PDA

View Full Version : Romeo's Job



dbolan
01-04-2012, 02:50 PM
What makes any of think that if he did not get the job as HC that he would not return as DC???

No one is in the MARKET for HIM!!!

He is not the HC we need.

jap1
01-04-2012, 03:14 PM
He was quoted to say that he wanted to become a HC again after Haley was fired. He may be kinda insulted to be told thanks for applying, but you are gonna stay our DC ...

OPLookn
01-04-2012, 03:36 PM
Because he stepped up and took a team that had been on a 5 game losing streak and beat GB who were SB champs last year and look to repeat, had a Raiders team beat but had two FG's blocked which isn't his fault and then coached us to a victory in Denver. In all reality he should be 3-0 as interim HC.

The guy wants to be a HC again, has shown that he can game plan for different teams and with talent can handle the job as HC & DC. How is he not ready? If you stepped into your bosses shoes and did a fantastic job and said that you wanted his job wouldn't you look elsewhere if you didn't get the job? Or would you be satisfied and just happily go back to the lower position?

matthewschiefs
01-04-2012, 03:57 PM
There is a case both for and against Romeo being the Head coach.

FOR

The Packers game. That game while it was only one game showed that he can get this team to play against the top ter teams in the NFL. Going 2-1 with this team in 3 games witch really should have been 3-0 if A. Bowe doesn't drop a td catch or B. the Field goal protect unit doesn't decide to take the week off this team could have made the playoffs. This should be considered.

The players like him. They will also no what they are going to get from the head coach. Romeo would be going into his 3rd season with the Chiefs They know him by now. That would be a good thing. The defense wouldn't change all that much as well. A new coach would change a lot more.

He has been a head coach before. It wasn't the best but that happens often with Coaches in there first stint as the head coach. They learn from it and they become better coaches for it. You also have to keep in mind where he was coaching. The Browns have not been good with any coach in a Number of years. I think (not sure have not looked it up) that There best year since they returned to the NFL was under Romeo.

Cons

Age. Romeo is not going to be around for more then about 4 or 5 years. Then we will yet again be looking for a new head coach. IMO It's a much better option to go with someone younger who could be around from a good 7-10 years then Romeo.

Hes failed before. As noted in the pros he was head coach with the Browns. While a number of coaches are much better in there 2nd go around as a head coach that is not something that is automatic. It could work out the same way. Now with that said you can say the same thing about a proven coach. It's not automatic that he will work out if Jeff Fisher would be brought in. But you have to look at the fact that Romeo has failed before as head coach before you offer him the job.


All in all I don't think that this is a must hire. But I won't mind at all seeing him as the Head coach either.

dbolan
01-04-2012, 04:51 PM
Because he stepped up and took a team that had been on a 5 game losing streak and beat GB who were SB champs last year and look to repeat, had a Raiders team beat but had two FG's blocked which isn't his fault and then coached us to a victory in Denver. In all reality he should be 3-0 as interim HC.

The guy wants to be a HC again, has shown that he can game plan for different teams and with talent can handle the job as HC & DC. How is he not ready? If you stepped into your bosses shoes and did a fantastic job and said that you wanted his job wouldn't you look elsewhere if you didn't get the job? Or would you be satisfied and just happily go back to the lower position?


He did not step up...The players did and Orton made a difference because he played GB several times when he was with the Bears. Add adrenaline along with that due to the coaching change as well.

To say he done a fantastic job is imho, a stretch.

To say he has done a fantastic job as a DC is a bit of a stretch as well.

OPLookn
01-04-2012, 05:16 PM
He did not step up...The players did and Orton made a difference because he played GB several times when he was with the Bears. Add adrenaline along with that due to the coaching change as well.

To say he done a fantastic job is imho, a stretch.

To say he has done a fantastic job as a DC is a bit of a stretch as well.

A coaches job is to get the players prepared. As DC and HC if he can't get the team to step up then he shouldn't be either. We got creamed by a Jets team that missed the playoffs and then a week later we beat the reigning SB champs. What changed in that week? So yes, a fantastic job.

As far as a DC I'd say that's a directly related to the amount of time they've had to spend on the field in our losses.

2010chiefs
01-04-2012, 11:13 PM
I think he's done a great job. The players responded to him and changed the team around. Practically went 3-0 IMO.

