Letter To A Friend

Earlier today, a friend and I had a discussion about the Chiefs loss Sunday (doesn't it seem like people talk about losses much more than they talk about wins?). My friend believed that Sunday's loss was much more on the shoulders of the coaching staff, particularly Todd Haley and Charlie Weis, than it was on Brodie Croyle.  His argument, which is shared by many Chiefs fans, is that Croyle was not used to the best of his abilities and that there was no reason to run the ball so much in such a one-sided game. He even said that in the parts of the game he watched it was like Haley didn't want to win; that the play calling was horrible for the situations of the game. I said I politely disagree (I'm paraphrasing of course), and that I would give him a detailed analysis of my views and why we lost the game. What I wrote was too long for a reasonable text message, so I decided to email him my thoughts. This is that email:

You were making a logical point asking why did the Chiefs only pass the ball with Croyle 17 times in a 31 point blow out.  You also made a logical assumption that it was the coaching staff's fault for play calling.  Here are some stats, not stats of the nfl but more like stats of the game and why what happened, happened.  


KC had the number one rushing offense in the NFL.  Over the last 8 games they were averaging 188.4 ypg.  Croyle's career passer rating after his 0-9 start was 69.3.  But still, with a score getting out of hand, even with Croyle's below average passer rating, why did we try running still? We had 16 total running plays (not counting Palko's kneel down to end the game) for 49 yards.  


This rushing attack was definitely unsuccessful, so why did we stick with it?  We didn't, we had 16 rushing attempts; of these 16, four were on the opening possession of the game and three were on the final possession of the game with 3:15 remaining.  That leaves nine rushing attempts the rest of the game (8 remaining possessions, we had a total of 10 possessions but I already covered the first and last).  


Now, depending on your personal preference, 9 rushing attempts through the remaining 8 possessions is not sticking to the run game (especially because 9 of those 16 attempts came before halftime and when they were only down 14 -0.  Croyle was 7-17, passing for 40 yards (11 yards if you take away his sack losses).  He was also 0-8 on passes that traveled 10 yards or more (which means more than half the passing attempts were trying to stretch the field because San Diego was stuffing so many into the box) according to ESPN Stats and Information.  


Jamal Charles averaged 4.0 ypc, Croyle averaged 2.4 yards.  Not including Palko's 3 passing attempts on the last possession or Jackie Battle's three rushing attempts on the last possession, we had 13 carries and 17 pass attempts.  That's 30 plays that weren't punts or the last possession where we put in back ups. 


Why so few plays? Of our 10 possessions, six were 3-and-outs. All of Croyle's seven completions came in the first half, meaning he didn't complete a pass (that wasn't wiped away by a penalty) in the second half. We held the ball for 19 minutes and 50 seconds.  


You can blame it on the coaching staff, but not because of the playcalls.  You can say that we weren't prepared enough, that we didn't out-physical San Diego, or that we didn't prepare Croyle enough for the game; but the playcalling was the best we could do with player that is Brodie Croyle. It's not entirely Croyle's fault obviously (did I expect him to beat the Chargers? Not Really. Did I expect for us to get shut out? No), but with these results and knowing that the game would have been much different with Cassel as qb (whether we would have won is debatable), it's hard for fault to lie much farther than on the inconsistent arm of the former Crimson Tide qb. 

And that's my case. Hope you found it informative or at the very least frightening.