The Cleveland Browns won't be able to "keep Patrick Mahomes on the sidelines" on Sunday. The Kansas City Chiefs will have their chances, and time of possession
"To win this game, they need to keep Patrick Mahomes on the sideline."
A football adage as old as time, keeping the elite quarterback "on the sideline" has been a go-to line for many announcers over the years. Recently, however, there has been pushback on this line of thinking, and for good reason.
The primary goal against elite quarterbacks should be to score early and often.
This line of thinking seems as obvious as "score more than the other team," but it is still the plain truth and makes more logical sense than focusing on a comparatively insignificant statistic like time of possession. Unless a coach is confident they can stop an elite offense helmed by an elite quarterback for a full 60 minutes, trying to win the time of possession game is a fool's errand. The basic flow of an NFL game dictates this.
In the NFL, teams are always afforded a possession after the other team scores or punts, unless the receiving team turns it over or an onside kick happens. This ensures that the vast majority of the time, teams simply take turns. A team’s opponent will always have an opportunity to answer any possession with a possession of their own.
What does this mean for the time of possession debate? It means that no matter how long a drive is, Patrick Mahomes will have the opportunity to answer that drive.
One would think, then, that the Chiefs would have fewer drives in games they lose the time of possession battle. However, this just isn’t the case.
In the Chiefs’ 10 worst games by total time of possession under Mahomes, the Chiefs averaged 10.2 drives per game. In the Chiefs’ 10 best games by total time of possession under Mahomes, the Chiefs averaged 10.7 drives per game. That .5 difference is not meaningful in any way. Mahomes still gets the opportunities even when the Chiefs' offense is on the sideline more.
What is meaningful is the Chiefs’ record in the low time of possession games. They are 5-5 in the bottom 10 time of possession games and 9-1 in the top ten time of possession games. If it’s not the drives that account for this record, then what does?
It is the performance of the Chiefs as a team.
It isn’t a revelation that playing poorly leads to losses, but when a conversation about why Kansas City lost meanders back to time of possession, perspective is lost.
Take, for instance, the Colts game from the 2019 season. A game that led many to believe a blueprint was found to beat the Chiefs: run the ball. But look closer.
When examining the Colts game, it’s hard to say Marlon Mack running at a clip of 4.6 yards per carry was the real reason the Colts won. It probably wasn’t their 36% conversion rate on third down (5/14) either.
The real reason the Chiefs lost was because of their own uncharacteristically poor offensive play.
In the Colts game, the Chiefs only scored on 30% of their drives (3/10) which was their lowest rate of the 2019 season and was 26th in the league when comparing it to 2019’s season scoring rates. Two of those scores were just field goals. Outside of the Chiefs’ three scoring drives, the other six drives of consequence (one drive was 10 seconds before the half) the Chiefs averaged 1:48 of possession and gained an average of 15.5 yards per drive. That was the reason the Colts beat the Chiefs, not "holding" them to an average number of drives.
The closest the Chiefs have come to losing because of situational time of possession in the Mahomes era came just after the aforementioned Colts game, losing 31-24 to the Texans.
The Texans controlled the ball for 13:46 of game time in the fourth quarter. It seems like the Chiefs never got a chance to win because of that, right? Well... no.
Just before the fourth quarter started, with the game tied 24-24, the Chiefs had a 15-second three-and-out. When the Texans went up 31-24, the Chiefs had another offensive possession and went three-and-out again. The Texans ran out the clock and ended the game on the next drive.
Is time of possession really the reason the Chiefs lost in this sequence? The defense failing to produce a stop was certainly not ideal and was a small reason for the loss, however, the Chiefs still had multiple chances to win the game late despite Houston having almost 40 minutes of time of possession. I’d argue the Chiefs going three-and-out twice during high leverage portions of the game was at larger fault for the loss.
The Texans game from 2019 is the most extreme example of time of possession being used against the Chiefs. Why is it not wielded more? Because it’s damn hard to execute a clock-chewing strategy.
To amass long, sustained drives, teams need to do so many things right that it’s almost impossible to do it over the course of a full game. They need to run the ball effectively, constantly. They need to have few to no penalties. They need to convert on an extremely high number of third and/or fourth downs. All of these outcomes then need to result in a touchdown.