If an offensive minded coach comes in and is a better more qualified HC then I would hope Romeo understand and do what's right for the Chiefs to win a Super Bowl!

Chief Concerns
01-05-2012, 09:11 AM
So Romeo is supposed to just step aside and let someone else coach HIS team? What makes anyone think that a new head coach isn't gonna want to bring in his own defensive coordinator? In that case the coaching staff is scrapped and we may as well be starting over. Do any of you remember the amount of changes that the team went through when Herm Edwards came in? Or when Todd Haley first got here? We don't need an offensive-minded head coach. We need a great offensive coordinator. How many times in the past did we have the best offense in the league and got to the playoffs and flopped because we didn't have the defense? Does anyone really want to start over? Or better yet, let's go out and finish 13-3, get the top seed, and lose in the first round of the playoffs to an inferior team. This is a defensive-minded team and we don't need to try and change that, we just need to add some offense.

:kc:

dbolan
01-05-2012, 09:15 AM
A coaches job is to get the players prepared. As DC and HC if he can't get the team to step up then he shouldn't be either. We got creamed by a Jets team that missed the playoffs and then a week later we beat the reigning SB champs. What changed in that week? So yes, a fantastic job.

As far as a DC I'd say that's a directly related to the amount of time they've had to spend on the field in our losses.

How did they do as a team in the 2 games following the GB win?

Oh...Ok.

dbolan
01-05-2012, 09:19 AM
So Romeo is supposed to just step aside and let someone else coach HIS team? What makes anyone think that a new head coach isn't gonna want to bring in his own defensive coordinator? In that case the coaching staff is scrapped and we may as well be starting over. Do any of you remember the amount of changes that the team went through when Herm Edwards came in? Or when Todd Haley first got here? We don't need an offensive-minded head coach. We need a great offensive coordinator. How many times in the past did we have the best offense in the league and got to the playoffs and flopped because we didn't have the defense? Does anyone really want to start over? Or better yet, let's go out and finish 13-3, get the top seed, and lose in the first round of the playoffs to an inferior team. This is a defensive-minded team and we don't need to try and change that, we just need to add some offense.

:kc:

The reason we need an offensive minded coach vs. having Crennel as HC and a GREAT OC is ebcause the OC will LEAVE as soon as he rights the ship! Then we are right back where we have been for the past sevral years.

If anything, get a balanced HC that can get a good OC. Keep Crennel as DC.

okikcfan
01-05-2012, 09:22 AM
I was watching Inside The NFL last night (Showtime) and a regular on the show is Michael Lombardi, He had said the the Chiefs will keep Romeo Crennel as there HC going into 2012. Fisher was said to have interviewed last week and he will not be coming back. So maybe if all this is true, the interview process could be for OC? Crennel could be a good fit for Pioli's Pat's Way system because as we all know he's been there. I read something yesterday about the odd's of intern coaches and there success, I'll see if I can find it and post it....

dbolan
01-05-2012, 10:06 AM
A coaches job is to get the players prepared. As DC and HC if he can't get the team to step up then he shouldn't be either. We got creamed by a Jets team that missed the playoffs and then a week later we beat the reigning SB champs. What changed in that week? So yes, a fantastic job.

As far as a DC I'd say that's a directly related to the amount of time they've had to spend on the field in our losses.

If he is the all great "DC" why did the D get torched by the Jets and a few others? EH???

While the offense surely lost several games due to lack of scoring, the defense gave up SEVERAL huge losses as well.

TopekaRoy
01-05-2012, 12:56 PM
If he is the all great "DC" why did the D get torched by the Jets and a few others? EH???

Off the top of my head, I would say that was because the offense couldn't move the ball. In the first half the Chiefs offense was on the field for 10:29, while the defense labored for 19:31. The Chiefs had 7 offensive drives for a total of 4 yards in the first half. Their longest drive was was 1:40. 13 yards and 4 plays. Don't you think that would wear down a defense?

dbolan
01-05-2012, 01:05 PM
Off the top of my head, I would say that was because the offense couldn't move the ball. In the first half the Chiefs offense was on the field for 10:29, while the defense labored for 19:31. The Chiefs had 7 offensive drives for a total of 4 yards in the first half. Their longest drive was was 1:40. 13 yards and 4 plays. Don't you think that would wear down a defense?

