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]
I've been preparing myself for a huge letdown Sat. Oh well...that's the wonderful joy of being a Chiefs fan. Today coming back to work was just terrible. I'm still hungover from NYE (I can't drink worth a shit anymore) and usually a few bowls of green, a couple large gatorades and some greasy food does the cure. It's almost 9pm on the 2nd of Jan and I'm still feeling like death. FML. [Reply]
There is certainly something to be said about winning down the stretch. Which is exactly what the Chiefs were doing while Gannon started. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Has nothing to do with how Gannon played or who is better. They were winning heading into the playoffs and Grbac had been out. It was a poor decision, and I carry a lot of disdain toward Marty for it. [Reply]
The problem with statistics is that they don't tell the whole story. It's true that Grbac had a cannon for an arm and he was clearly a better pure passer than Gannon. But Gannon knew how to improvise, he knew how to scramble when necessary, and he didn't wet his pants under pressure. In other words, he knew how to win.
You have to watch the actual game in order to appreciate and understand these things, because they don't show up in the box score. Anybody who watched the Chiefs that season should have been able to see that. When Gannon was the starter the Chiefs were the hottest team in the NFL. You don't **** with team chemistry in a situation like that. But Marty chose to do it, and the Chiefs wound up losing the only game that really mattered.
Here is why Marty's decision was a was a horrible decision: If Marty had said "I'm going to give the job back to Grbac because I think Grbac gives us the better chance to go win the Super Bowl", that would have been fine.
But he didn't say that. Instead, he said "It is my policy that a starter doesn't lose his job because of an injury".
Period. That was it. THAT was his justification for giving the job back to Grbac, and it's a horrible reason.
Marty didn't think Grbac gave him the best chance to win. Marty was just operating under some misguided sense of loyalty to one player, and he put that ahead of the interests of the team. I loved Marty, but I'll never forgive him for that. [Reply]
Gannon was basically Alex Smith before Alex Smith. Think that's crazy? Here's his first year in Oakland, a stat line that should seem awfully familiar: 304-515 (59.0%) for 3840 yards, 24 TD and 14 ints. He had one aberrant great year (2002) and a trio of good but not great seasons, which grew to legend status here.
Originally Posted by keg in kc:
Gannon was basically Alex Smith before Alex Smith. Think that's crazy? Here's his first year in Oakland, a stat line that should seem awfully familiar: 304-515 (59.0%) for 3840 yards, 24 TD and 14 ints. He had one aberrant great year (2002) and a trio of good but not great seasons, which grew to legend status here.
My point? He was never good enough.
He was good enough to be named NFL MVP and to take his team to the Super Bowl. That's pretty good. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
Yeah, when Gannon aired it out, you got things like Super Bowl XXXVII.
That's hilarious, but not for the reason you think. Under Gruden, Gannon was slinging the football extremely well over a few seasons. He was actually the NFL MVP the year the fade went to the Superbowl. Raiders were a bigtime offense. Gannon "aired it out" a lot and got himself MVP honors doing it.
Jon Gruden is the reason Gannon had a horrible day in the superbowl. All you need to see is the clip of Jon Lynch ranting and raving about how "Every single thing he said they would do in practice, they are doing."
Bucs knew what was coming, because it was Gruden's offense not Bill Callahan's. Pretty easy to pick 5 and take 3 to the house when you have an amazing defense to begin with, but when you get told what's coming....forget it dude.
I think the reason for me being so angry about Gannon not getting the start in that Colts game was that when Grbac finally did get benched, Gannon nearly pulled the game out for us. He just ran out of time. That incomplete pass intended for Lake Dawson in the end zone has starred in many a nightmare for me.
Gannon was on a hot streak since Grbac's injury and the team was rolling and had good chemistry. Gannon should have gotten the start in my opinion. Again, based on what I saw from him at the end of the game, I really feel like had he played the entire game we win. [Reply]
Stats are meaningless in this context. Yeah, their box scores look the same, but Gannon had intangibles that Grbac did not possess that would have GREATLY enhanced our chances of success.
I am in no way pulling some hindsight shit when I say that I thought Gannon would give us a much better chance to win the game, then or now.
I thought so then, and I do now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Wallcrawler:
I think the reason for me being so angry about Gannon not getting the start in that Colts game was that when Grbac finally did get benched, Gannon nearly pulled the game out for us. He just ran out of time. That incomplete pass intended for Lake Dawson in the end zone has starred in many a nightmare for me.
Gannon was on a hot streak since Grbac's injury and the team was rolling and had good chemistry. Gannon should have gotten the start in my opinion. Again, based on what I saw from him at the end of the game, I really feel like had he played the entire game we win.
That's exactly right. The thread starter thinks he can look at a box score 17 years after the game was played and draw a conclusion about who the more effective quarterback was that is more meaningful than the opinions of the people who actually watched the damn game.
Originally Posted by Brainiac:
The problem with statistics is that they don't tell the whole story. It's true that Grbac had a cannon for an arm and he was clearly a better pure passer than Gannon. But Gannon knew how to improvise, he knew how to scramble when necessary, and he didn't wet his pants under pressure. In other words, he knew how to win.
You have to watch the actual game in order to appreciate and understand these things, because they don't show up in the box score. Anybody who watched the Chiefs that season should have been able to see that. When Gannon was the starter the Chiefs were the hottest team in the NFL. You don't **** with team chemistry in a situation like that. But Marty chose to do it, and the Chiefs wound up losing the only game that really mattered.
Here is why Marty's decision was a was a horrible decision: If Marty had said "I'm going to give the job back to Grbac because I think Grbac gives us the better chance to go win the Super Bowl", that would have been fine.
But he didn't say that. Instead, he said "It is my policy that a starter doesn't lose his job because of an injury".
Period. That was it. THAT was his justification for giving the job back to Grbac, and it's a horrible reason.
Marty didn't think Grbac gave him the best chance to win. Marty was just operating under some misguided sense of loyalty to one player, and he put that ahead of the interests of the team. I loved Marty, but I'll never forgive him for that.
Originally Posted by Brainiac:
That's exactly right. The thread starter thinks he can look at a box score 17 years after the game was played and draw a conclusion about who the more effective quarterback was that is more meaningful than the opinions of the people who actually watched the damn game.
There was no fucking difference between Grbac and Gannon in 1997. This mythical bullshit that Gannon was some amazing player was not true. Wasn't in 1997 or even today. I watched all of those games. We won a game on a long ass Stoyo kick which barely went in, throttled the 49ers and beat some really shitty teams ie Raiders and Chargers. [Reply]
