There’s little doubt that Chiefs Nation’s expectations for this year were the lowest in 20 years. Those who are dissatisfied with the current management see the failures of this year (and 1-17 running record) as confirmation that change is needed. On the other side of the fence are the unwavering optimistic fans who have collectively taken comfort in the so-called “moral victories”, also known as “losses”, of the last three weeks.
This is creating a huge divide within Chiefs Nation. Some people are so invested in their side of the fence, that they often refuse to have a meaningful discussion or acknowledge facts and stats that oppose their position. Maybe it’s because it’s an election year.
There’s a lot of infighting and spite out there amongst Chiefs fans right now. Just look at any message board now that the most ardent Herm Apologists have shown back up after the last three “Herm Wins” or “almost not losses” of late. These recent losses have some Herm supporters so excited that I saw one fan post a claim that this is the best Chiefs team since Super Bowl III (I assume he meant Super Bowl IV)! It’s hard to believe that level of blind optimism exists without heavy-duty psychotropic drugs. While there have been quite a few positives lately, it’s important to remember what we’re comparing those positives to.
If you’ve read any of my articles, you’ve probably realized that my self-defined purpose here is to try and clear up misconceptions perpetuated by various media, Chiefs PR, and fan outlets. This week I’ll touch some of hottest topics I’m seeing on message boards this week (listed below). In each case, I’ll break it up into two generalized sides: The Change Claim (generalized as Herm Edwards and/or Carl Peterson detractors) and The Same Claim (generally Herm Edwards Apologists).
1) Miami and Atlanta
2) Better offense
3) 2-pt. conversions
4) Players love Herm
Miami and Atlanta
The Change Claim: Miami (2007: 1-15; 2008: 5-4) and Atlanta (2007: 4-12; 2008: 6-3) are clear examples that a change in coaching/management can have instant dividends and re-booting a team doesn’t have to take the 4-5 years some people want to give Herm.
The Same Claim: Miami and Atlanta are “quick fixes” and won’t make it to the top. The Chiefs are building for greatness in the long-term.
The Verdict: The Change crowd wins this one. The claim that Miami and Atlanta are “quick fixes” and “patchwork” teams just isn’t true. Both those teams are young (Miami the 5th youngest in the league according to the NFL) and both teams have been stockpiling draft picks the last two years just like the Chiefs (Atlanta actually has generally had more, and higher, picks than us lately). The difference is they are playing all facets of the team-building game, not just “drafting and hoping.”
Chiefs Offense Suddenly Improved
The Change Claim: As soon as we abandoned Herm’s offensive philosophy, our offense got better.
The Same Claim: This is due to player improvement and is validation that we are on the right track.
The Verdict: Again, The Change side wins this one. Despite a third-string quarterback and running back and a revolving door at the second wide receiver slot, we instantly got better as soon as we started doing everything Herm said we shouldn’t do up to a few weeks ago. For a full analysis, see last weeks article, “Game Reaction: Hermcuffs Exposed.”
2-pt. Conversion Attempt
The Change Claim: Herm’s decision to go for the 2-point conversion at the end of regulation was foolish and cost us the game.
The Same Claim: It was the right decision. See, Herm’s not so conservative!
The Verdict: I’m going to have to say that going for it was the right decision. Given the decimation of our defense at the time, I think it was the right move. Not to mention that we had already proven that the extra-point is not a given, especially with a nervous snapper already frustrated by his mistake. Even if you make it, overtime is only 50/50 if the teams are equal, and we’re not equal. In the end, why not go for it; we were 1-7 and had nothing to lose
By the way, I hate the NFL overtime rules (not that college is any better). I think both teams should be guaranteed at least one possession each, then sudden death if still tied after that. It couldn’t possibly be less fair than the current system.
Players Poll Shows Players Love Herm
The Same Claim: Players think Herm is a great coach to play for, ranking him 4th amongst NFL head coaches. Therefore, he is a great coach.
The Change Claim: That is a leap in logic that is not justified.
The Verdict: Sorry, but a personal “liking” of someone does not make them a good NFL head coach. Yes, it probably means the players are less likely to dissent, but it doesn’t mean they’ll necessarily play harder for him than someone they dislike but respect (e.g. Tom Coughlin). Actually, having a “players coach” might make some players too relaxed, which might cause them to lose some of their edge. Who do you think you might be more challenged by, your best friend or Bill Belichick?