No..Because the Jets scored 28 of their points in the 1st half. 21 in the second quarter.

Had it been later in the game that they scored a number of points, I would consider the possibility of a gassed D.

OPLookn
01-05-2012, 01:16 PM
How did they do as a team in the 2 games following the GB win?

Oh...Ok.

Unless Crennel was out on the field when those two FG's were blocked you cant' blame him for that. Make either one of those and we're in the playoffs.


If he is the all great "DC" why did the D get torched by the Jets and a few others? EH???

While the offense surely lost several games due to lack of scoring, the defense gave up SEVERAL huge losses as well.

I'm going to try and sum up the games that I felt were big losses which to me is anything greater than 10 points.

Buffalo - Four of their drives started at our 35 yard line or closer. Two were around their 40 yard line and the last was at their 25. We had 3 turnovers, 2 fumbles and 1 interception. One of which was the opening kickoff. Of the longer drives most of the yards were from big plays...not Crennel's fault, his players.

Detroit - All I should have to say is 6 turnovers...SIX! Not the D's fault but when the D was on the field it was penalties and big plays.

Miami - Two TD's started on the KC side of the field. Between starting on our side of the field and giving up big plays, again none of that is on Crennel.

NE - We just gave up to many big plays. One of the TD's was a punt return so you can't put that on the D but even then it would have been 27-3. Point blank we gave up to many long drives and big plays and that is on the D. But everyone has a bad game so I tend to shrug this one off.

Jets - The defense was on the field for a 2 to 1 time of possesion and like the Miami game, 2 TD's started on the KC side of the field. The 3rd TD I'll bring up was the one that our defense had something like 91 yards of penalties (Haley got a penalty here too). That's 21 points and would make the score 16-10 had it not been that way.

As you can see after reading this one of the things that Haley talked about was being consistent and not giving up stupid plays or getting called for penalties. Of the monster blow outs you can see that most of the time it was the offense not doing anything and giving them great field position or having turnovers. When it was on the D it was big plays or penalties. For the third time not Crennel's fault. You can game plan all you want but on Sunday it's the players that have to make the plays.

nigeriannightmare
01-05-2012, 01:27 PM
No..Because the Jets scored 28 of their points in the 1st half. 21 in the second quarter.

Had it been later in the game that they scored a number of points, I would consider the possibility of a gassed D.

The longest sustained drive by the palko led offense was 1 minute and 31 seconds, in the first half. If the defense is having to get on the field every minute and a hald what did u expect the result to be. now the miami.....

chief31
01-05-2012, 01:32 PM
Unless Crennel was out on the field when those two FG's were blocked you cant' blame him for that. Make either one of those and we're in the playoffs.



I'm going to try and sum up the games that I felt were big losses which to me is anything greater than 10 points.

Buffalo - Four of their drives started at our 35 yard line or closer. Two were around their 40 yard line and the last was at their 25. We had 3 turnovers, 2 fumbles and 1 interception. One of which was the opening kickoff. Of the longer drives most of the yards were from big plays...not Crennel's fault, his players.

Detroit - All I should have to say is 6 turnovers...SIX! Not the D's fault but when the D was on the field it was penalties and big plays.

Miami - Two TD's started on the KC side of the field. Between starting on our side of the field and giving up big plays, again none of that is on Crennel.

NE - We just gave up to many big plays. One of the TD's was a punt return so you can't put that on the D but even then it would have been 27-3. Point blank we gave up to many long drives and big plays and that is on the D. But everyone has a bad game so I tend to shrug this one off.

Jets - The defense was on the field for a 2 to 1 time of possesion and like the Miami game, 2 TD's started on the KC side of the field. The 3rd TD I'll bring up was the one that our defense had something like 91 yards of penalties (Haley got a penalty here too). That's 21 points and would make the score 16-10 had it not been that way.

As you can see after reading this one of the things that Haley talked about was being consistent and not giving up stupid plays or getting called for penalties. Of the monster blow outs you can see that most of the time it was the offense not doing anything and giving them great field position or having turnovers. When it was on the D it was big plays or penalties. For the third time not Crennel's fault. You can game plan all you want but on Sunday it's the players that have to make the plays.

While I agree, in general, here....

Each time I see "Not Crennel's fault", I have to disagree. He absolutely takes some responsibility for his players making the mistakes that caused big plays, just he is absolutley responsible for their penalties.

