New fatlock rumblings,mightbe true

[wolfpack]

CHICAGO | That’s how you get fired. That’s 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.

Sunday’s 20-10 loss to the Bears was an offensive coaching nightmare.

“We’re playing like a bad team right now, especially on offense,” surmised guard Brian Waters.

It’s 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 — man-to-man on Parker with a safety in the middle of the field — pretty much dictated a throw to Kansas City’s 5-foot-9, 180-pound receiver.

I say: So what?

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

“We were trying to make a play,” Huard said.

Why not try and make one with your $45 million running back/rapper, Larry Johnson? Didn’t the Chiefs give him all that money to make plays on third and short? If you’re going to throw a fade, why not put Dwayne Bowe and/or Jeff Webb in Parker’s 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 “unpredictable.” It doesn’t happen naturally, and the teams wind up looking completely foolish. Kansas City’s offensive game plan was high school-ish.

Yes, in order to beat the Bears, you have to occasionally throw when they’re expecting run and run when they’re 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 can’t find fault with the effort of any of Kansas City’s players with the exception of return man/punt-coverage gunner Eddie Drummond, who got destroyed on Devin Hester’s TD return. Drummond is 0-2 (a fumble in the season opener) and should be released this week.

I don’t have a problem with Huard. There’s 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 don’t have a problem with Kansas City’s 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 can’t put together a sound offensive team. It’s 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. It’s the same knock that is dogging Lovie Smith, another Cover 2 defensive coach who can’t 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 he’s going to get swept out of town by the same hurricane that’s 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]

Wow! I can't believe I'm saying this but has a point. I feel so dirty.

[chief31]

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]

Wow! I can't believe I'm saying this but 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

quick slants they are throwing alot of. it wont take long for the other team to figure it out.

[chief31]

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.