Ending my Silence, End of Season Thoughts

[chief31]

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. (Teasing.)

[Ryfo18]

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. (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]

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?


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.

[Daylights]

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. (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]

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]

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]

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]

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.