Kansas City 29, Oakland 23

Kansas City 29, Oakland 23

Post by Terry M » Mon, 04 Dec 1995 04:00:00


KANSAS CITY 29, Oakland 23

(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 Associated Press

Kansas City     6  6 10  7--29
Oakland         7  3  0 13--23

COMPLETE SUMMARY

OAKLAND, Calif. (Dec 3, 1995 - 21:44 EST) -- There were two themes to the
Kansas City Chiefs' 29-23 win Sunday over the Oakland Raiders.

Marcus Allen was one, the inexorable march of the ugly duckling Chiefs
toward an AFC championship was the other.

The 35-year-old Allen, in his first game at Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum,
rushed for 124 yards to lead the Chiefs to their second AFC West title in
three seasons -- not bad for a team picked to finish fourth or fifth in the
division after Joe Montana's retirement.

Allen also became the became the first player in the NFL's 77-year history
to run for more than 10,000 yards and catch 5,000 yards in passes while the
defense held Oakland to just eight yards rushing.

"We're still not a good team," Allen said after the victory over the team
that discarded him. "We're just beating good teams."

Well, not really that good -- with starting quarterback Jeff Hostetler on
the sidelines with a shoulder injury the Raiders (8-5) lost for the third
straight time. They jumped off to a 7-0 lead with 1:01 gone in the game on
Terry McDaniel's 43-yard interception return then didn't score again until
Billy Joe Hobert, the third string quarterback, threw two late touchdown
passes to cut into a 29-10 deficit.

By then it was too late against a team that this season has managed to find
every conceivable way to win -- the victory and Dallas' loss again left the
Chiefs (11-2) with the NFL's best record.

"How many times have you seen when you see a play like that interception
early in the game that gets to you?" said coach Marty Schottenheimer. "But
this group has no quit in them. They just don't allow things like that to
get them down."

There were a lot of things in this game, one that was played both between
the Chiefs and the Raiders and the Chiefs and their fans, who jeered at the
Kansas City buses as they entered the stadium and threw all kinds of debris
from the stands. .

"If you beat the fans, you can beat the Raiders," said Kansas City
cornerback Mark Collins. "But you have to beat the fans first."

The Chiefs usually do.

This was their fifth straight win and 12th in 13 games over the Raiders, but
the first in that streak in Oakland. It also was a chippy game filled with
shoving matches and personal fouls -- the Raiders were penalized 13 times
for 105 yards; the Chiefs nine for 80, not counting those that offset or
were declined.

"There's something missing on this team," said Raiders' coach Mike White.
"It's a state of mind. I'm not sure what it is, consistency, maybe. But this
is as low as it's ever been."

Maybe what's missing is the leadership of Allen, run off the team by Al
Davis after the 1992 season in a still unexplained dispute.

Allen, who joined the Raiders in 1982, the year they moved from Oakland to
Los Angeles, was aided by a defense that forced four turnovers and got four
sacks on Vince Evans before Hobert replaced him. The Chiefs also got
effective combined work from Steve Bono and Rich Gannon.

Allen, who had 21 carries, ran a yard for one touchdown; Kimble Anders went
23 for another; Gannon scored on a 12-yard bootleg while Bono sat out with a
bruised throwing hand, and Brian Washington sealed the win with a 74-yard
interception return midway through the fourth quarter.

Bono, who threw the interception that was run back 43 yards for a touchdown
on the game's third play, returned from his hand injury to complete eight
straight passes during the second and third quarters, when the Chiefs took
over the game. The first of those was a 26-yarder to Tamarick Vanover on a
flea-flicker to set up Anders' TD that put the Chiefs up for good 3:24 into
the second quarter.

Starting with McDaniel's interception, defenses prevailed.

There were no first downs for six series, three by each team, until Allen
broke loose late in the first period for 38 yards to the Oakland 20. Two
plays later, Gannon (7 of 11 for 59 yards) went left on a bootleg and
trotted in for the score.

Lin Elliott missed the extra point, his first of two misses.

Jeff Jaeger's 46-yard field goal three minutes into the second quarter made
it 10-6, but Bono came back two series later and drove the Chiefs 53 yards
in three plays that included the 26-yarder to Vanover and Anders' run.

Allen went 25 yards to the 1 to set up his own TD in the third quarter.
Elliot's 35-yarder made it 22-10 with 44 seconds left in the third quarter.

Then Washington picked off a ball Evans shouldn't have thrown and took it
back for a score.

Bono, who left again in the final quarter, finished 9 of 14 for 87 yards.

... Chiefs over Raiders - 6 straight; 12 out of last 13; 15 out of last 17!

