Fire Hackett

[bananathumb]

You guys must be delusional. We had a 2nd and 2 at the 5 and they threw 2 incomplete passes and then kicked a fg. There's the 4 points we needed right there. Then 1st and 10 at the 15 and they threw 4 straight incomplete passes into the endzone where all of their coverage was. How about throwing underneath and picking up the first down? These 2 redzone trips lost us the game. Fumbles happen but bad play calling shouldn't. Fire Hackett

 

Exactly

[thebandit27]

You guys must be delusional. We had a 2nd and 2 at the 5 and they threw 2 incomplete passes and then kicked a fg. There's the 4 points we needed right there. Then 1st and 10 at the 15 and they threw 4 straight incomplete passes into the endzone where all of their coverage was. How about throwing underneath and picking up the first down? These 2 redzone trips lost us the game. Fumbles happen but bad play calling shouldn't. Fire Hackett

 

I feel like somewhere in this thread it's been pointed out: Robert Woods was wide open in the end zone on the 2nd down play on the first series you're talking about, and Scott Chandler was wide open in the end zone on the 3rd down. Chris Hogan was wide open on that series of 4 straight incompletions...like crazy stupid open. It's fine to say you would've preferred that they do something different; failing to recognize that the offensive scheme actually worked in the most crucial of situations really undermines your criticism.

 

Simply put: they called pass plays because they thought they could get their WRs and TEs open in the end zone; it worked. All Orton had to do was hit a wide open target; he didn't...on more than one occasion.

 

Does that mean that the rest of the game's play-calling was stellar? No. It does, however, starkly contrast with the criticism you're laying down here.

[4merper4mer]

I feel like somewhere in this thread it's been pointed out: Robert Woods was wide open in the end zone on the 2nd down play on the first series you're talking about, and Scott Chandler was wide open in the end zone on the 3rd down. Chris Hogan was wide open on that series of 4 straight incompletions...like crazy stupid open. It's fine to say you would've preferred that they do something different; failing to recognize that the offensive scheme actually worked in the most crucial of situations really undermines your criticism.

 

Simply put: they called pass plays because they thought they could get their WRs and TEs open in the end zone; it worked. All Orton had to do was hit a wide open target; he didn't...on more than one occasion.

 

Does that mean that the rest of the game's play-calling was stellar? No. It does, however, starkly contrast with the criticism you're laying down here.

 

You would only know that if you could have seen the results of 1, 2, or 3 running plays. It is impossible to know what the results would have been.

 

What is known is that going for it on 4th and 10 with 3 times out and 2:30 left instead of kicking a chip shot was stupid as can be.

[Fixxxer]

I feel like somewhere in this thread it's been pointed out: Robert Woods was wide open in the end zone on the 2nd down play on the first series you're talking about, and Scott Chandler was wide open in the end zone on the 3rd down. Chris Hogan was wide open on that series of 4 straight incompletions...like crazy stupid open. It's fine to say you would've preferred that they do something different; failing to recognize that the offensive scheme actually worked in the most crucial of situations really undermines your criticism.

 

Simply put: they called pass plays because they thought they could get their WRs and TEs open in the end zone; it worked. All Orton had to do was hit a wide open target; he didn't...on more than one occasion.

 

Does that mean that the rest of the game's play-calling was stellar? No. It does, however, starkly contrast with the criticism you're laying down here.

 

I have yet to see people acknowledging this little fact but don't bother, some are crusading badly on a day there shouldn't be any.

[thebandit27]

You would only know that if you could have seen the results of 1, 2, or 3 running plays. It is impossible to know what the results would have been.

 

What is known is that going for it on 4th and 10 with 3 times out and 2:30 left instead of kicking a chip shot was stupid as can be.

 

My personal opinion is that--given how well the D was playing--taking the FG with 3 time outs and the deuce would've been the right call. I wasn't furious with going for it though.

[A Dog Named Kelso]

I feel like somewhere in this thread it's been pointed out: Robert Woods was wide open in the end zone on the 2nd down play on the first series you're talking about, and Scott Chandler was wide open in the end zone on the 3rd down. Chris Hogan was wide open on that series of 4 straight incompletions...like crazy stupid open. It's fine to say you would've preferred that they do something different; failing to recognize that the offensive scheme actually worked in the most crucial of situations really undermines your criticism.

 

Simply put: they called pass plays because they thought they could get their WRs and TEs open in the end zone; it worked. All Orton had to do was hit a wide open target; he didn't...on more than one occasion.

 

Does that mean that the rest of the game's play-calling was stellar? No. It does, however, starkly contrast with the criticism you're laying down here.

^^This.

 

You guys must be delusional. We had a 2nd and 2 at the 5 and they threw 2 incomplete passes and then kicked a fg. There's the 4 points we needed right there. Then 1st and 10 at the 15 and they threw 4 straight incomplete passes into the endzone where all of their coverage was. How about throwing underneath and picking up the first down? These 2 redzone trips lost us the game. Fumbles happen but bad play calling shouldn't. Fire Hackett

 

Also, it seems to go against your logic ... how do you think they got in the position of being 2nd and 2 at the 5 and then 1st and 10 at the 15? Did KC just put the ball in those locations?