The players make those mistakes. But Crennel is to coach them into each performance.

I would also add that, aside from The Jets game, I believe the defense was playing at least solid, for most of the first half.

I remember holding down The Patriots until the second half, and I also remember The Lions being held back until just before halftime.

No doubt about it, our offense hurt our defense.

And I do not think that our defense was bad in most of those big losses. But they were not as good as they could have been.

They did allow big plays. They did not hold opponents to FGs. They did not force a lot of turnovers.

Is that a bad game? No. Not really. But it is not what I expect from a "Great defense".

Then again, even a great defense will have off games. They just limit them. I think they were a great defense, far more often than they were bad, or even decent.

Keep it going in 2012, and add some consistency on offense, I think this group ranks in the top three, or four.

dbolan
01-05-2012, 01:47 PM
The longest sustained drive by the palko led offense was 1 minute and 31 seconds, in the first half. If the defense is having to get on the field every minute and a hald what did u expect the result to be. now the miami.....

I don't care about that. They are elite athletes and are gassed in the 1st half?? Poor babies. Let's not forget that they get TV timeouts, injury timeouts and regular team timeouts. Plenty of time for these elite athletes to recover.

If the Jets had the ball THAT much, why couldn't the Chiefs D STOP THEM sooner vs. letting them sustain long drives??

PS- My son plays both sides of the ball for the ENTIRE game, every game. he is a TE and OLB along with special teams...He is gassed about midway of the 4th quarter but refuses to come off the field and continues to make plays.

So not to be rude...But I ain't buying the "gassed" excuse because that is all it is.

nigeriannightmare
01-05-2012, 01:55 PM
I don't care about that. They are elite athletes and are gassed in the 1st half?? Poor babies. Let's not forget that they get TV timeouts, injury timeouts and regular team timeouts. Plenty of time for these elite athletes to recover.

If the Jets had the ball THAT much, why couldn't the Chiefs D STOP THEM sooner vs. letting them sustain long drives??

PS- My son plays both sides of the ball for the ENTIRE game, every game. he is a TE anfd OLB along with special teams...He is gassed about midway of the 4th quarter but refuses to come off the field and continues to make plays.

So not to be rude...But I ain't buying the "gassed" excuse because that is all it is.

Ummmm i played all 3 in high school as well but thats high school u can not compare the tow thats apples and hand grenades. I would say lack of confidence. Give me a game the ravens d was on the field 2 to 1 and won. Ill bet u cant.

OPLookn
01-05-2012, 01:55 PM
While I agree, in general, here....

Each time I see "Not Crennel's fault", I have to disagree. He absolutely takes some responsibility for his players making the mistakes that caused big plays, just he is absolutley responsible for their penalties.

The players make those mistakes. But Crennel is to coach them into each performance.

I would also add that, aside from The Jets game, I believe the defense was playing at least solid, for most of the first half.

I remember holding down The Patriots until the second half, and I also remember The Lions being held back until just before halftime.

No doubt about it, our offense hurt our defense.

And I do not think that our defense was bad in most of those big losses. But they were not as good as they could have been.

They did allow big plays. They did not hold opponents to FGs. They did not force a lot of turnovers.

Is that a bad game? No. Not really. But it is not what I expect from a "Great defense".

Then again, even a great defense will have off games. They just limit them. I think they were a great defense, far more often than they were bad, or even decent.

Keep it going in 2012, and add some consistency on offense, I think this group ranks in the top three, or four.

I agree that if we add some consitency on offense that we'll see our defense only get better and better. All of our players are a year older and for once that's a good thing since we're young. In the Vermeil era I cringed at that thought because it meant going out and getting new free agents. So from this side I'm excited

I think for the "Not Crennel's fault"/some responsibility we're in a very gray area. We both know that you can only coach a player so much and what that player does during game time is solely their success or failure. It's why these guys get paid so much to play. I don't think that a coach is ever going to tell a player to take time off or do something differently. The game plan may change but it doesn't or shouldn't require new skills to be learned on the players part.

If our D has been good throughout the year or good enough to give you hope that they'll be in the top five with offensive consistency then it has to be on the players more than Crennel or even a 50/50. Otherwise you'd need to be concerned about the coaching and if you were you'd be screaming to the high heavens that you don't want that coordinator to be the HC. Or I'd hope you'd be, but that's just my line of thinking be it right or wrong.

