Whoever finished higher in the division gets a jersey from the winner. Now I have to decide whose jersey I want?!?!?!?!
Just resigned DJ and Jamaal Charles. Both good jersey candidates.

jap1
01-09-2011, 06:39 PM
Already have a DJ jersey. I bought one when we drafted him. I also have a Montana jersey and Priest Holmes.

SIC J
01-09-2011, 07:11 PM
Bowe, Charles, Flowers, or Berry jersey

Daylights
01-10-2011, 10:22 AM
1. We need a true FS. Almost everytime Todd Heap caught the ball it was because McGraw was beaten. He also blew some zone coverages. Everytime Berry was playing up on Todd Heap, he either broke up the play or Heap made a great catch. We need another starting quality FS (either draft or a veteran) to play across Berry. This is by far our weakest link in the secondary, and on the defense as a whole.
___________

Disagree. Some of the throws were indefensible, a credit to Flacco.

I think the problems you mentioned involve the underneath passes to the RB as well as those to Heap, all occurring in the middle of the field. In each case, the TE or RB was wide open in the middle of the field. One of those led directly to a touchdown. I think this was more to bad defensive adjustments than just the FS being out of position. Last week, the Raiders did the exact same thing, short dump offs to their RB and two weeks in a row Crennel didn't adjust to this.

Seek
01-10-2011, 01:46 PM
Did anyone actually pay attention to the fact that the Chiefs put McGraw on Heap man to man. IT had nothing to do with him being a FS. That was their failed attempt of trying to shut down Heap.

They were using Mc Graw as a NB, and left Lewis in as FS.

Maybe a little pass rush would have made those throws a little tougher. I mean I don't recall even seeing Mike Vrable getting much pressure on the QB all year. I certainly didn't see him covering the dump passes to Rice that killed us all game either.

4everchiefsfan25
01-10-2011, 02:22 PM
Did anyone actually pay attention to the fact that the Chiefs put McGraw on Heap man to man. IT had nothing to do with him being a FS. That was their failed attempt of trying to shut down Heap.

They were using Mc Graw as a NB, and left Lewis in as FS.

Maybe a little pass rush would have made those throws a little tougher. I mean I don't recall even seeing Mike Vrable getting much pressure on the QB all year. I certainly didn't see him covering the dump passes to Rice that killed us all game either.
Also I think needs to be noted is that our Safeties were playing so far back there was no way they were going to beable to get to the TE whenever they did cover him. Also the whole secondary was playing on the outside shoulder of the WR's and TE and was just giving them the middle of the field I just dont think the game plan was executed very well by the whole defense, or they wernt prepared for the Ravens to throw the ball all around the field.

Three7s
01-10-2011, 04:13 PM
1. We need a true FS. Almost everytime Todd Heap caught the ball it was because McGraw was beaten. He also blew some zone coverages. Everytime Berry was playing up on Todd Heap, he either broke up the play or Heap made a great catch. We need another starting quality FS (either draft or a veteran) to play across Berry. This is by far our weakest link in the secondary, and on the defense as a whole.
___________

Disagree. Some of the throws were indefensible, a credit to Flacco.

I think the problems you mentioned involve the underneath passes to the RB as well as those to Heap, all occurring in the middle of the field. In each case, the TE or RB was wide open in the middle of the field. One of those led directly to a touchdown. I think this was more to bad defensive adjustments than just the FS being out of position. Last week, the Raiders did the exact same thing, short dump offs to their RB and two weeks in a row Crennel didn't adjust to this.
Wrong completely. You obviously don't know what the job of the FS is. They keep an eye on the whole field and provide help in certain coverage packages. Not to mention, McGraw hardly even plays FS anymore, that's Kendrick Lewis' job and he's pretty good at it.

