Herm defends run run pass punt

[Hammock Parties]

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/chi...ry/368858.html

Edwards defends conservative approach to offense

Given any other team’s offensive players, Herm Edwards might have tried harder to match Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts point for point.

Edwards is instead coaching the Chiefs, who are doing nothing consistently well when they’ve had the ball. That being the case, Edwards defended his decisions in Sunday’s 13-10 loss, saying the considerable offensive shortcomings leave him no realistic choice but to be what most fans consider ultra-conservative.

“There’s no room for error for us,” Edwards said Monday. “We have more three-and-outs than anybody in football. We have more negative plays than anybody in football. It’s hard playing that way. You put a lot of strain on the defense. So you’re trying to protect them, too. You don’t want your defense out there the whole game.

“Do I want to play that way? Heck, no. But we have to play that way. I’m trying to play the best way for the Chiefs to win the game.”

The subject obviously frustrated Edwards, who at times raised or lower his voice to make a point. He never wavered from his stance that an inability to make yards when running the ball or adequately protect the quarterback means the Chiefs are realistically squeezing every point possible from their offense.

“You have all of these great ideas that you want to use,” Edwards said. “There are a lot of things other teams are doing that we’d like to do. But we know what we are whether we like it or not. It’s been 10 weeks. You’re not going to all of a sudden evolve into something like New England. You’ve got to do what you feel you’re capable of doing.

“You know what you’re capable of doing and at the end of the day, you’re always trying to do things the players can be successful at. You can’t do things that won’t let your players be successful. You have to take some chances once in a while. I understand that. But there are (only) certain things we’re capable of doing.

“Would we like to do some different things? Sure. But you have to play to the strengths of your players. It looks like we’re conservative at times.

“We’re doing things in a way we feel we’re capable of doing them. As a staff, we’ve been with these players every day. We coach them every day. We know what they’re capable of doing. Whether everybody else believes that, it doesn’t matter. It might look conservative, but it’s a way of playing football that gives us the best opportunity to win.”

The Chiefs may have been able to squeeze more points near the end of the first half.

They took over at their 23 with 1 minute, 15 seconds and three timeouts left. The score was 3-3.

The Chiefs ran out the clock rather than try for points. Edwards ordered quarterback Brodie Croyle to hand the ball twice to Kolby Smith, once for 4 yards and the next for 5, rather than attempt a pass.

“We decided we were going to run the ball on the first play,” Edwards said. “If we got a first down, if we got 15 yards or so, then we were going to go for it. But that didn’t happen. And at that point I didn’t want to give (the Colts) momentum. They had two timeouts left. If we had taken almost no time off the clock with three incomplete passes and then we punted, we would have given the ball back to Peyton Manning with two timeouts.

“Then they get the ball back to start the third quarter. I’m not giving them two shots at me without us having even one. That makes no sense to me. I’m looking at all of that and saying, ‘Wait a minute.’ We survived the first half.

“Yeah, I was playing it conservative at that point. I guess people think we should take a chance because we were 14-point underdogs. But I’m trying to win the game. We were backed up. It was noisy. There were too many variables in that one.

“If I’m somebody else, then maybe I do it differently. But I know what I am right now.”

Against the Colts, Croyle made his first start in place of Damon Huard. Edwards made the change in part because of Croyle’s superior passing skills.

But the Chiefs declined to use those skills. His longest completion of the game was 19 yards, not counting the lateral on the game’s last play that gave him a statistical 21-yard gain.

Edwards indicated the Chiefs might try to throw more down the field in Sunday’s game against Oakland at Arrowhead Stadium.

“(The Colts) play a lot of cover 2,” Edwards said. “They’re not going to let you throw the ball down the field. They’ve only given up 10 plays of 20 yards passing. They don’t give up those plays.

“You’ll see the ball go down the field more against Oakland because they play more man to man. If we can get some one-on-one matchups we like, we’ll do it. That’s the next thing you try to do the next six weeks. This was his first game, and we had to get a feel for him emotionally and where he’s going to be. Now we can build on that.”