:bananen_smilies046:

OPLookn
01-05-2012, 02:02 PM
I don't care about that. They are elite athletes and are gassed in the 1st half?? Poor babies. Let's not forget that they get TV timeouts, injury timeouts and regular team timeouts. Plenty of time for these elite athletes to recover.

If the Jets had the ball THAT much, why couldn't the Chiefs D STOP THEM sooner vs. letting them sustain long drives??

PS- My son plays both sides of the ball for the ENTIRE game, every game. he is a TE and OLB along with special teams...He is gassed about midway of the 4th quarter but refuses to come off the field and continues to make plays.

So not to be rude...But I ain't buying the "gassed" excuse because that is all it is.

I'll throw my two cents in because I only played one side of the ball in high school as a WR. Some of the guys I went up against did play both sides of the ball and I can tell you that it was a lot sooner than the 4th qtr that I was able to tell a difference. They weren't mirroring me as well and when I'd cut off my route they took a little bit longer to get there. That resulted in more yards as soon as the 2nd qtr and it was even more evident in the 3rd. By the 4th qtr I was tearing away from them and being tackled by the safety.

Not only that but when I had to play defense (only my freshman year) I noticed that I got tired a lot faster because I was having to react instead of being the one knowing what was going to happen.

I could have gone on to play college because I had great hands and ran good routes but I didn't because I had a case of being white...aka I was to dang slow.

:lol:

Hayvern
01-05-2012, 05:02 PM
I'll throw my two cents in because I only played one side of the ball in high school as a WR. Some of the guys I went up against did play both sides of the ball and I can tell you that it was a lot sooner than the 4th qtr that I was able to tell a difference. They weren't mirroring me as well and when I'd cut off my route they took a little bit longer to get there. That resulted in more yards as soon as the 2nd qtr and it was even more evident in the 3rd. By the 4th qtr I was tearing away from them and being tackled by the safety.

Not only that but when I had to play defense (only my freshman year) I noticed that I got tired a lot faster because I was having to react instead of being the one knowing what was going to happen.


:lol:

And this is the crux of the issue that people do not understand. It is much harder to be reactionary, to be able to shed off a blocker and make a move on a running back, to react to the wide receiver making a hard cut downfield. All those things take more energy than it does for the offensive players.

Add to that how many times our defensive players have been held at the line of scrimmage. The offense controls the pace of the game, not the defense, so the offense will always adjust quicker than the defense. Substitutions are easier on offense as you know what play you are going to call, defensive players have a harder time getting the correct packages on the field and switching out for fresh players based on what the offense is doing.

So many things go into it as to why defenses get wore down. You will never hear anyone say that the offense is tired.

pojote
01-05-2012, 05:36 PM
I agree that most of blowouts were because the O wasn't able to move the ball. This is a territory and possession sport, you need help from the O to be able to stop your adversary.
There are two major game aspects to improve in defense: coverage exchange in zone defense, specially between CB with safeties, and second level tackling against run. Both are Romeo's duties.

OPLookn
01-05-2012, 05:52 PM
I agree that most of blowouts were because the O wasn't able to move the ball. This is a territory and possession sport, you need help from the O to be able to stop your adversary.
There are two major game aspects to improve in defense: coverage exchange in zone defense, specially between CB with safeties, and second level tackling against run. Both are Romeo's duties.

Our secondary was pretty dang good last year. I don't think it's Crennel's fault per se as it is inconsistencies in personnel. Berry, McGraw, Piscitelli and Washington are all players that have played safety this year.

The second level tackling should be job of the assistants below him, granted the buck stops with Crennel on D but I don't think that's his job. If I'm wrong then so be it.

TopekaRoy
01-05-2012, 07:24 PM
Excellent points made by you guys since my last post.


So not to be rude...But I ain't buying the "gassed" excuse because that is all it is.
Okay, don't buy it. That doesn't make it any less true. You use your son to defend your position. He sounds like an excellent athlete. What NFL team does he play for? How has he fared against the Patriots offense?

Let's just look at the raw numbers and see how the offense affects the defense.