 
 
 

Kansas City 29, Oakland 23

Post by Maveric » Tue, 05 Dec 1995 04:00:00

Why is it that this article left out one of the most important aspects of
the game.  That the Raiders probably lost because they stuck with a 40.5
year old QB that couldn't even score a TD in San Diego.  Not until the
4th quarter did they give Hobert a chance to play even though Hobert did
well in pre season and was 17-0 in his college days. AT least the Raider
heiarchy got a dose of what they were missing when they finally put
Hobert in.  Instead of turning the ball over 4 times a game like his
peer, Hobert threw two TD passes in several minutes in a style not unlike
Ken "the snake" Stabler.  As a Raider fan, I completely blame this loss
on the management of the Raiders who thought it best to put in an
ineffective 40 year old QB who turns the ball over rather than give their
future QB a chance to shine even though he is undefeated in each game he
started ever since his college days.


Quote:
> Date: 03 DEC 95 22:26:04

> Newgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
> Subject: Kansas City 29, Oakland 23

> KANSAS CITY 29, Oakland 23

 lots of jabberwocky deleted

 
 
 

Kansas City 29, Oakland 23

Post by Chloe Cart » Wed, 06 Dec 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

>Why is it that this article left out one of the most important aspects of
>the game.  That the Raiders probably lost because they stuck with a 40.5
>year old QB that couldn't even score a TD in San Diego.  Not until the
>4th quarter did they give Hobert a chance to play even though Hobert did
>well in pre season and was 17-0 in his college days.

There may be a reason. First of all, the Raiders probably still remember
the success they had with an over-the-hill Jim Plunkett. They also got
burned by the Todd Marinovich experience, and to a lesser degree, Rusty
Hilger (fresh out of OK State).

- chloe

 
 
 

Kansas City 29, Oakland 23

Post by Terry M » Thu, 07 Dec 1995 04:00:00

Re: _Kansas City 29, Oakland 23_, Maverick  wrote to All  on 04 Dec 95:

 M> Why is it that this article left out one of the most important aspects
 M> of the game.  That the Raiders probably lost because they stuck with a
 M> 40.5 year old QB that couldn't even score a TD in San Diego.  Not until
 M> the 4th quarter did they give Hobert a chance to play even though Hobert
 M> did well in pre season and was 17-0 in his college days. AT least the
 M> Raider heiarchy got a dose of what they were missing when they finally
 M> put Hobert in.  Instead of turning the ball over 4 times a game like his
 M> peer, Hobert threw two TD passes in several minutes in a style not
 M> unlike Ken "the snake" Stabler.

That's the same thing they were saying about Todd Marinovich after one game,
wasn't it?  Hobert did well, but face it, the Chiefs defense was playing soft
at that time and were simply waiting for the clock to run out.  If you think
he'd have done that well from the start, you're naive.  I agree that he should
have probably been in the game earlier, but it wouldn't have changed the
outcome of the game.

... Chiefs over Raiders - 6 straight; 12 out of last 13; 15 out of last 17!

 
 
 

Kansas City 29, Oakland 23

Post by Josh S. Cast » Fri, 08 Dec 1995 04:00:00

T.M.>That's the same thing they were saying about Todd Marinovich after one
game,
wasn't it?  Hobert did well, but face it, the Chiefs defense was playing soft
at that time and were simply waiting for the clock to run out.  If you think
he'd have done that well from the start, you're naive.  I agree that he
should
have probably been in the game earlier, but it wouldn't have changed the
outcome of the game.

Come on now Marinovich had lots of other problems going on. It's been said,
by the Raiders players, that Hobert is a good leader and the defense of the
Chiefs was playing soft short not on long patterns. And if Hobert had come in
the second half when it was 12-10 the outcome would have been different.
Hobert dosent panic and make real stupid mistakes like throwing the ball
right to the defender which vince is famous for. Any way there is still a
chance we will meet again and when that time comes then we'll see whats
really going on. These last two losses fall soely on Vince. Hopefully he'll
retire and won't be seen for the rest of the year. He's not that bad in the
forth quater but he really can't pull it off for a whole game.
J.S.C.

-=---
  TRANSMITTED via LiveWire, a Virtual Valley/Metro Newspapers service

  modem: 408.298.8646 (FirstClass, VT-100, TTY)   fax: 408.777.8701

 
 
 

Kansas City 29, Oakland 23

Post by Terry M » Fri, 08 Dec 1995 04:00:00

Re: _Kansas City 29, Oakland 23_, Josh S. Castro wrote to All  on 07 Dec 95:

 JSC> Come on now Marinovich had lots of other problems going on. It's been
 JSC> said, by the Raiders players, that Hobert is a good leader and the
 JSC> defense of the Chiefs was playing soft short not on long patterns. And

The point is, their ATTITUDE by that time was soft.  The victory was well in
hand, and their intensity was gone.  Hobert was getting a lot more time to
throw the ball than Evans did.

