It Would Have Been A Different Game With Charles

[John Waylon]

Get used to the thread title, we'll hear it all week. And likely into the fall.

 

It would have been a different game had he not gotten hurt. I don't think the result would have, however. 

 

In fact, I think the loss of Charles HELPED the Chiefs. We came with a gameplan to stop Charles. When he went down they had to change their offensive gameplan. We weren't ready for that, and it took us a while to adjust to the pick plays they were running. 

 

Had Charles been in this game, I think it would have made them far more predictable, and played to what we expected them to do. I think we would have won more comfortably had Charles remained in the game. 

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

I think we would have crushed them. Smith would've used him like a crutch and we would come and just push him over.

[GoColts8818]

And it would have been a different game with our 15 guys on IR. Injuries happen. Colts over came theirs KC did not.

[Andy]

and it would have been different with Reggie Wayne...

 

If Charles stays in the game, and the Chiefs have more of a ground attack, I don't know if they put up as many points, or maybe they do. It's a real shame that he couldn't play, but I'll gladly take this win.

[House]

So KC gets bonus points for losing everyone in a single game?

Because we lost everyone over the course of the year. I don't hear anyone telling sob stories of our struggles.

[mo0nlighting]

Could've Would've Should've.  Colts won.  End of story.  

[backshoulderfade]

I hate these arguments. You can never say any player would have made a difference one way or another. These arguments are total cop outs.

For reference, the colts would be 16-0 with Allen, Wayne and Ballard in the fold.

[Indygal1218]

But he wasn't in the game.  Without him, they were up 28 pts and were winning the turnover battle.  By all rights, they still should have won.

 

 

 

And they didn't.

[Boiler_Colt]

Well maybe they should stop being girly men and learn how to take a hit, because we knocked out a bunch of em

[John Waylon]

I don't think anyone is getting the point I was trying to make...

 

The largest part of the reason we looked so bad defensively for as long as we did is because the loss of Charles threw what we came prepared to do out.

 

I never once gave bonus points to KC for anything... In fact, after Charles exited their offense became reliant on a screen pass, a pick play, a slant, and Smith running. 

[ColtsSouljah]

And it would have been a different game with our 15 guys on IR. Injuries happen. Colts over came theirs KC did not.

Quoted for Truth

[House]

I don't think anyone is getting the point I was trying to make...

The largest part of the reason we looked so bad defensively for as long as we did is because the loss of Charles threw what we came prepared to do out.

I never once gave bonus points to KC for anything... In fact, after Charles exited their offense became reliant on a screen pass, a pick play, a slant, and Smith running.

Wasn't saying you were cutting them slack, just that people are and have been.

[Iancolts]

Stop with this KC injury so they lost the game the Chiefs was up 38-10 early third!!! Doesn't matter who played and who didn't we won and we deserved it!!!

[VAcoltsfan]

Get used to the thread title, we'll hear it all week. And likely into the fall.

 

It would have been a different game had he not gotten hurt. I don't think the result would have, however. 

 

In fact, I think the loss of Charles HELPED the Chiefs. We came with a gameplan to stop Charles. When he went down they had to change their offensive gameplan. We weren't ready for that, and it took us a while to adjust to the pick plays they were running. 

 

Had Charles been in this game, I think it would have made them far more predictable, and played to what we expected them to do. I think we would have won more comfortably had Charles remained in the game. 

 

I was thinking the same thing at half.  I think the reason for our poor performance in the first half was we came into this game focused on stopping their running game.  When Charles went down everything changed and the Chiefs had to pass which took us till half time to adjust.  I think this game would have been a much lower scoring game had Charles stayed in as the Chiefs would have stretched the clock much more.  It basically turned into a shootout once Andy Reid realized he need to change the game plan without his star RB.

[oldunclemark]

   It changed the game....but every season-ending injury all season potentially changed this game

[John Waylon]

There's a difference between a season ending injury that happened some time ago, and a player that has the biggest impact out of the game being knocked out 6 plays in.

 

This isn't about injured players who could have helped.

 

Read.

 

It's about the fact that the loss of Charles caused a change to their offense that our defense needed to take time to adjust to.

 

Seriously, is it really this hard?

[coltsfanatic24]

I think Charles going out hurt us because the Chiefs would have been conservative and ran the ball more. As great as he is the Chiefs opened up the playbook early, that wouldn't have happened if Charles played. Btw if Wayne, Allen, Thomas, Bradshaw, and Ballard were playing we win by at least 2 scores.

[VAcoltsfan]

this has nothing to do with all the players on IR but everything to do with our game plan during practice all week.  pagano said from the start that Charles was public enemy number 1.

[backshoulderfade]

There's a difference between a season ending injury that happened some time ago, and a player that has the biggest impact out of the game being knocked out 6 plays in.

 

This isn't about injured players who could have helped.

 

Read.

 

It's about the fact that the loss of Charles caused a change to their offense that our defense needed to take time to adjust to.

 

Seriously, is it really this hard?

I can only speak for myself but I both read and agree with your post. I, for one, am just expressing my frustration with the inevitable onslaught of "chiefs would have won with Charles" from the media and fans.

[House]

Fussy.

[VAcoltsfan]

I can only speak for myself but I both read and agree with your post. I, for one, am just expressing my frustration with the inevitable onslaught of "chiefs would have won with Charles" from the media and fans.

Yeah I totally agree with that, it would have been a different game but when they are making excuses and claiming that is the reason they lost...that's nonsense

[cbear]

Considering they scored 44 points, I don't think we'll hear that much of it, at least not as an excuse.  If they scored 3, then yes.

[ricker182]

Considering they scored 44 points, I don't think we'll hear that much of it, at least not as an excuse.  If they scored 3, then yes.

Yeah. That won't be the lead with them putting up 44 pts.

[bap1331]

I think that was the problem today. We prepared for Jamal Charles and the starting team. They all get hurt and the game plan changes. We faced the players we didn't prepare for...

[Smonroe]

Considering they scored 44 points, I don't think we'll hear that much of it, at least not as an excuse.  If they scored 3, then yes.

He's trying to point out that we set our D up to key on Charles. Maybe if they had him they wouldn't have scored as much?

They had a great offensive game plan. Their DBs cost them the game.

[GoColts8818]

You win the turnover battle 4 to 1 and have a 28 point lead in the second half you lose the right to point the finger at anything other than yourself if you lose. 

[JWF]

I think the Chiefs original gameplan was exactly what they used on us personally. It looked like they were keen on using the short passing game and some option stuff to keep us off balance. Worked well obviously too.

[BlueCollarColts]

Yea well we didn't have Dwayne Allen, Reggie Wayne, Donald Thomas, Vick Ballard, and Ahmad Bradshaw..... Deal with it

[John Waylon]

Yea well we didn't have Dwayne Allen, Reggie Wayne, Donald Thomas, Vick Ballard, and Ahmad Bradshaw..... Deal with it

 

[cbear]

He's trying to point out that we set our D up to key on Charles. Maybe if they had him they wouldn't have scored as much?

 

Yes, that part could very well be true.  I just don't think we'll here much about Charles missing the game as a reason for their loss.