Chiefs-opponent (difference, result)
3-48 (-45 blowout loss)
3-34 (-31 blowout loss)
3-31 (-28 blowout loss)
7-41 (-34 blowout loss)
7-3 (+4 win)
9-13 (-4 loss)
10-37 (-27 blowout loss)
10-17 (-7 loss)
10-3 (+7 win)
13-16 OT (-3 loss, 2 blocked FGs should have won)
17-20 (-3 loss)
19-14 (+5 win)
22-17 (+5 win)
23-20 OT (+3 win)
28-24 (+4 win)
28-00 (+28 blowout win)

Conclusion:
The Chiefs scored 10 points or less in 9 games this year. All 5 of their blowouts occurred when the Chiefs scored 10 points or less In fact the Chiefs defense was actually good enough to win 2 of those games and keep us close in 2 others.

In the 7 games where the Chiefs scored at least 13 points they were 5-2 and should have been 6-1 (2nd Oakland game). How good is your defense when you know that if the offense scores at least 13 points you are probably going to win? In those 7 games the defense only gave up more than 20 points one time (and that was in a win)!

Do you think it is just a coincidence that the defense only gave up a lot of points in games where the offense couldn't score? We are not losing any "shootouts" here. If we were you could blame the defense.

Facts are facts, whether you "buy" them or not.

matthewschiefs
01-05-2012, 08:16 PM
I agree that most of blowouts were because the O wasn't able to move the ball.

You also have to look at the fact of how many times the offense gave the other team the ball already in field goal range. When you do that as much as this team did early on OF COURSE the other team is going to put up points on the board. Outside of getting a turnover even if the D gets a 3 and out they are likely going to get 3.

chief31
01-05-2012, 10:30 PM
I don't care about that. They are elite athletes and are gassed in the 1st half?? Poor babies. Let's not forget that they get TV timeouts, injury timeouts and regular team timeouts. Plenty of time for these elite athletes to recover.

If the Jets had the ball THAT much, why couldn't the Chiefs D STOP THEM sooner vs. letting them sustain long drives??

PS- My son plays both sides of the ball for the ENTIRE game, every game. he is a TE and OLB along with special teams...He is gassed about midway of the 4th quarter but refuses to come off the field and continues to make plays.

So not to be rude...But I ain't buying the "gassed" excuse because that is all it is.

The range of talent levels is quite a bit different there, don't ya think?

Even in college, you have a range of NFL star, to high school level.

But in high school, you have the dedicated, gifted athletes, and those who will never play again, once they graduate high school.

Being "winded" still leaves the top athletes at a big advantage over the lesser players.

In The NFL, you are going against the top 50 players at their position, in the world. Even going against the lesser players is a physical chore.

But I agree with your overall statement, that the defense did not play well during the games mentioned.

More often than not, they played pretty well for the fist half. But they did fall apart.

But this defense was exceptional for most of their games in 2011.

chief31
01-05-2012, 10:34 PM
I agree that if we add some consitency on offense that we'll see our defense only get better and better. All of our players are a year older and for once that's a good thing since we're young. In the Vermeil era I cringed at that thought because it meant going out and getting new free agents. So from this side I'm excited

I think for the "Not Crennel's fault"/some responsibility we're in a very gray area. We both know that you can only coach a player so much and what that player does during game time is solely their success or failure. It's why these guys get paid so much to play. I don't think that a coach is ever going to tell a player to take time off or do something differently. The game plan may change but it doesn't or shouldn't require new skills to be learned on the players part.

If our D has been good throughout the year or good enough to give you hope that they'll be in the top five with offensive consistency then it has to be on the players more than Crennel or even a 50/50. Otherwise you'd need to be concerned about the coaching and if you were you'd be screaming to the high heavens that you don't want that coordinator to be the HC. Or I'd hope you'd be, but that's just my line of thinking be it right or wrong.

:bananen_smilies046:

When it's as simple as not having the talent on the field, I would agree.

But, when they have proven to have the talent to match-up, but simply suffer from breakdowns of technique, assignment, or discipline, then the coaching will always be on the hook for some of the blame.

Part of the coach's job is to get the players to do the right thing. So, when the player does not do the right thing, the coach has some of the responsibility.

Bike
01-05-2012, 10:44 PM
The range of talent levels is quite a bit different there, don't ya think?

Even in college, you have a range of NFL star, to high school level.

But in high school, you have the dedicated, gifted athletes, and those who will never play again, once they graduate high school.

Being "winded" still leaves the top athletes at a big advantage over the lesser players.