 JSC> if Hobert had come in the second half when it was 12-10 the outcome
 JSC> would have been different. Hobert dosent panic and make real stupid
 JSC> mistakes like throwing the ball right to the defender which vince is

And you know this from watching him play one quarter of football?  How do you
know he wouldn't panic if he had Neil Smith and Derrick Thomas coming hard at
him every play?  Also, he had nothing to lose, because the game was virtually
over anyway.  That was about the least pressurized situation a QB could hope
for.

 JSC> famous for. Any way there is still a chance we will meet again and when
 JSC> that time comes then we'll see whats really going on.

I hope so.  Two victories a year against the Raiders is a blast.  THREE
victories in one year (as we did a few years ago) would REALLY be sweet!  :^)

... Chiefs over Raiders - 6 straight; 12 out of last 13; 15 out of last 17!

 
 
 

Kansas City 29, Oakland 23

Post by Maveric » Sun, 10 Dec 1995 04:00:00

Why Todd Marinovich is in no way comparable to Hobert.

other than the fact that each has had a good first outing, these two are
totally different.
1.  On the football side- Todd marinovich threw Rainbow balls that any
modern DB could catch up to. Todd had problems with his coach in
college.  Hobert, however went 17-0 in college play and always shows a
good attitude necessary for being a leader.  He also doesn't float cream
puffs  out there for every DB in the world to pick off.  
2.  On the personal side-  Todd marinovich got arrested for cocain
possession.  He defaced his Raiders hat to say PAID$$.  He was whiny and
thought his shit didn't stink.  He was also over rated talent wise.  
Hobert, however, just wants a shot a the job.  He seems like an all
around good guy to me.  The players like him as is evidence by the way
they all congratulate him when he does well even when they are losing.  
Talent wise, Hobert's a scratch golfer which shows a simularity in skill
to that of Deion and other multi-sport talents.

It sickens me when pessimists grab onto one minor similarity been two
people and extrapolate identical matches between two people.  That's what
Terry M. did.  I wonder if she thinks  an elephant and a whale are the
same thing....I mean they both breath air.  Why do you think that Hobert
is the same as Marinovich?

 
 
 

Kansas City 29, Oakland 23

Post by Terry M » Fri, 15 Dec 1995 04:00:00

Re: _Kansas City 29, Oakland 23_, Maverick  wrote to All  on 09 Dec 95:

 M> It sickens me when pessimists grab onto one minor similarity been two
 M> people and extrapolate identical matches between two people.  That's
 M> what Terry M. did.  I wonder if she thinks  an elephant and a whale are
 M> the same thing....I mean they both breath air.  Why do you think that
 M> Hobert is the same as Marinovich?

First, I'm not a she.

Second, I never said they were the same.  I simply compared the reaction of
Raiders fans to Marinovich's first game to their reaction to Hobert's first
game.  In both cases, Raiders fans gushed all over themselves over how great
they were.  Everyone was comparing Marinovich to Stabler, and I don't think
they meant the Stabler that played for the Saints.  And once again, after one
quarter of play against a soft defense protecting a huge lead, Raiders fans
were gushing all over themselves over another rookie QB.

I would agree that Marinovich was NEVER much of a prospect, not just because of
his attitude and drug problems, but because of his floating passes (and I said
as much after that first game that had Raiders fans comparing him to Stabler).
I also agree that Hobert looks like he has all the right tools.  He has size, a
strong arm and a good attitude.  However, a lot of other QBs have went into the
NFL with those qualities, only to fail miserably.  He showed some talent
against Pittsburgh, but he also showed he wasn't ready to be an NFL starter.
Let's let him at least prove himself to be a starter before we put him into the
Hall of Fame.

... Chiefs over Raiders - 6 straight; 12 out of last 13; 15 out of last 17!

 
 
 

Kansas City 29, Oakland 23

Post by papa leg » Fri, 15 Dec 1995 04:00:00


: T.M.>That's the same thing they were saying about Todd Marinovich after one
: game,
: wasn't it?  Hobert did well, but face it, the Chiefs defense was playing soft
: at that time and were simply waiting for the clock to run out.  If you think
: he'd have done that well from the start, you're naive.  I agree that he
: should
: have probably been in the game earlier, but it wouldn't have changed the
: outcome of the game.

: Come on now Marinovich had lots of other problems going on. It's been said,
: by the Raiders players, that Hobert is a good leader and the defense of the
: Chiefs was playing soft short not on long patterns. And if Hobert had come in
: the second half when it was 12-10 the outcome would have been different.
: Hobert dosent panic and make real stupid mistakes like throwing the ball
: right to the defender which vince is famous for. Any way there is still a
: chance we will meet again and when that time comes then we'll see whats
: really going on. These last two losses fall soely on Vince. Hopefully he'll
: retire and won't be seen for the rest of the year. He's not that bad in the
: forth quater but he really can't pull it off for a whole game.
: J.S.C.

        Evans played poorly, but those losses can't be hung solely
        on him. The Raiders' collapse has been a team effort, from the
        coaches on down.

        -keith