I mean goddamn this conference seems wrapped up doesn’t it? Not trying to jinx us but it really seems like injuries are our biggest opponent at this point.
The Ravens are fucking frauds. They’re a warm up for us. We literally made these guys look like the JV squad the last 2 meetings.
And sure the Bills and Titans may make us work for the win, but in all honesty we have to play pretty goddamn shitty to lose to those guys.
In order to have any shot at beating us you need 3 things:
1. Elite pass rush
2. Top 10 QB capable of making critical plays
3. Overall talented roster
Steelers are the only team in the AFC that has those 3 things, and even them it’s not like they’re some serious threat like the Patriots a couple years back, but they seem like the best of the rest.
I think at this point it would be disappointing for this team to not get to the SB 3 straight times.
We’re just that good, and we keep drafting well and get better and better. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Azide22:
Can we surmise from what you say here that the Chiefs much weaker PD later this season are then reasons to worry that we aren't as good as we head ro playoffs?
Maybe. Not trying to be evasive, but I’ve had three scotches, and a couple of beers tonight. So what I meant exactly when I wrote that, it’s a little fuzzy right now, so forgive me.
However, assuming that you’re sober and are capable of at least average reading comprehension, then probably that’s what I meant when I wrote that.
Using yet another example, we could look at the Chiefs record in terms of ATS. So through the first six games are so the Chiefs cover the spread every single time. But over the last eight games, they haven’t covered a single time. So we can surmise that the Chiefs are not scoring as efficiently over the last eight games as they were through the first six. Which might be a problem.
There are of course other factors to consider besides just how many points the Chiefs scored per game. Factors such as quality of opponent, whether or not injuries were a factor, coronavirus issues, etc. but generally speaking, it is true that the Chiefs have been less efficient scoring for the past couple of months, and this may continue into the playoffs.
But I think my point or the point that I was trying to make at the time, was simply that context matters. And that point differential in and of itself doesn’t offer much context.
If the above doesn’t make sense right now I apologize. I’ll look at it tomorrow, and try to fix this if it doesn’t. [Reply]
Statistical anomalies - outliers that stick out like a sore thumb - often have their own context.
That’s the case with the Browns. A team with their PD over this many games is almost always sub-500. That’s your context. It doesn’t matter if it was talent or injuries or COVID. Teams that give up more points than they score don’t win a lot of games. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Not to butt in, but the Titans have only played like three or four decent teams this year. Every other team they played have records below .500. And they still manage to lose to the likes of Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Maybe. Not trying to be evasive, but I’ve had three scotches, and a couple of beers tonight. So what I meant exactly when I wrote that, it’s a little fuzzy right now, so forgive me.
However, assuming that you’re sober and are capable of at least average reading comprehension, then probably that’s what I meant when I wrote that.
Using yet another example, we could look at the Chiefs record in terms of ATS. So through the first six games are so the Chiefs cover the spread every single time. But over the last eight games, they haven’t covered a single time. So we can surmise that the Chiefs are not scoring as efficiently over the last eight games as they were through the first six. Which might be a problem.
There are of course other factors to consider besides just how many points the Chiefs scored per game. Factors such as quality of opponent, whether or not injuries were a factor, coronavirus issues, etc. but generally speaking, it is true that the Chiefs have been less efficient scoring for the past couple of months, and this may continue into the playoffs.
But I think my point or the point that I was trying to make at the time, was simply that context matters. And that point differential in and of itself doesn’t offer much context.
If the above doesn’t make sense right now I apologize. I’ll look at it tomorrow, and try to fix this if it doesn’t.
Well, I dont think you were directly referencing the Chiefs, and I get what you mean. The lack of closing is a repetitive issue though for the Chiefs, obviously.
One thing I'll point out, they sure seem to get out to good, almost insurmountable leads against the good teams. Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Baltimore for example. In each of those games, a key play -a turnover by the offense in every one- played the opponent back into game. Chiefs were starting to put game in the bag in each case, and immediately ceded momentum to a previously slumbering good team. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
I personally think beating 3 playoff teams on the road in 4 weeks, plus the Raiders' SB, is more impressive than kicking the shit out of the Patriots and Broncos.. and is also more indicative of who's playing at a high level going into the playoffs.
Absolutely. Anyone watching that Broncos game saw a team 100%, no question about it, flat out quit and the Patriots don’t have a single skill position player that would start anywhere else in the NFL, which is amazing. Maybe Harris over Frank Gore but Harris was out last night anyway. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Azide22:
Can we surmise from what you say here that the Chiefs much weaker PD later this season are then reasons to worry that we aren't as good as we head ro playoffs?