In The NFL, you are going against the top 50 players at their position, in the world. Even going against the lesser players is a physical chore.

But I agree with your overall statement, that the defense did not play well during the games mentioned.

More often than not, they played pretty well for the fist half. But they did fall apart.

But this defense was exceptional for most of their games in 2011.
Absolutely. I wish there was a way to keep Romeo in his same position for the forseeable future. Am I the only one here who thinks it was a mistake to make Romeo the interim HC for the final 3 games? We either lose him as our DC to be our HC, or we lose him outright.

matthewschiefs
01-05-2012, 11:08 PM
Absolutely. I wish there was a way to keep Romeo in his same position for the forseeable future. Am I the only one here who thinks it was a mistake to make Romeo the interim HC for the final 3 games? We either lose him as our DC to be our HC, or we lose him outright.

I don't who eles would have filled the job. Seeing that at the time we still had a shot to make the playoffs. Jim Zorn no thanks. He was the best man for the job on the coaching staff I think he was the right choice. I think he's going to be the Head coach now. He will still be a key part of the defense. I think Romeo would leave the offense more to the OC. And not meddle to much in it.

Bike
01-05-2012, 11:15 PM
I don't who eles would have filled the job. Seeing that at the time we still had a shot to make the playoffs. Jim Zorn no thanks. He was the best man for the job on the coaching staff I think he was the right choice. I think he's going to be the Head coach now. He will still be a key part of the defense. I think Romeo would leave the offense more to the OC. And not meddle to much in it.
I think Zorn could have filled in nicely for three games. He's done it before. If for no other reason than to secure Romeo as our DC for years to come. Maybe I'm wrong here. Maybe Romeo would have taken offense towards Pioli if he had not been offered the interim HC job. It's a touchy situation. I just hate losing Crennel as our DC.

tornadospotter
01-05-2012, 11:35 PM
When it's as simple as not having the talent on the field, I would agree.

But, when they have proven to have the talent to match-up, but simply suffer from breakdowns of technique, assignment, or discipline, then the coaching will always be on the hook for some of the blame.

Part of the coach's job is to get the players to do the right thing. So, when the player does not do the right thing, the coach has some of the responsibility.
Truth has been written. Opps, Typed.

TopekaRoy
01-06-2012, 12:29 AM
Absolutely. I wish there was a way to keep Romeo in his same position for the forseeable future. Am I the only one here who thinks it was a mistake to make Romeo the interim HC for the final 3 games? We either lose him as our DC to be our HC, or we lose him outright.
I think making Crennel the head coach was absolutely the right move and coming within a blocked FG of going 3-0 under his leadership bears that out.

Having done that, however, now we are in a position where we have to make him the HC or risk losing him altogether. I'm not worried about the defense taking a step back if he is named permanent HC. He is sure to bring in a guy who shares hes defensive philosophy. Lovie Smith was a defensive guy and since he's become head coach of the Bears, they have always had a good defense. The 4-3 Tampa 2/cover 2 is his baby and he has always made sure his DC supported that. Crennel would do the same with our defense.

If we bring in another head coach, Crennel may feel slighted or feel that he will never get his opportunity to move up here and accept a DC position somewhere else. The new HC may bring in a DC who wants to change the system and then we are dealing with change and instability on both sides of the ball.

That would be a mistake, IMO.

dbolan
01-06-2012, 10:39 AM
Excellent points made by you guys since my last post.


Okay, don't buy it. That doesn't make it any less true. You use your son to defend your position. He sounds like an excellent athlete. What NFL team does he play for? How has he fared against the Patriots offense?

Let's just look at the raw numbers and see how the offense affects the defense.

Chiefs-opponent (difference, result)
3-48 (-45 blowout loss)
3-34 (-31 blowout loss)
3-31 (-28 blowout loss)
7-41 (-34 blowout loss)
7-3 (+4 win)
9-13 (-4 loss)
10-37 (-27 blowout loss)
10-17 (-7 loss)
10-3 (+7 win)
13-16 OT (-3 loss, 2 blocked FGs should have won)
17-20 (-3 loss)
19-14 (+5 win)
22-17 (+5 win)
23-20 OT (+3 win)
28-24 (+4 win)
28-00 (+28 blowout win)

Conclusion:
The Chiefs scored 10 points or less in 9 games this year. All 5 of their blowouts occurred when the Chiefs scored 10 points or less In fact the Chiefs defense was actually good enough to win 2 of those games and keep us close in 2 others.