VLTC’s OTC Grades: Week 10
QB: A-
- Thigpen’s consistency over the last 3 games has been a wonderful surprise. Keep it up!
- Great to see Thigpen perform under pressure in the final minutes (although helped by a timely penalty).
RB: C-
- It seems obvious that Savage can’t handle the load. We need Larry back and Charles healthy.
WR: B
- Bowe’s drops are getting rather noticeable.
- If Bradley really works out over the long-haul, what a steal.
TE: A
- Tony has stepped it up since asking for a trade. Can’t commend him enough.
OL: B-
- Good protection.
- Run game never established for many reasons.
DL: C-
- Another good game against the run.
- Got two sacks! (although only 1 “real” sack).
- Pass rush still woefully inadequate and inconsistent.
- Injuries galore.
LB: C+
- Good day against the run.
- Did I mention injuries?
DB: C
- Not bad considering the personnel. Did I mention injuries?
ST: D
- Fine job on a windy day except for the horribly botched extra point.
Coaching: B-
- Any day you abandon the Herm offensive philosophy is a good day.
- Good job with the defense considering the offense we were facing and the defense we fielded.
- Big negative for throwing away the last possession of the first half for no reason. Next time we get a lead, everyone tell Herm we’re actually losing.
Good article. I agree with everything great points.
Comment by Jones — November 12, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Another nice column VLTC. I think you may have been a little generous on your grades this week (maybe because of all the injuries). I agree Thigpen has been a nice surprise and I hope he can keep it up. No interceptions is a big help for the team (knock on wood). I’m not a Herm fan, but if I were head coach, I would have gone for two also. I think it was a good call (they could have run a better play though).
Comment by Jeff in VA — November 12, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
I agree about the end of the first half. With one minute to pla and a quarterback who has not thrown a pick in over 100 attempts you definitely try to air it out at least once or twice.
Comment by jake — November 12, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Great article. We as Chief fans have ultimately one goal and that is to win. Whether or not you like Herm, and I don’t, we are still CHIEF FANS.
Comment by Mark F. — November 12, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
I still don’t agree with putting the fate of the game on one play (2 pt. conv.). The defense forced a three and out on the previous series, stopping LT twice and sacking Rivers. I think we had the momentum to finish strong.
Herm said he didn’t trust the defense to stop SD but on our previous offensive series, he chooses to PUNT on 4th and short?!?!? Why?
Why did you trust the defense last series but not on this one??? His logic, as always, is questionable.
SUMMARY:
Win the toss, drive to kick a field goal.
Lose the toss…play tough see what happens. I think we shorted ourselves a genuine opportunity to win that game by going for two.
Comment by JMN — November 13, 2008 @ 8:58 am
As far as the 2-pt conversion goes, there really is no clear cut answer. You just have to try to play the best odds you can given the situation. Going into overtime, you have a 50/50 shot if all else is equal (if i remember correctly, on average, 55% if you win the toss, 45% if you lose). Given we were on the road, defense decimated, and playing a generally superior opponent, I’d say that put our statistical chance in overtime at under 50%. On average, I believe 2-pt conversions work something like 45% (I recently heard but didn’t verify) of the time in the NFL. With the way our offense was performing, I’d say we were at least average that day against that defense, so lets say 45% or better.
So pick your poison. This crude analysis says we had a 45% chance if we went for the conversion. Which one was more? Who knows, but statistically it is close and a matter of preference in some respects. Given the whole situation, I felt the 2-pt conversion gave us a slightly better chance.
Comment by VLTC — November 13, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
Oops, that last post was messed up because i tried to use “greater than” and “less than” signs. Here’s the last paragraph again:
So pick your poison. This crude analysis says we had a greater than 45% chance if we went for the conversion and less than 50% if we went into overtime. Which one was more? Who knows, but statistically it is close and a matter of preference in some respects. Given the whole situation, I felt the 2-pt conversion gave us a slightly better chance.
Also note that the overtime percentage is dropped further by the statistical chance of making the extra-point to send you into overtime. I think the NFL is somewhere around 98-99% on extra points, but given the status of our kicking team, we’re probably below that on that day.
Comment by VLTC — November 13, 2008 @ 1:53 pm