The Chiefs Offense Needs to Change.... TODAY!

Posted Jan 21, 2007 12:45AM By Jon Yoon (RSS feed)

I have been one of Herm Edwards' biggest supporters. This has been no secret. Here's the main reason why: I don't approve of Herm's offensive gameplanning. I also agree that he is too stubborn at time. I also believe that he inherited a limping team and he took them far deeper than expected. Folks, I know we want to compare the Chiefs' offense to the explosive aerial offense that Vermeil and Saunders featured. We have to face facts that this ship has sailed. Joe Posnanski wrote an article in the Kansas City Star that speaks to this same issue. If you haven't read it, I implore you to read it now. I sat in my chair nodding my head at every single point Posnanski made in this article.

The reason I have been so defensive of Herm Edwards is that he was forced to run an offense last year that he was not comfortable with. The media and the fans are largely to blame for that. There were so many people that insisted that Herm not change the offense. Herm Edwards has never been comfortable with a vertical passing game. He wants to feature a ball-control offense, and you can't accomplish that if you're gaining 20 yards on first down or your quarterback gets sacked on first down forcing a 2nd down and 20. Before we accuse Herm Edwards of being a doofus on offense, let's give him a chance to get his own players and his own offensive scheme first, shall we? I don't support Herm's offensive gameplan, but I'm willing to wait one more season to see what he can do when he's given license to run his own offense with his own scheme with his own coaches and players.

More importantly, Vermeil and Saunders' offense revolved around the offensive line. News flash: those dominant years are over. Willie Roaf: gone. Will Shields: rapid decline. Casey Wiegmann: declining. Whoever is at right tackle: ineffective. The Chiefs can't go vertical because their offensive line isn't good enough to protect that long. Even Dick Vermeil couldn't have gotten much effectiveness out of this unit.So rather than flash back to how awesome our offense was and getting riled up that Herm is straying away from that philosophy, can we please move on and realize that the Saunders' offense is the wrong fit for the Chiefs? I thought Herm's offensive gameplan was terrific with Damon Huard in the game, don't you? It seemed to me that this is the kind of offense Herm prefers: a simplified offense that features a lot of short screens and slants that will gradually move the chains, and that heavily involves Tony Gonzalez. Don't you tend to think that Tony Gonzalez re-signed in KC because he was assured a greater role in the Chiefs' offense?

When Trent Green returned, Mike Solari had flashbacks of how good things were under Vermeil. Instead of sticking with what worked with Huard, they went back to the same vertical offensive philosophy even well after everyone knew it was no longer working. I tend to think Green would have been a lot more successful and the gameplanning would have been far less predictable if the Chiefs didn't move away from the gameplan they used with Huard as a starter. The Chiefs have since fired Quarterbacks coach Terry Shea, a man who is largely responsible for the Chiefs' passing gameplan and likely the man with the greatest allegiance to Trent Green. The move definitely signals that Herm Edwards did not like the Chiefs' passing strategy. It could also subtly imply that the Chiefs are ready to move on next season without Trent Green as their starting quarterback.

The good news is, Herm Edwards seems intent on building a new offense and not stubbornly sticking with an offense that didn't work. I don't support Herm Edwards and I certainly do not advocate his predictable offense; however, unlike most people in Kansas City, I am willing to give Herm at least more than one year to run an offense his way. Tomorrow, I will post part II of this series on offense and I will begin to discuss what the Chiefs might plan to do with this new look offense. I think after reading that, most people should agree that a simplified offense should help the Chiefs' offense immensely.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

1-22-2007 @ 12:46PM

drum said...

you know that I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, BUT when I look at Edwards I look back at when he coached the jets and I see a crappy offense is all I see anyone who would hire paul Hackett as offensive cord. is way behind the game WAY BEHIND and that is an understatmentwe went through hacketts nasty offense a long time ago but herm is still there. Did you see what thr Patriots did to the indy defense all though they lost they still did a hell of a lot better than your hermie chiefs. you see they came out and did the opposite of what everyone thought they would do they threw the ball and it almost worked. It took Indy time to adjust. and guess what it wasn't about defense like the so called experts would like you to believe it was about offense offense and more offense.And when that didn't work they scored more points.To bad the chiefs did not play the QB that gave them the best chance of scoring at least one TOUCHDOWN!!! You see sometimes you have to change things up. like when your team is not tough enough to line up and beat someone one on one. Then you have to go to plan "B" But first you have to have a plan B and Hermie had a plan "B" but fir whatever arrogant reason choose not to use him. And now this off season I,m sure your buddy Herm will let Damon get away to some other team who is smart enough to know how good he is. Anyway Mr.Yoon you have a great day and enjoy the off season and just for the record i'm rooting for Indy I guess. All though it wouldn't bother me if the Bears took it..

1-22-2007 @ 11:55AM

To make a long story longer I do agree with you as far as Damon Huard as the more effcient QB although Trent seems to be a great person I just think the chiefs need a stronger armed and more able to scramble QB

1-22-2007 @ 2:19PM

Jim said...

Remember Herm's infamous Jet news conference where he preached to a gaggle of reporters on October 30, 2002: "You play to win the game. Hello? You play to win the game. You don't play it to just play it. That's the great thing about sports: you play to win, and I don't care if you don't have any wins. You go play to win. When you start tellin' me it doesn't matter, then retire. Get out! 'Cause it matters."