Edited November 11, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

My personal opinion is that--given how well the D was playing--taking the FG with 3 time outs and the deuce would've been the right call. I wasn't furious with going for it though.

I was on board with going for it. My philosophy is that if there is no guarantee that you will get the ball back you take your chance. There would have been nothing worse than kicking it there and having the Chiefs make a few 1st downs and take a knee.

 

With that being said though why would you use a timeout at 2:13 (or whatever it was)? That saved you 13 seconds vs. using it right after the 2:00 warning and saving the whole play clock? It's those kind of things that make me wonder if Marrone can do the job.

[thewildrabbit]

I do not know if more experience equals being in the "right" place. Wasn't that one of the issues that Stevie had? He got open but ultimately was not were the QB expected him to be?

Thinking of that, I gotta wonder if Orton would be constantly throwing to Steve as he was always finding a way to get open. I was thinking that Williams should also be much more experienced in running every route in the playbook.

 

 

Anyway, It just makes no sense to me to have a viable red zone threat inactive when the team is desperate for help in that area.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

Anyway, It just makes no sense to me to have a viable red zone threat inactive when the team is desperate for help in that area.

Perfectly said

[Kelly the Dog]

I feel like somewhere in this thread it's been pointed out: Robert Woods was wide open in the end zone on the 2nd down play on the first series you're talking about, and Scott Chandler was wide open in the end zone on the 3rd down. Chris Hogan was wide open on that series of 4 straight incompletions...like crazy stupid open. It's fine to say you would've preferred that they do something different; failing to recognize that the offensive scheme actually worked in the most crucial of situations really undermines your criticism.

 

Simply put: they called pass plays because they thought they could get their WRs and TEs open in the end zone; it worked. All Orton had to do was hit a wide open target; he didn't...on more than one occasion.

 

Does that mean that the rest of the game's play-calling was stellar? No. It does, however, starkly contrast with the criticism you're laying down here.

I would agree, except calling them wide open. They were open but I wouldn't call it wide open. The one pass early that Orton missed to Woods in the endzone, and the one early to Chandler looked easier than they were. But they were still open receivers and he has to hit them, at least one or two of the four or so chances he had when he missed them. The first Woods one he had to throw it over a LB or someone in the middle of the field, but he overcompensated and threw it too high. The one to Chandler in the corner of the endzone was not as wide open as it first looked.

 

The fourth down pass to Watkins was a miscommunication. I'm not sure whose fault it was but it could have been Orton's. Sammy beat his guy so bad off the line he ran right to the endzone. Orton didnt see it and threw to the one, which was probably where it was supposed to go.

 

He unquestionably needed to hit a couple of those throws, which he had been doing.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Kelly the Dog

[A Dog Named Kelso]

Thinking of that, I gotta wonder if Orton would be constantly throwing to Steve as he was always finding a way to get open. I was thinking that Williams should also be much more experienced in running every route in the playbook.

 

 

Anyway, It just makes no sense to me to have a viable red zone threat inactive when the team is desperate for help in that area.

Perfectly said

I totally agree ... I am just wondering if there was more than just Marrone's stubbornness involved.

[FireChan]

I would agree, except calling them wide open. They were open but I wouldn't call it wide open. The one pass early that Orton missed to Woods in the endzone, and the one early to Chandler looked easier than they were. But they were still open receivers and he has to hit them, at least one or two of the four or so chances he had when he missed them. The first Woods one he had to throw it over a LB or someone in the middle of the field, but he overcompensated and threw it too high. The one to Chandler in the corner of the endzone was not as wide open as it first looked.

 

The fourth down pass to Watkins was a miscommunication. I'm not sure whose fault it was but it could have been Orton's. Sammy beat his guy so bad off the line he ran right to the endzone. Orton didnt see it and threw to the one, which was probably where it was supposed to go.

 

He unquestionably needed to hit a couple of those throws, which he had been doing.

 

Yep. Some forget that Orton has been throwing really well in crunch time. The plays were there to be made and Orton didn't get it done. Period.

 

I can only imagine getting stuffed on first down on a run play. "Our O-line sucks, Hackett playing into our own weaknesses again. Our OC sucks for not getting our best player like Sammy involved" etc.

[NoSaint]

 

 

I totally agree ... I am just wondering if there was more than just Marrone's stubbornness involved.

 

almost certainly - but unless its MAJOR it probably shouldnt leave the guy a healthy scratch repeatedly

[thewildrabbit]

You would only know that if you could have seen the results of 1, 2, or 3 running plays. It is impossible to know what the results would have been.

 

What is known is that going for it on 4th and 10 with 3 times out and 2:30 left instead of kicking a chip shot was stupid as can be.

