Chiefs This offense shouldn't be too hard to fix - Page 2

**RealSNR** · 09-16-2008, 11:56 AM

The only thing that really needs fixing is Herm. If these guys play together for long enough, they'll get used to the new feel.

Let me back up a bit.

Remember Gunther's 2nd year as head coach? The first year was all about stubbornly running the football 30,000 times per game with the "Dreamteam" backfield of Rashaan Sheehee, Mike Cloud, and Bam Morris.

Offensive production was absolutely pathetic for the most part in some games. Teams stacked 8 men in the box like they do now because they knew all we would do was run another damned draw play. However, this was also the year that we REALLY discovered what a gem we had in Tony Gonzalez. In Gun's 2nd year, this would only get better.

By the 2nd year, our backfield arguably got worse at the beginning of the season, and the great offensive genious that was Jimmy Raye still had us playing predictable football. It was that Rams game that really turned everything around for us. Then we played the Rams and a change happened. We stretched the field. Derrick Alexander turned into a big-play receiver. Kevin Lockett was an okay slot guy. Tony started the trend of big-play TEs in the league again. All because we started passing more. The running attack continued to die, but we were having A LOT of success throwing the ball and stretching defenses under a knucklehead Elvis Grbac.

Croyle has the arm and he's got the accuracy to lead this team. We need to start taking downfield shots. The only way we got back to running the ball was after we had success chucking it deep. And the only way we had success chucking it deep was if we made several attempts per game. It eventually worked.

We can do this. The problem obviously is Herm's unwillingness to leave the 15-yard zone in front of the offense. It's like if a big play develops outside of that zone, we've become finesse. That's not it at all. I wouldn't call the offense under Jimmy Raye and Gunther Cunningham finesse at all. It was still just as big, dumb, and ugly as ever. But it was EFFECTIVE, and if Gunther weren't so stupid and if the defense weren't already in decline, that would have been a good football team.

What do you think?

Micjones · 09-16-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Your looking at them today, look at what they have the potential to be.

I believe in the forementioned players.
I do not believe in our QB situation.
We desperately need help there.

Hog's Gone Fishin · 09-16-2008, 12:55 PM

I think we're Lucky we have Colquitt!

I also think hog shit smells bad.

FAX · 09-16-2008, 12:55 PM

I don't really disagree with any of this, Mr. SNR. Great post.

Actually, I am still waiting for someone to 'splain to me why, if we are, in fact, "rebuilding", wins and losses are so damn important that we have to install the option and the slash attack system.

It seems to me that, when a team "rebuilds", you acquire young guys then let them friggin' play to the very best of their ability (whatever that is). You do that so you can accurately assess their individual talents while allowing them to learn and grow both as players and as a team. That way, you'll know if you do, indeed, need a new QB or WR or TE or FB or DT or whatever at the end of the day. You'll know if your schemes are the best fit for the talent you have. You'll know how best to organize the preparation week to maximize results on the field. Plus, you're giving your young guys "quality" playing time ... time on the big stage to exhibit, challenge, and become accustomed to applying their true, existing skills in an highly competitive framework. Alternatively, if you hold them back, you'll still be guessing about what kind of horses you have in the stable come season's end.

We seem to be caught somewhere in the middle ... protecting the players from themselves, handcuffing the offense, dumbing down the playcalling, and introducing somewhat bizarre tactics in order to eke out cheap wins. After the residual pain from the first two games has somewhat subsided, it's becoming clear to me that, in reality, our actual, first priority is the scoreboard - not building for the future. I'm not saying that Herm wouldn't or doesn't want to see our young guys develop. I'm saying that, apparently, his primary, overriding objective isn't developing these guys for a legitimate run in a year or two or three - it's victories now. Bringing in the option doesn't make any sense, otherwise. It's the only rational justification at all for jumping clear off the bridge of logic and good sense into the murky deeps of Georgia Tech's playbook. From a learning or skill-development perspective, our guys aren't going to benefit from running the damn option. Could it be that, after all is said and done, Herm really is concerned about his job?

FAX

CoMoChief · 09-16-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Watching the Cowboys last night, we have some of the pieces that they do in young talent.

Bowe - TO
Charles - Felix Jones
Cottam - Whitten (I know he isnt quite the pass catcher but few are)
Albert - Flozzel Adams

We need Croyle to morph into Romo or find Romo in the draft. I think his clone is Oklahoma's Sam Bradford. A Barber type would be nice as well. We are getting closer - Hermie's offense isnt going to cut it but talent wise we are getting there.

Adams got his ass kicked on many passing downs last night.

Hog's Gone Fishin · 09-16-2008, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I realize that this isn't a popular opinion, but I like Croyle as our QB. If we can develop a right side of the O-line to protect him, I think he'd be fine.

You're exactly right. Thats not a popular opinion. Are you on crack ?

Pitt Gorilla · 09-16-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

Adams got his ass kicked on many passing downs last night.

Adams was also pretty shaky as a rookie. Some thought it was a Trezelle-like selection, IIRC.

Sure-Oz · 09-16-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I realize that this isn't a popular opinion, but I like Croyle as our QB. If we can develop a right side of the O-line to protect him, I think he'd be fine.

If they actually let him throw across the field we can see what he can do. Use that arm, and spread taht defense out. worst case he throws a bunch of pics and find out he isnt our QB

HC_Chief · 09-16-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

This offense shouldn't be too hard to fix...

...all we need = a center, right guard, right tackle, quarterback, wide receiver, wide receiver, wide receiver, linebacker, linebacker, safety, cornerback, head coach, defensive coordinator, general manager, and position coaches.

Hog's Gone Fishin · 09-16-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

...all we need = a center, right guard, right tackle, quarterback, wide receiver, wide receiver, wide receiver, linebacker, linebacker, safety, cornerback, head coach, defensive coordinator, general manager, and position coaches.