Not really... I mean, it's a little strange they don't have a stronger point differential this season, since they lost 3 more games last season... but, they also lost 4 games last season and won the Super Bowl, while the Ravens had a +249.
The Chiefs should probably be around +200, so beating teams by an average of 12.5 points.... and they're at 9.6. :-)
The point yesterday was with the Browns being at a negative point differential and if it matters given they were potentially improving over the course of the year..... but, to put it another way.... if they had lost their first 5 games by an average of 16 points/game (the historically terrible 0-16 Lions and the 2-14 Chiefs lost games by an average of just under 16ppg), then say they started winning to the extent of being on the high end of where they should be in terms of point differential (+130 for the season, or 8.125/game).
-16 * 5 = -80
8.125 * 10 = 81
....they would still have a positive point differential with one game remaining. So, if they were historically awful to start the season and then became a typical 11 or 12 win team, they would still have a better point differential than their current -33.
That's how hard it is to have a negative point differential and be playing at the level of a real ~11 win team.
It's not a stat to nitpick to death and look across 3 games or anything (for example, you could say "what if the Browns won their last game by 40? ...well, I'm gonna look at the previous 15 games)... but, over the course of the season, it can definitely give you at least a starting point on how strong a team might be, given all of the other variables. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Why Not?:
Absolutely. Anyone watching that Broncos game saw a team 100%, no question about it, flat out quit and the Patriots don’t have a single skill position player that would start anywhere else in the NFL, which is amazing. Maybe Harris over Frank Gore but Harris was out last night anyway.
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
The Bills aren't a threat to us because for some reason, Spagnuolo knows exactly how to shut down Stefon Diggs. He's never done shit against us.
If you take away Diggs, Allen becomes hot garbage.
I'm gonna guess the Bills win a wild-card game before getting soundly tromped in the divisional round. They're not that good.
The one thing you cannot do against Josh Allen and the Buffalo offense is play soft or stagnant zone. Because then Daboll will get a WR who is Allen's 1st read open and all he has to do is fire the ball into the area (which he can because he has a rocket arm).
What Allen struggles with is reading a defense post-snap, throwing with anticipation, and going through progressions quickly.
So Tennessee caused them a problem because cloud coverage and Allen had to throw into a narrow window with great safety play (Tenny's D sucks against almost everyone else!). But these basic throws with anticipation elude Allen so he gave up and just kept hitting checkdowns.
Against the Rams 1st half, they played soft zone and Allen picked them apart. In the 2nd half Rams went back to man coverage and pressure and Allen looked like he did last year (except Staley kept calling zone on 3rd and long).
Against KC, Spags lied to Allen and showed pressure/man, dropped into zone. Or did something else at LOS to confuse Allen. This messed up his timing and he didn't have 100 yard going into the 4th. Near the end Spags would bail out sooner and Allen saw zone and ....boom. He started hitting.
This is not to say Allen is terrible or bad. He has some elite traits but huge weaknesses as well. For some reason, NFL teams either don't have the personnel or scheme ready to get him out of his comfort zone. The Buffalo offense reminds me of Baltimore last year that rolled through the league until Tennessee found some counters in the playoffs (loading up the middle of the field). [Reply]
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
The one thing you cannot do against Josh Allen and the Buffalo offense is play soft or stagnant zone. Because then Daboll will get a WR who is Allen's 1st read open and all he has to do is fire the ball into the area (which he can because he has a rocket arm).
What Allen struggles with is reading a defense post-snap, throwing with anticipation, and going through progressions quickly.
So Tennessee caused them a problem because cloud coverage and Allen had to throw into a narrow window with great safety play (Tenny's D sucks against almost everyone else!). But these basic throws with anticipation elude Allen so he gave up and just kept hitting checkdowns.
Against the Rams 1st half, they played soft zone and Allen picked them apart. In the 2nd half Rams went back to man coverage and pressure and Allen looked like he did last year (except Staley kept calling zone on 3rd and long).
Against KC, Spags lied to Allen and showed pressure/man, dropped into zone. Or did something else at LOS to confuse Allen. This messed up his timing and he didn't have 100 yard going into the 4th. Near the end Spags would bail out sooner and Allen saw zone and ....boom. He started hitting.
This is not to say Allen is terrible or bad. He has some elite traits but huge weaknesses as well. For some reason, NFL teams either don't have the personnel or scheme ready to get him out of his comfort zone. The Buffalo offense reminds me of Baltimore last year that rolled through the league until Tennessee found some counters in the playoffs (loading up the middle of the field).
Very nice description of exactly why Spags D worked against the Bills....
EDIT: I would also add that the Bills aren't a great running team as well, so it's an easier task when you don't have to sell out to stop the run as well.... [Reply]
