Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic
Running the football is not always about being productive. It's about making the defense think more, it's about helping the offensive line get a rhythm, it's about protecting your defense and allowing them to get crucial rest, etc.
And it's about wearing out the opposing defense. If Hunt ran the ball 12 times in the first half, and again in the second half, he likely would have started to make big gains. Why? Because the opposing defense gets tired. Because he is a extremely talented RB that needs the ball to display why he led the league in rushing.
But regardless of second half possessions, Reid never gave Hunt or the offensive line a chance to be successful running the ball. It's just poor coaching and game planning.
No matter how much this league develops dominant passing offenses, stopping the run game in the playoffs will always be important to winning it all. More often than not Reid basically does the opposing defense's job for them.
I am extremely grateful for Andy Reid choosing to take the KC job. He was such an improvement over what we had in the years prior. And I will forever be grateful for his roe in drafting and developing Mahomes.
My wish as a fan is always to win a Championship. Whether it's the Jayhawks, Royals, or the Chiefs. Marty took over a laughingstock and turned it into a perennial playoff team. But after a decade without a SB ring, or even a SB appearance, fans were ready to move on. I don't remember anyone championing the Keep Marty Movement at the time.
Marty is arguably a better coach than Reid, but no one excused his flaws then, so I don't understand why everyone continues to go such great lengths to excuse Reid's flaws now.
Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk
|
Exactly! Reid's a great coach but his flaws are concerning since historically, they have killed his super bowl hopes. Like Andy, marty was able to get the most out of subpar talent, moreso on D than O whereas Andy does it moreso on O than D.
I'd have to look back at the games more carefully, but off the top of my head, I'm thinking Marty was more a victim of freak things like fumbles and missed FGs, which means that bad luck killed his super bowl hopes more than his flaws did (but understand that his flaws put him in a position where one freak thing could kill the dream). Freak things have certainly happened to andy (mariota throwing a freaking TD to himself and luck fumbling to himself for a TD), but his flawed game management and playcalling has cost him more in the big games.
I think you can argue either coach is better than the other and it would be a reasonable view. But what we all should really be able to agree on is that each coach is a great coach with deeply-concerning flaws. Andy is both a great coach and a flawed one. It's OK to admit both things.