Not as bad as I thought

[Three7s]

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

[Three7s]

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

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

[anaeelbackwards]

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

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

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

[Canada]

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

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

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

[luv]

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

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

[Chiefster]

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

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

[Chiefster]

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

Exactly!

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

[rbedgood]

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

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

PLAY CROYLE!!!

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

[Canada]

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

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

[Chiefster]

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

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

[Canada]

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

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