Too bad Herm, once again, won't follow his own advice. His offensive strategy is to play sooo conservatively that mistakes are minimized. Herm plays "not to lose." Herm doesn't play to win. Herm, it's time to retire. Get out! Because it matters more to us than it does to you.

1-22-2007 @ 1:56PM

Jon Yoon said...

I definitely agree with you both that the offensive playcalling needs to change. But again, let's think this through. Was anyone truly upset at the way the Chiefs were playcalling with Huard playing in mid-season? I thought it was pretty good. The Chiefs were running a very dumbed-down offense with Huard in the game. Green was not the only problem last year; it was also the coaches' faults for complicating the offense as soon as Green was named the starter again. I wonder how much success Green could've had if the Chiefs ran the simplified "Damon Huard offense."

If the Chiefs run the same offense they ran with Damon Huard as the starter, but that offense also comes with 1) bigger receivers who can actually catch the ball close to the line of scrimmage; 2) an offensive line that can consistently protect the quarterback, and 3) the ability for the QB to audible out of a run play if the defense is showing an obvious run defense, than I think you'll see the offense get a heck of a lot better. I know we all want to revert back to the Vermeil offense, but unless we go out and secure 3 pro bowl offensive linemen, it's not happening, folks.

We all have to also be careful not to assume that just because Herm ran his team one way before, he'll run it that way again. Keep in mind that he didn't run the cover 2 his first few years with the Jets and now it's his bread-and-butter. Keep in mind that Herm listened to the fans and ran the Coryell offense that Saunders/Vermeil ran, even if it wasn't his typical approach. But it's not working, and unfortunately, Herm is the fall guy, even though it's clear he simply does not have talented enough of players to run this offense anymore.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither is the Chiefs' declining offense. I demand results from Herm too. But I'm just a little baffled at the harsh criticism against him. Keep in mind that Herm has won more playoff games in a few years than the Chiefs have won in the past 20. Keep in mind that the Chiefs made the playoffs this season, even if we supposedly "backed" into them. Finally, keep in mind that Tony Dungy was a coach who was also branded in Tampa for not having guts, and that Lovie Smith coached a Bears' offense that was 10 times worse than KC's when he first came into Chicago. In fact, the Bears' offense still isn't all that good.

Herm Edwards is a good coach. He needs to change in many ways. And I think we need to give him the opportunity to make those changes before we brand him for being stubborn. He is intent on changing the team. It sounds to me like he wants to make a lot of personnel moves, which we desperately need. And he's willing to change the scheme, which we also desperately need. If in game 1, he sticks with run/run/pass and it costs us the game, then yes, I'll be one of the first to jump on his throat. But as of now, we're branding a coach for poorly running an offense that he didn't want to run, he didn't have the players to run, and then had players that literally dropped the ball when given opportunities.

1-22-2007 @ 4:59PM

jeffreno said...

Ok fellas as a 30 year old highschool/college quarterback, and I still play amateur ball, You win as a team and loose as a team. Here is my point whether your team is old, young, inexperienced, or professional you still must ADJUST! I have won 4 championships and lost 4 championships in my little career, we won with the old guys and lost with the pros, so I don't want to hear any excuses about a old team, when the real reason they lost was because of the inability to adjust. Oh year herm edwards didn't take the chiefs to the playoffs The broncos did by losing to frisco.

1-22-2007 @ 5:00PM

rd555 said...

With Dickie V. we had a coach that concentrated on the offense, to the detriment of the defense. With Hermie we have a coach that concentrates on the defense, to the detriment of the offense. What about a pro coach that is well balanced? Who pays attention to both sides of the ball? Is that too much to ask for?
When Carl Peterson hired Edwards, he said that he was the best coach available. And that his decision was in the best interest of the Chiefs organization. I think that Edwards was just the best friend of Carl's available.
During Edwards final press conference, he said that he didn't care about stats. And that he didn't care if we had a top 5 offense. You play the game to win? Helloooo. How do you expect to win if you have a mediocre offense that can't put any points on the board? You see, the team that scores the most points wins the game.
If your game plan and scheme aren't working, then surely you would make some adjustments, especially during a playoff game. But no. We saw what a stubborn headed clown at the helm of a ship will do if given the chance. Rather than listen to anyone else, or take advice, he'll stupidly run the ship aground (no pun intended) until it splits up and slowly sinks.
Hey Edwards, if you won't coach the game to win, then get the hell out of town.

1-22-2007 @ 10:30PM

jeffreno:

Certainly an interesting point. But let me ask you this: if you want to run a West Coast offense, could you run it with Eddie Kennison? Probably not. If you want to run a 3-4 defense, can you run it with James Reed as your tackle? Probably not. I agree that the Chiefs must adjust, but given how bad the tackles were, would it have made a huge difference if, instead, we watched our quarterback get sacked on every first down?

rd555:
I too thought the offensive gameplan was frustrating. But let's keep one thing in mind: we had 4 or 5 drives in the first half that could have extended if our receivers did their job and caught a very easy pass on 3rd down. So while much of the blame falls on his shoulders, what do you do when your receivers drop 4 or 5 passes in one half? Our receivers were atrocious. Our offensive line was despicable. And worse, they are not a match for the type of offense that Herm runs. Again, let's see what he can do with a real offensive line and bigger receivers, and a simplified offense.

I'm going into more detail in part II. You should all check it out.