4everchiefsfan25
01-10-2011, 04:31 PM
Wrong completely. You obviously don't know what the job of the FS is. They keep an eye on the whole field and provide help in certain coverage packages. Not to mention, McGraw hardly even plays FS anymore, that's Kendrick Lewis' job and he's pretty good at it.
When Mcgraw was guarding Todd Heap the Chiefs were in a Nickel package and Lewis was the FS

Daylights
01-10-2011, 07:57 PM
Also I think needs to be noted is that our Safeties were playing so far back there was no way they were going to beable to get to the TE whenever they did cover him. Also the whole secondary was playing on the outside shoulder of the WR's and TE and was just giving them the middle of the field I just dont think the game plan was executed very well by the whole defense, or they wernt prepared for the Ravens to throw the ball all around the field.

Quote = "Wrong completely. You obviously don't know what the job of the FS is. They keep an eye on the whole field and provide help in certain coverage packages. Not to mention, McGraw hardly even plays FS anymore, that's Kendrick Lewis' job and he's pretty good at it." --- by Three7s

@Three7s
Actually, it's right on. The previous poster, 4everchiefsfan25 (see above), further explains my point. The safeties were out of position from the beginning, which falls on the D Coordinator, not on one single player...i.e. Free Safety.

I know exactly what a Free Safety does, I've coached and played football. I mentioned McGraw because a previous poster used that player as an example.

Ultimately, Crennel didn't make the necessary adjustments. Nice try, though.

chief31
01-10-2011, 08:18 PM
@Three7s
Actually, it's right on. The previous poster, 4everchiefsfan25 (see above), further explains my point. The safeties were out of position from the beginning, which falls on the D Coordinator, not on one single player...i.e. Free Safety.

I know exactly what a Free Safety does, I've coached and played football. I mentioned McGraw because a previous poster used that player as an example.

Ultimately, Crennel didn't make the necessary adjustments. Nice try, though.

Well, That defense really did it's job, on the day.

By the time The Ravens were running clock, our defense had been playing far too long, and had been put in horrible situations.

Heap only had three catches in the second half. One of which was short, and brought up a fourth down.

Heap's effort would have been nothing, had the offense simply held onto the ball, and gotten a few first downs, and put some points up.

Hayvern
01-10-2011, 08:23 PM
Quote = "Wrong completely. You obviously don't know what the job of the FS is. They keep an eye on the whole field and provide help in certain coverage packages. Not to mention, McGraw hardly even plays FS anymore, that's Kendrick Lewis' job and he's pretty good at it." --- by Three7s

@Three7s
Actually, it's right on. The previous poster, 4everchiefsfan25 (see above), further explains my point. The safeties were out of position from the beginning, which falls on the D Coordinator, not on one single player...i.e. Free Safety.

I know exactly what a Free Safety does, I've coached and played football. I mentioned McGraw because a previous poster used that player as an example.

Ultimately, Crennel didn't make the necessary adjustments. Nice try, though.

None of these guys on this board want to hear that their favorite player/coach was not playing up to their expectations on this game.

However, there were a lot of people who could have done some key things better. Plenty of room for criticism all around, Berry, McGraw, Crennel, Weiss, Haley, Cassel, offensive line, everyone. We cannot be so blind to the issues. Not that the coaches are reading my posts on here, but we have to see what needs improvement, I am sure the coaches are.

Daylights
01-10-2011, 08:31 PM
Well, That defense really did it's job, on the day.

By the time The Ravens were running clock, our defense had been playing far too long, and had been put in horrible situations.

Heap only had three catches in the second half. One of which was short, and brought up a fourth down.

Heap's effort would have been nothing, had the offense simply held onto the ball, and gotten a few first downs, and put some points up.


It did it's job on third and second down, not third down. We had the nice goal line stop early in the game. We shut down their running game. We pressured Flacco consistently early on. However, all that means nothing if we don't stop them on third down. Repeated failed 3rd down defense (and I emphasize the word "repeated") cost us the game. The turnovers were just the nail in the coffin.

Ryfo18
01-10-2011, 08:33 PM
It did it's job on third and second down, not third down. We had the nice goal line stop early in the game. We shut down their running game. We pressured Flacco consistently early on. However, all that means nothing if we don't stop them on third down. Repeated failed 3rd down defense (and I emphasize the word "repeated") cost us the game.

