The common urban legend perpetuated amongst Chiefs fans is that we would have won that 1997 playoff game with Rich Gannon because he was clearly so much better than Grbac when in reality, that wasn't at all the case.
Again, this cross section points to them being remarkably similar. They ran fewer pass plays with Gannon at the helm so therefore appeared to be slightly more efficient but overall, the offensive output was very similar, regardless of who was under center.
Now, let's look at a couple of key defensive stats, since I think we all agree that the 1997 team was driven largely by the defense. This is where things get interesting.
It's pretty clear what drove the Chiefs winning streak down the stretch - the defense got A LOT better as the season went on. In fact, the defense allowed LESS THAN 300 yards in only 2 of Grbac's starts, whereas that same defense allowed only one team to gain more than 300 yards while Gannon was under center. [Reply]
Just rewatched that painful game...Grbac was actually pretty good, believe it or not Paul Screen pass Hackett didn't call enough screens...we were being blitzed all day and hardly ever picked it up..I thought Grbac played a really nice game, even fired up the troops quite a bit. [Reply]
Nice thread. There's always a lot of second-guessing, but I don't think it was a bad decision to put Grbac back in. There's a reason that he was the starter.
In retrospect, it's easy to look at what Gannon did in Oakland and say that he was the better quarterback. But it wasn't that cut and dried when the decision was made. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Nice thread. There's always a lot of second-guessing, but I don't think it was a bad decision to put Grbac back in. There's a reason that he was the starter.
In retrospect, it's easy to look at what Gannon did in Oakland and say that he was the better quarterback. But it wasn't that cut and dried when the decision was made.
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Nice thread. There's always a lot of second-guessing, but I don't think it was a bad decision to put Grbac back in. There's a reason that he was the starter.
In retrospect, it's easy to look at what Gannon did in Oakland and say that he was the better quarterback. But it wasn't that cut and dried when the decision was made.
Gannon was the definition of a system QB... he was able to dink and dunk to success in Oakland, but it was a perfect situation for him. [Reply]
I was a Grbacker back then as well. Gannon was a poor man's Alex Smith at the time. He was the definition of a game manager. Grbac, OTOH, would push the ball downfield and did his damnedest to make things happen.
The worst thing to ever happen to Elvis Grbac's legacy in KC was Gannon's performance in Oakland. Gannon wouldn't have done that in a million years under Marty Schottenheimer. Gruden's scheme worked perfectly with Gannon's style. People conveniently forget that Gannon played a ton for KC the following year in 1998 and was positively ordinary.
I still think Marty made the right call. As has been noted, the running game sucked eggs, Marty's gameplan was suspect and the Chiefs had some really bad penalties (the unnecessary roughness penalty on the kick return stands out) that cost them the game. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Nice thread. There's always a lot of second-guessing, but I don't think it was a bad decision to put Grbac back in. There's a reason that he was the starter.
In retrospect, it's easy to look at what Gannon did in Oakland and say that he was the better quarterback. But it wasn't that cut and dried when the decision was made.
My only wrinkle is that I'm not sure I would start a QB in the playoffs who had not played since the middle of the season.
Obviously, this is different if Aaron Rodgers is coming off of injury and Flynn is your backup. However, the Chiefs had gone on solid run with Gannon (he had even beaten Denver earlier in the season), and seemed to have steady momentum going into the playoffs.
At the end of the day, the decision to start Grbac was not as big of a travesty as people make it out to be, but it's something that still worthy of discussion until we can finally manage to win a playoff game. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I was a Grbacker back then as well. Gannon was a poor man's Alex Smith at the time. He was the definition of a game manager. Grbac, OTOH, would push the ball downfield and did his damnedest to make things happen.
The worst thing to ever happen to Elvis Grbac's legacy in KC was Gannon's performance in Oakland. Gannon wouldn't have done that in a million years under Marty Schottenheimer. Gruden's scheme worked perfectly with Gannon's style. People conveniently forget that Gannon played a ton for KC the following year in 1998 and was positively ordinary.
I still think Marty made the right call. As has been noted, the running game sucked eggs, Marty's gameplan was suspect and the Chiefs had some really bad penalties (the unnecessary roughness penalty on the kick return stands out) that cost them the game.
No the bullshit holding call on our first field goal cost us the game....we would have only needed a 3 to win at the end. [Reply]