[Sure-Oz]

Our defense needs to learn to get turnovers and take them to the house with herms attitude.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by Donger

So he extrapolates that to a game scenario?

And therein lies the question, Mr. Donger. This point has been made before, but what the heck. Herm's trying to find refuge in this "we're not good on offense, so we don't put pressure on the offense" argument. In other words, limit what the players are asked to do because he believes they can't do stuff.

The problem is that, If Herm could truly evaluate a players on-field performance based on what he sees in practice, why have we been playing Drummond? Maybe, in the "big picture", it's the dismal ST blocking that's the problem. If so, why inactivate Drummond?

You have to question either a) Herm's ability to transfer his expectations of a player's performance to the field based on what he sees in practice or b) Assume that he's not exactly being honest about this.

Either way, it's time to burn the stadium.

FAX

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

kcnut, is that you?

Um ... no

But I guess I could return the favor and say chiefsfan1963 is that you?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Sure-Oz

Our defense needs to learn to get turnovers and take them to the house with herms attitude.

Did you get that impression too? He didn't say it, but he sounds more confident of the defense scoring than the offense.

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by FAX

Either way, it's time to burn the stadium.

FAX

That may happen if they lose this weekend

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Donger

He didn't say it, but he sounds more confident of the defense scoring than the offense.

I think we can agree that with this offense many of us believe this as well.

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by Stinger

Some like offense some like defense but unless you want to go far in the playoffs you must have defense and during that 13-0 season I think that was more than evident.

I agree DV needed more defense... but if you ask me who could take a team futher it's not Herm.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Donger

This guy really is an idiot. For a while, I had hoped it was just a clever ploy.

It is sad, isn't it!? Do you suppose the players have figured that out as well? Some of them are pretty sharp.

[Sure-Oz]

Originally Posted by Donger

Did you get that impression too? He didn't say it, but he sounds more confident of the defense scoring than the offense.

He seems to think this is last year's ravens defense

[Donger]

Originally Posted by FAX

And therein lies the question, Mr. Donger. This point has been made before, but what the heck. Herm's trying to find refuge in this "we're not good on offense, so we don't put pressure on the offense" argument. In other words, limit what the players are asked to do because he believes they can't do stuff.

The problem is that, If Herm could truly evaluate a players on-field performance based on what he sees in practice, why have we been playing Drummond? Maybe, in the "big picture", it's the dismal ST blocking that's the problem. If so, why inactivate Drummond?

You have to question either a) Herm's ability to transfer his expectations of a player's performance to the field based on what he sees in practice or b) Assume that he's not exactly being honest about this.

Either way, it's time to burn the stadium.

FAX

The part I don't understand is that Herm seems to be of the opinion that the offense under Croyle sucks. Based on what exactly?

[FAX]

Originally Posted by Donger

"We need to play to our strengths, and our strength is playing defense."

He then complains about not scoring many points.

Okay, I'm a football reerun, but even I can see the problem here...

Really, his reverse logic is truly marvelous to behold. He has an amazing ability to make an argument that has cause and effect backwards. I wonder if he has too many X chromosomes.

Let's burn the stadium and throw his chromosomes on the coals.

FAX

[Sure-Oz]

Originally Posted by Donger

The part I don't understand is that Herm seems to be of the opinion that the offense under Croyle sucks. Based on what exactly?

He's a total dumbass, he's afraid croyle will throw 15 ints if he throws beyond 10 yards

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Donger

Did you get that impression too? He didn't say it, but he sounds more confident of the defense scoring than the offense.

Thats the problem. The reason they have lost three in a row, the defense isn't scoring. Brilliant.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Stinger

I think we can agree that with this offense many of us believe this as well.

I don't, at least not until what Croyle can do without having one of his hands tied to Herm's balls.

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Chiefanatic

I agree DV needed more defense... but if you ask me who could take a team futher it's not Herm.

Maybe but I will hold off on that until we can have a more compairitive sample. So far Herm has matched DV results like it or not 1 lost playoff game. And I believe if we can fix the offensive line we will see a great increase in the productivity of the offense. IMO