I'm going to have nightmares of Todd Heap converting 3rd downs for the rest of my life.

billb40
01-10-2011, 08:41 PM
Thanks for you service. Chiefs will prevail. We are on a better track now than with the previous staff. I do not know if it is the best but hope The RED and GOLD will be the best in the future. I wish I was as smart as most of the folks posting I would have a future in the NIFAM

chief31
01-10-2011, 08:45 PM
It did it's job on third and second down, not third down. We had the nice goal line stop early in the game. We shut down their running game. We pressured Flacco consistently early on. However, all that means nothing if we don't stop them on third down. Repeated failed 3rd down defense (and I emphasize the word "repeated") cost us the game. The turnovers were just the nail in the coffin.

The turnovers were the game.

Third down wasn't really doing any damage until the game was good and over.

They were allowing some yardage, but yielding few points.

At that point, the defense had already been on the field far more than any defense should be asked to compete.

Daylights
01-10-2011, 08:58 PM
At that point, the defense had already been on the field far more than any defense should be asked to compete.

That is exactly my point. The defense was constantly on the field because we were constantly giving up 3rd down conversions.

On the Ravens very first drive, they scored only a field goal but we still gave up a long drive via 3rd down failures and let them chew up the clock. This set the tempo for the rest of the game and they virtually owned the Time of Possession category. Two scoring possessions were over five minutes and one was over 10. The Ravens owned almost two full quarters of possession on only three drives. Hence, our defense stayed on the field.

On the long 10 minute Raven drive in the fourth quarter (which did NOT result from a turnover), we gave up 4 third down conversions, two of those being, you guessed it, short middle passes to Heap and one being a short dumpoff to Ray Rice. The fourth was a short, middle pass to Boldin. 3rd down conversions killed us long into the fourth quarter.

The turnovers didn't fully burn us until the mid to late 3rd quarter when Cassel started throwing the ball up for grabs, but our 3rd down defense pretty much sealed it long before that.

Ryfo18
01-10-2011, 09:03 PM
The turnovers were the game.

Third down wasn't really doing any damage until the game was good and over.

They were allowing some yardage, but yielding few points.

At that point, the defense had already been on the field far more than any defense should be asked to compete.

I agree, can't argue the turnovers.

But the conversions on their first drive were ridiculous. And in my opinion one of the killer's was a converted 3rd and 13 with just over 2 minutes left in the 2nd quarter. A stop there gives us the ball in decent field position with a chance to put more points on the board and go up by more than 7-3. Then we would have also got the ball at halftime. Instead, we went into halftime down 10-7.

chief31
01-10-2011, 09:29 PM
That is exactly my point. The defense was constantly on the field because we were constantly giving up 3rd down conversions.

On the Ravens very first drive, they scored only a field goal but we still gave up a long drive via 3rd down failures and let them chew up the clock. This set the tempo for the rest of the game and they virtually owned the Time of Possession category. Hence, our defense stayed on the field.


They were on the field so much because our offense refused to be.

Aside from when the game was over, and the defense was spent, The Ravens managed two good drives, resulting in ten points.

They had three possessions that led to punts or a turnover, the rest were short field opportunities, caused by chiefs turnovers including one on downs.

Sure. Third down % wasn't good.

But, overall, they were doing a good job, and would have been in position to win, had it not been for the position that our offense was constantly putting them in.

We had eleven offensive possessions, and managed just 161 yards of offense.

That's sixteen yards per possession.

And, at 18:16 T.O.P., that is less than two minutes per possession, before we sent our defense right back onto the field.

The only break the defense got was Halftime.

Even our TD came on just two plays, and ate less than one minute of clock.

Daylights
01-10-2011, 09:40 PM
I agree, can't argue the turnovers.

But the conversions on their first drive were ridiculous. And in my opinion one of the killer's was a converted 3rd and 13 with just over 2 minutes left in the 2nd quarter. A stop there gives us the ball in decent field position with a chance to put more points on the board and go up by more than 7-3. Then we would have also got the ball at halftime. Instead, we went into halftime down 10-7.