In the 7 games where the Chiefs scored at least 13 points they were 5-2 and should have been 6-1 (2nd Oakland game). How good is your defense when you know that if the offense scores at least 13 points you are probably going to win? In those 7 games the defense only gave up more than 20 points one time (and that was in a win)!

Do you think it is just a coincidence that the defense only gave up a lot of points in games where the offense couldn't score? We are not losing any "shootouts" here. If we were you could blame the defense.

Facts are facts, whether you "buy" them or not.

The fct is that 7 points were scored in the first quarter and 21 in the second. So, the D was gassed at the end of the 1rst quarter? LMAO!!

Yes, I used my son as an EXAMPLE of how a HS athlete can hang ALL game long yet OUR PRO team is gassed after 1 quarter??

You an MANY others on this board absolutely refuse to accept the FACT that the DC coach has blame in this as well. Haley can be fired due to losses and implosions, etc etc yet the D coordinator (which he had little to do with) gets no blame for ANY of the short comings!!

The D loses 1 star player and the offense loses 3 key starters...Thus, fire Haley. Incredible.

Crown ROMEO the HC....The only way his record will be better next year will be due to the injury riddin starters that will return...+ Orton.

dbolan
01-06-2012, 11:05 AM
The range of talent levels is quite a bit different there, don't ya think?

Even in college, you have a range of NFL star, to high school level.

But in high school, you have the dedicated, gifted athletes, and those who will never play again, once they graduate high school.

Being "winded" still leaves the top athletes at a big advantage over the lesser players.

In The NFL, you are going against the top 50 players at their position, in the world. Even going against the lesser players is a physical chore.

But I agree with your overall statement, that the defense did not play well during the games mentioned.

More often than not, they played pretty well for the fist half. But they did fall apart.

But this defense was exceptional for most of their games in 2011.

Yes Sir....The talent level is different...I know that and will not refute it.

However, it is a "level" of play that can be graded in scope just as we do acedemics.

I appreciate you seeing that the Defense did not play well. It is true and using the excuse of being gassed after one quarter was not the point. IMHO, coaching was the breakdown. The inability to adjust on the fly and lack of preparation. Then, the rest is on the players.

okikcfan
01-06-2012, 11:36 AM
I believe it all boils down to the HC. In our case Haley was becoming more and more disliked by his players as time went on, starting back before the season even started. When you start to lose your players faith in you it spreads like a bad cancer. You can either fight the cancer or in Haley's case, you can just give up. Haley couldn't handle all the pressure. This is one name you have not heard about in all of the searches so far this year as HC or OC.

pojote
01-06-2012, 12:35 PM
I think this is the main reason why our defense gave up such horrendous points allowed.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2011/12/how-important-is-opponent-starting.html

And it wasn't our punters fault (one of the best in NFL).

drstandley31
01-07-2012, 11:45 PM
Regardless of what KC did to beat GB (and it was great), GB could not game plan. They were coming into a game with a QB that had taken 1 snap with the Chiefs. and a new HC. They had no idea what KC was going to do. It was a perfect storm for both sides. I didn't care for him in Cleveland, and he's inconsistant as DC. But if we end up with him, then I hope the organization spends some money and puts a team on the field. Or it won't matter who's coaching.

Canada
01-08-2012, 09:35 PM
The fct is that 7 points were scored in the first quarter and 21 in the second. So, the D was gassed at the end of the 1rst quarter? LMAO!!

You know that the second quarter is after the first quarter right. And if you leave a defense on the field for 20+mins then yes...they get tired.

Yes, I used my son as an EXAMPLE of how a HS athlete can hang ALL game long yet OUR PRO team is gassed after 1 quarter??

Really?? A high school game?? Come on man!!

Canada
01-08-2012, 09:36 PM
What makes any of think that if he did not get the job as HC that he would not return as DC???

No one is in the MARKET for HIM!!!

He is not the HC we need.Because he is under contract. :drunkhb:

nigeriannightmare
01-08-2012, 11:15 PM
Because he is under contract. :drunkhb:

And coaches dont move to the same position with another team. And as tight lipped as pioli is whose to say there wasnt a request to talk to him they do have to get permission first.