That's the way I see it as the Defense was playing great all day, and had 6 sacks on Smith. The percentages say kick the FG, and take the 3 points. Then considering how Orton was paying it made no sense to keep throwing when he missed on a bunch of previous throws. 15 pass attempts vs 2 runs in that fourth quarter.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Yep. Some forget that Orton has been throwing really well in crunch time. The plays were there to be made and Orton didn't get it done. Period.

 

I can only imagine getting stuffed on first down on a run play. "Our O-line sucks, Hackett playing into our own weaknesses again. Our OC sucks for not getting our best player like Sammy involved" etc.

 

if he ran twice there with boobie with hogan, smith, gragg, and summers out there against a team that is known for their run D - sure.

 

when we are running well, and even being slightly creative with the play calls in the run game - i dont think you see that criticism.

Edited November 11, 2014 by NoSaint

[thebandit27]

I was on board with going for it. My philosophy is that if there is no guarantee that you will get the ball back you take your chance. There would have been nothing worse than kicking it there and having the Chiefs make a few 1st downs and take a knee.

 

With that being said though why would you use a timeout at 2:13 (or whatever it was)? That saved you 13 seconds vs. using it right after the 2:00 warning and saving the whole play clock? It's those kind of things that make me wonder if Marrone can do the job.

 

I'm fine with that logic...I really wasn't upset that they went for it.

 

I would agree, except calling them wide open. They were open but I wouldn't call it wide open. The one pass early that Orton missed to Woods in the endzone, and the one early to Chandler looked easier than they were. But they were still open receivers and he has to hit them, at least one or two of the four or so chances he had when he missed them. The first Woods one he had to throw it over a LB or someone in the middle of the field, but he overcompensated and threw it too high. The one to Chandler in the corner of the endzone was not as wide open as it first looked.

 

The fourth down pass to Watkins was a miscommunication. I'm not sure whose fault it was but it could have been Orton's. Sammy beat his guy so bad off the line he ran right to the endzone. Orton didnt see it and threw to the one, which was probably where it was supposed to go.

 

He unquestionably needed to hit a couple of those throws, which he had been doing.

 

That's fair re: open versus wide open...you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence.

[FireChan]

if he ran twice there with boobie with hogan, smith, gragg, and summers out there against a team that is known for their run D - sure.

 

when we are running well, and even being slightly creative with the play calls in the run game - i dont think you see that criticism.

 

Let's say Poe embarassed Wood (like he had done all game) and laid out Bryce in the back field. You don't think there'd be criticism?

[thewildrabbit]

Yep. Some forget that Orton has been throwing really well in crunch time. The plays were there to be made and Orton didn't get it done. Period.

 

I can only imagine getting stuffed on first down on a run play. "Our O-line sucks, Hackett playing into our own weaknesses again. Our OC sucks for not getting our best player like Sammy involved" etc.

Both the only two run plays in the fourth quarter resulted in a right end run by Bryce Brown for no gain, and Frank Summers left guard for one yard.

 

My basic complaint against the coaches was for the 4th down pass against the leagues best pass defense while knowing Orton wasn't playing his best. Take the FG, and make it a one point game. Then let the strongest area of the team that has been playing great all day stop them, and have the guy who has already made a 58 yarder this year give it a shot.

 

Its not like the Bills have the Jacksonville defense or that Detroit kicker who missed three in a game. Its like these coaches don't do whats in their own best interest, and play to their strengths.

[thebandit27]

Let's say Poe embarassed Wood (like he had done all game) and laid out Bryce in the back field. You don't think there'd be criticism?

 

Um, you mean on that one play where he beat him? Dude, Buffalo allowed 1 sack and ran for over 5 yards/carry...Poe totaled 3 tackles in the entire game and had minimal (if any) impact on stuffing the run.

[Wayne Cubed]

I would agree, except calling them wide open. They were open but I wouldn't call it wide open. The one pass early that Orton missed to Woods in the endzone, and the one early to Chandler looked easier than they were. But they were still open receivers and he has to hit them, at least one or two of the four or so chances he had when he missed them. The first Woods one he had to throw it over a LB or someone in the middle of the field, but he overcompensated and threw it too high. The one to Chandler in the corner of the endzone was not as wide open as it first looked.

 

The fourth down pass to Watkins was a miscommunication. I'm not sure whose fault it was but it could have been Orton's. Sammy beat his guy so bad off the line he ran right to the endzone. Orton didnt see it and threw to the one, which was probably where it was supposed to go.

 

He unquestionably needed to hit a couple of those throws, which he had been doing.

 

Not to nit pick because I mostly agree with what you are saying, but Chandler was going to be wide open, literally.

 

Look:

 

It's a really nice play, guys focused completely on Sammy. The protection was great. The Chiefs player is moving laterally and I don't think it's possible that he can then turn in time and catch up. Orton rushed the throw and overthrew it.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Wayne Cubed