And that was really the turning point, in my opinion. Up until then, we were having offensive success, driving the ball...at one point it looked like we were going to go ahead 14-3. But, our drive stalled, we punted the ball close to midfield and let Todd Heap 3rd down us to death until they grabbed a 3 point lead. That potential reversal of fortunes destroyed our momentum and the Ravens made us pay for it in the second half.

chief31
01-10-2011, 09:50 PM
And in my opinion one of the killer's was a converted 3rd and 13 with just over 2 minutes left in the 2nd quarter. A stop there gives us the ball in decent field position with a chance to put more points on the board and go up by more than 7-3. Then we would have also got the ball at halftime. Instead, we went into halftime down 10-7.And that was really the turning point, in my opinion. Up until then, we were having offensive success, driving the ball...at one point it looked like we were going to go ahead 14-3. But, our drive stalled, we punted the ball close to midfield and let Todd Heap 3rd down us to death until they grabbed a 3 point lead. That potential reversal of fortunes destroyed our momentum and the Ravens made us pay for it in the second half.

That, going down to 10-7 at the half, was the difference?

Not the five second half turnovers?

The first half, with a score of 10-7, was bigger than the 20-0 second half?

Are you aware that our only solid possession was at the start of the second half, (11 plays, 5:15) and consisted of our last first downs of the entire game?

I am not a professional psychiatrist. But I think you guys might be crazy. :lol: (Teasing.)

Ryfo18
01-10-2011, 09:54 PM
That, going down to 10-7 at the half, was the difference?

Not the five second half turnovers?

The first half, with a score of 10-7, was bigger than the 20-0 second half?

Are you aware that our only solid possession was at the start of the second half, (11 plays, 5:15) and consisted of our last first downs of the entire game?

I am not a professional psychiatrist. But I think you guys might be crazy. :lol: (Teasing.)


All I'm saying is that I think we would not have gotten away from the run game in the 2nd half had we gone in with the lead. It did change the entire flow of the game. If we manage even a FG before the half instead of giving up a TD, it's a 10 point swing.

Regardless, they shouldn't have stopped running the ball in the second half. I can make the case that those turnovers don't happen if we have the lead. The Chiefs did a great job of protecting the ball all year, especially when they had the lead. Crazy? Not at all.

chief31
01-10-2011, 10:17 PM
All I'm saying is that I think we would not have gotten away from the run game in the 2nd half had we gone in with the lead. It did change the entire flow of the game. If we manage even a FG before the half instead of giving up a TD, it's a 10 point swing.

Regardless, they shouldn't have stopped running the ball in the second half. I can make the case that those turnovers don't happen if we have the lead. The Chiefs did a great job of protecting the ball all year, especially when they had the lead. Crazy? Not at all.

Odds are that The Chiefs don't get any points.

And that case, that "the turnovers don't happen if..." is a pretty narrow one.

Trying to place the blame to the defense, for a first half play, that lead to a FG, while the team got beat 20-0 in the second half, doesn't seem like a stretch that Mr. Fantastic couldn't handle to you?
:lol:

I don't think that momentum can really be argued, as the offense same out in the second half, with their only "drive" of the game.

Also....

Regardless of this topic, you are both Chiefs fans, which, if I'm not mistaken, makes you certifiable.

Ryfo18
01-10-2011, 10:20 PM
Alright you're right. I guess it's ridiculous to think that a team that went 9-2 during the season with the lead at halftime (vs 1-4 not having the lead) is ridiculous. You win.

Also, the blame for the 3rd and 13 play led to a touchdown. And there were several other converted third downs on that drive. The Chiefs were a team all year that played a lot better (and focused on running the football) when they had a lead.

chief31
01-10-2011, 11:00 PM
Alright you're right. I guess it's ridiculous to think that a team that went 9-2 during the season with the lead at halftime (vs 1-4 not having the lead) is ridiculous. You win.