Our cheerleaders need to be replaced tooo!

InChiefsHeaven · 09-16-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog Farmer

Our cheerleaders need to be replaced tooo!

Oh, come on, they're getting better...they look pretty good from the stands now...

Hog's Gone Fishin · 09-16-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

Oh, come on, they're getting better...they look pretty good from the stands now...

Only if your in nose bleed.

OctoberFart · 09-16-2008, 01:34 PM

Get 4 new OL men, a QB, another WR and a decent RB and bam it's fixed. The Key is a new coach would have to be installed to make it all work.

Calcountry · 09-16-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I realize that this isn't a popular opinion, but I like Croyle as our QB. If we can develop a right side of the O-line to protect him, I think he'd be fine.

There are a lot of NFL QB's that would be fine behind a pro bowl caliber Oline.

Chief Faithful · 09-16-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AutumnWind

Get 4 new OL men, a QB, another WR and a decent RB and bam it's fixed. The Key is a new coach would have to be installed to make it all work.

We are not talking about the Raiders right now.

OctoberFart · 09-16-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Faithful

We are not talking about the Raiders right now.

Raiders with as much turmoil and instability they have in the organization are a better off franchise than the Chiefs. I know you guys will pull out some stat for the past couple years but I'm talking right now and you can use whatever stats you want but a 23-8 beatdown in Camarohead says otherwise.

09-16-2008, 11:56 AM
RealSNR Special Teams ACE!!! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Where the hell is SNR Casino cash: $-1304792	This offense shouldn't be too hard to fix The only thing that really needs fixing is Herm. If these guys play together for long enough, they'll get used to the new feel. Let me back up a bit. Remember Gunther's 2nd year as head coach? The first year was all about stubbornly running the football 30,000 times per game with the "Dreamteam" backfield of Rashaan Sheehee, Mike Cloud, and Bam Morris. Offensive production was absolutely pathetic for the most part in some games. Teams stacked 8 men in the box like they do now because they knew all we would do was run another damned draw play. However, this was also the year that we REALLY discovered what a gem we had in Tony Gonzalez. In Gun's 2nd year, this would only get better. By the 2nd year, our backfield arguably got worse at the beginning of the season, and the great offensive genious that was Jimmy Raye still had us playing predictable football. It was that Rams game that really turned everything around for us. Then we played the Rams and a change happened. We stretched the field. Derrick Alexander turned into a big-play receiver. Kevin Lockett was an okay slot guy. Tony started the trend of big-play TEs in the league again. All because we started passing more. The running attack continued to die, but we were having A LOT of success throwing the ball and stretching defenses under a knucklehead Elvis Grbac. Croyle has the arm and he's got the accuracy to lead this team. We need to start taking downfield shots. The only way we got back to running the ball was after we had success chucking it deep. And the only way we had success chucking it deep was if we made several attempts per game. It eventually worked. We can do this. The problem obviously is Herm's unwillingness to leave the 15-yard zone in front of the offense. It's like if a big play develops outside of that zone, we've become finesse. That's not it at all. I wouldn't call the offense under Jimmy Raye and Gunther Cunningham finesse at all. It was still just as big, dumb, and ugly as ever. But it was EFFECTIVE, and if Gunther weren't so stupid and if the defense weren't already in decline, that would have been a good football team. What do you think?
Posts: 93,268

09-16-2008, 12:55 PM	#17
Hog's Gone Fishin Fish are scared of me Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $-1429523	I think we're Lucky we have Colquitt! I also think hog shit smells bad.
Posts: 40,646

09-16-2008, 12:55 PM	#18
FAX testing ... 1, 2, 3 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Tennessee Casino cash: $6753759	I don't really disagree with any of this, Mr. SNR. Great post. Actually, I am still waiting for someone to 'splain to me why, if we are, in fact, "rebuilding", wins and losses are so damn important that we have to install the option and the slash attack system. It seems to me that, when a team "rebuilds", you acquire young guys then let them friggin' play to the very best of their ability (whatever that is). You do that so you can accurately assess their individual talents while allowing them to learn and grow both as players and as a team. That way, you'll know if you do, indeed, need a new QB or WR or TE or FB or DT or whatever at the end of the day. You'll know if your schemes are the best fit for the talent you have. You'll know how best to organize the preparation week to maximize results on the field. Plus, you're giving your young guys "quality" playing time ... time on the big stage to exhibit, challenge, and become accustomed to applying their true, existing skills in an highly competitive framework. Alternatively, if you hold them back, you'll still be guessing about what kind of horses you have in the stable come season's end. We seem to be caught somewhere in the middle ... protecting the players from themselves, handcuffing the offense, dumbing down the playcalling, and introducing somewhat bizarre tactics in order to eke out cheap wins. After the residual pain from the first two games has somewhat subsided, it's becoming clear to me that, in reality, our actual, first priority is the scoreboard - not building for the future. I'm not saying that Herm wouldn't or doesn't want to see our young guys develop. I'm saying that, apparently, his primary, overriding objective isn't developing these guys for a legitimate run in a year or two or three - it's victories now. Bringing in the option doesn't make any sense, otherwise. It's the only rational justification at all for jumping clear off the bridge of logic and good sense into the murky deeps of Georgia Tech's playbook. From a learning or skill-development perspective, our guys aren't going to benefit from running the damn option. Could it be that, after all is said and done, Herm really is concerned about his job? FAX
Posts: 44,492

09-16-2008, 01:34 PM	#27
OctoberFart Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Casino cash: $10006091	Get 4 new OL men, a QB, another WR and a decent RB and bam it's fixed. The Key is a new coach would have to be installed to make it all work.
Posts: 2,583