ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2 of 10
< 12 3456 > Last »
The Lounge>*** The Definitive Gannon vs. Grbac DEBUNKED Thread ***
htismaqe 01:07 PM 01-02-2014
It's time.

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.

Let's start with wins and losses.

Code:
	Wins	Losses	Win %
Grbac	8	2	0.800
Gannon	5	1	0.833
Very similar. Let's look at a sample of passing stats now.

Code:
	Pass TD/Game	INT/Game	Passing YPG	YPA	Rating			
Grbac	1.1		0.6		195		6.2	79.1
Gannon	1.16		0.67		127		6.5	79.8
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.

Code:
	Def YPG	Def TO/Game
Grbac	335.4	1.9
Gannon	254.3	2.5
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]
Imon Yourside 01:37 PM 01-02-2014
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]
FringeNC 01:39 PM 01-02-2014
Gannon went on to have a much better end of career than Grbac.
[Reply]
Chiefspants 01:39 PM 01-02-2014
Tony Romo is the modern incarnation of Elvis "I can't throw it and catch it too" Grbac.

Grbac put up sterling numbers statistically, but could never come through when it mattered most.
[Reply]
htismaqe 01:40 PM 01-02-2014
Originally Posted by FringeNC:
Gannon went on to have a much better end of career than Grbac.
Irrelevant.
[Reply]
Imon Yourside 01:41 PM 01-02-2014
If only Tony G was looked to as much as Ted Popson was...we would have won easy...Ted Popson was so slow...so slow.
[Reply]
Rain Man 01:41 PM 01-02-2014
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]
htismaqe 01:42 PM 01-02-2014
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.
Exactly.
[Reply]
FringeNC 01:43 PM 01-02-2014
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Irrelevant.
Why? I'd say it's the past that is irrelevant not the future.
[Reply]
htismaqe 01:44 PM 01-02-2014
Originally Posted by FringeNC:
Why? I'd say it's the past that is irrelevant not the future.
Their individual performances in the context of the 1997 are the only things relevant to the playoff loss at the end of 1997.

The urban legend isn't about who was the better QB, it was about who gave us the best chance to win at home against Denver that day.
[Reply]
Eleazar 01:45 PM 01-02-2014
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]
Hammock Parties 01:46 PM 01-02-2014
really hard not to like elvis grbac
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 01:48 PM 01-02-2014
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]
Chiefspants 01:48 PM 01-02-2014
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]
Pitt Gorilla 01:49 PM 01-02-2014
Gonzalez was forced out, which used to be a thing.
[Reply]
Imon Yourside 01:50 PM 01-02-2014
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]
Page 2 of 10
< 12 3456 > Last »
Up