Also, the blame for the 3rd and 13 play led to a touchdown. And there were several other converted third downs on that drive. The Chiefs were a team all year that played a lot better (and focused on running the football) when they had a lead.

Ok. The five turnovers don't matter. The 161 yards of total offense are pointless. The 23 minute advantage in TOP is meaningless too.

Seriously. You can pick any negative play and suggest that everything goes differently after that.

And you chose that one.

Not a TD. Not an INT. Not a fumble. Not a failed fourth down conversion. But a lone third down conversion, in the first half of the game.

Yes. Things go differently if that play is changed.

There really is no way to argue against that logic. It's fact.

But I have never seen anyone make a stretch that big, to try and blame the defense for the offense's mistakes, like that.

That's a new one to me.

Perhaps the stat sheet should read that McGraw threw three INTs, had a fumble, and could not manage a first down after 10:56 of the third quarter.

Ryfo18
01-10-2011, 11:08 PM
Ok. The five turnovers don't matter. The 161 yards of total offense are pointless. The 23 minute advantage in TOP is meaningless too.

Seriously. You can pick any negative play and suggest that everything goes differently after that.

And you chose that one.

Not a TD. Not an INT. Not a fumble. Not a failed fourth down conversion. But a lone third down conversion, in the first half of the game.

Yes. Things go differently if that play is changed.

There really is no way to argue against that logic. It's fact.

But I have never seen anyone make a stretch that big, to try and blame the defense for the offense's mistakes, like that.

That's a new one to me.

Perhaps the stat sheet should read that McGraw threw three INTs, had a fumble, and could not manage a first down after 10:56 of the third quarter.





You're really misunderstanding me. I'm not blaming the defense for the offense's struggles. It was foolish of the offense to abandon the run like they did.

I'm saying the defense should not have given up a first down on 3rd and 13. If they force a punt there, we go into halftime with at least a 7-3 lead. Do 4 more turnovers take place? Maybe. I doubt they abandon the run that quickly though had they had the lead at halftime. I digress. Agree to disagree.

chief31
01-10-2011, 11:36 PM
You're really misunderstanding me. I'm not blaming the defense for the offense's struggles. It was foolish of the offense to abandon the run like they did.

I'm saying the defense should not have given up a first down on 3rd and 13. If they force a punt there, we go into halftime with at least a 7-3 lead. Do 4 more turnovers take place? Maybe. I doubt they abandon the run that quickly though had they had the lead at halftime. I digress. Agree to disagree.

I actually do agree, that that was a big play.

But I don't think it is in the top ten of plays that could have made a difference in the outcome.

First play from scrimmage (missed INT). The INT that Flowers just missed. Seven turnovers. (Of which, I would count, maybe, four.) The third & 2 that became the actual TD on the drive we are discussing. The TD pass to Boldin. 3rd & 2 at The Ravens' 34 to start the second half.

Alright. Maybe top ten. Barely.

But the issue was about how well the defense did in the game, on the whole.

And, while not great on third down, (9/17) the third downs were nowhere near as big of a deal as the turnovers.

The offense was horrible. The defense was doing a great job of keeping us in the game, despite the offense's best efforts to get blown out.

The defense played well, and we are nit-picking to say that one or two third down plays makes the difference, when you consider how atrocious the offense played.

I mean, if you include turning it over on downs, they had seven turnovers in the game.

For the amount of time that our offense managed to possess the ball, and the positions that the turnovers put our defense in, I think the defense did an amazing job.

Lazeye
01-10-2011, 11:37 PM
ok let me try....umm we scored less points...did I get it right?

jap1
01-11-2011, 01:07 AM
My criticism against McGraw came because I thought Berry was playing FS and they put McGraw at SS. I didnt realize he was playing in Nickel packages. If that is the case, then I would ask why arent we using our 2nd round draft pick that was supposed to be our star nickel back (Javier Arenas).

Anyways, I think it was a combination of our failed 3rd down defense, poor offense, and turnovers.

matthewschiefs
01-11-2011, 01:07 AM
ok let me try....umm we scored less points...did I get it right?

Yes I think that clears things up a bit

Ryfo18
01-11-2011, 01:15 AM
My criticism against McGraw came because I thought Berry was playing FS and they put McGraw at SS. I didnt realize he was playing in Nickel packages. If that is the case, then I would ask why arent we using our 2nd round draft pick that was supposed to be our star nickel back (Javier Arenas).

Anyways, I think it was a combination of our failed 3rd down defense, poor offense, and turnovers.

Simple, Arenas is 5'9", Heap is 6'5". They put 6'3" McGraw on him. McGraw still got torched, but it was a better matchup.

Three7s
01-11-2011, 01:21 AM
My criticism against McGraw came because I thought Berry was playing FS and they put McGraw at SS. I didnt realize he was playing in Nickel packages. If that is the case, then I would ask why arent we using our 2nd round draft pick that was supposed to be our star nickel back (Javier Arenas).

Anyways, I think it was a combination of our failed 3rd down defense, poor offense, and turnovers.
McGraw is a nickel LB. He should never be playing any sort of safety position on any team. Arenas was covering their 3rd receiver for most of the game and did a good job.

Daylights
01-11-2011, 08:47 AM
That, going down to 10-7 at the half, was the difference?

Not the five second half turnovers?

The first half, with a score of 10-7, was bigger than the 20-0 second half?

Are you aware that our only solid possession was at the start of the second half, (11 plays, 5:15) and consisted of our last first downs of the entire game?

I am not a professional psychiatrist. But I think you guys might be crazy. :lol: (Teasing.)


I think you're missing the point entirely.

No one said the turnovers weren't costly. My point was the failed 3rd down antics early in the game eventually led to the turnover antics later in the game. If you take away early fails on 3rd down, I don't see Matt Cassel getting frustrated late in the 3rd quarter and throwing the ball to the wrong team.

And yes, a 10 point swing in what began as a brutal defensive battle can be the difference in the game.

Ryfo18
01-11-2011, 12:24 PM
I think you're missing the point entirely.

No one said the turnovers weren't costly. My point was the failed 3rd down antics early in the game eventually led to the turnover antics later in the game. If you take away early fails on 3rd down, I don't see Matt Cassel getting frustrated late in the 3rd quarter and throwing the ball to the wrong team.

And yes, a 10 point swing in what began as a brutal defensive battle can be the difference in the game.

I'd also like to point out, that through week 15, the Chiefs were 4th in the league in 2-minute offense with 67 points scored (I can't find the stats after that week). Getting the ball back before the half and not giving up that TD would have been huge.

chief31
01-11-2011, 07:57 PM
I think you're missing the point entirely.

No one said the turnovers weren't costly. My point was the failed 3rd down antics early in the game eventually led to the turnover antics later in the game. If you take away early fails on 3rd down, I don't see Matt Cassel getting frustrated late in the 3rd quarter and throwing the ball to the wrong team.

And yes, a 10 point swing in what began as a brutal defensive battle can be the difference in the game.

But, after that play is changed, you are filling in the rest of the game with pure fantasy.

Why would you assume that the rest of the game would be occupied by a solid Chiefs offense, when there was absolutely no signs of a solid, Chiefs offense, or any Chiefs offense at all, which one could base such an assumption on?

Ryfo18
01-11-2011, 07:59 PM
But, after that play is changed, you are filling in the rest of the game with pure fantasy.

Why would you assume that the rest of the game would be occupied by a solid Chiefs offense, when there was absolutely no signs of a solid, Chiefs offense, or any Chiefs offense at all, which one could base such an assumption on?

The offense moved fine in the first half, and up until Charles's fumble. And even until the 4th and 1 play.

pojote
01-12-2011, 01:56 PM
The offense moved fine in the first half, and up until Charles's fumble. And even until the 4th and 1 play.

The offense had 2 decent drives in first half, one ended in a Charles fumble, the other was a punt.
JC TD was entirely about one play, and that we have the best back in the league.

Second half started with a good drive (luck included, INT and fumble) but ended in a disastrous play call.

Everything after was horrendous.