Long, chain-moving touchdown drives are a wonderful ideal to strive for in theory, however, the opponent’s defense is being paid to stop you, and if you give them more chances to stop you, they are bound to do it eventually. One disruptive Chris Jones sack and the whole point of the drive goes up in flames.
If a team employs a long, sustained drive that ends in a field goal against the Chiefs, they are already behind the 8-ball. That drive is a failure. They have to pray the Chiefs are having an off game on offense, otherwise, they'll be down by four points two minutes later.
Most of the Chiefs’ losses have common threads: a combination of turnovers, uncharacteristically bad offensive play and poor defensive play that lets the opponent have breathing room in the margins. In other words, when the Chiefs play poorly or if the other team outplays them, they lose! It’s hard to say in any of their games that time of possession contributed at a meaningful level to the Chiefs’ loss. Their losses come entirely from them not capitalizing on drives like they usually do.
One team trying to maintain long, sustained drives barely impacts the number of drives in a game. This is made evident by the way the Chiefs have lost an average of just .5 drives per game from their best time of possession games to their worst. If the Chiefs don’t play along with the charade of a time of possession game, they aren’t worse off. In fact, they're probably pretty happy. They can still dictate the game. Patrick Mahomes still gets his chances to be special.
If the Chiefs offense is firing on all cylinders, no amount of Nick Chubb and Kareem Hunt churning clock will lead to a Chiefs loss against the Browns on Sunday. For every eight-minute touchdown drive the Browns have, the Chiefs will have a chance to respond with a touchdown of their own. "Keep Patrick Mahomes on the sideline" at your own risk; in doing so, it might just be shortening the amount of time available to come back from the onslaught of touchdowns he and the Chiefs will score.
The rest of the articles with the videos https://www.si.com/nfl/chiefs/gm-rep...DW1bK0EI6nWEmo [Reply]
In any possession-based sport such as football or basketball, having fewer possessions in a game is better for the worse team. The more possessions there are, the more opportunity there is for the superior team to come out on top.
It's not a solution or anything to the Chiefs, but it is a pretty basic analytics strategy for an underdog. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tk13:
I still think the reality is that's the only way to play us. Yeah it might not work, but what's your other option? Trying to stand in the ring and go toe-to-toe is pure suicide. It's not even about winning TOP, it's about limiting the total number of possessions. You'd rather Mahomes had the ball 9 times instead of 14, because the more chances you give him the more you're playing with fire. You're hoping to limit possessions and hope that he screws up on half of them, and even then he can still get you at the end. (Just ask the Niners)
The only other option is to have someone like Aaron Rodgers or some other QB playing out of his mind.
You do what will score the points most efficiently. It’s all an efficiency game.
All shortening the game does is increase the effect of variablity.
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Um, if it doesn't work, how is it an option?
It simply doesn't work. Trying to limit the Chiefs' possessions also shortens the game, meaning you get less possessions yourself. It's still a a matter of scoring efficiency, whether it's 48-44 or 28-24.
The only thing that actually works is to split the difference. Try to start a shootout in the first half, then slow it down in the 2nd. Try to get the Chiefs to press, which is what the Raiders did in the first game.
Yep. Efficiency.
If I’m coaching against Mahomes and if Mahomes scores first I probably just pull out all the stops on defense and take a bunch of chances. If things are rolling and I’m keeping up I roll with what works. But if shit goes sideways I’d take a bunch of chances. And if it turns into a blowout, who cares. Take your shot.
Originally Posted by jerryaldini:
So glad to see this. You know who complains about TOP? People who read books about submarines, and the crowd that constantly bitches about the defense in the GDT. Oh no the defense is keeping Mahomes on the sideline while the opponent gains 4 yards per play.
Every freaking nfl show talks about this, especially former players and coaches who should know better. As soon as I hear this I discount everything else. TOP only matters if our own offense can't get first downs, period.
After the Houston loss last year I posted a thread about TOP not mattering and you’d have thought I was Copernicus suggesting the earth revolves around the sun up in here. It was bedlam. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tk13:
I still think the reality is that's the only way to play us. Yeah it might not work, but what's your other option? Trying to stand in the ring and go toe-to-toe is pure suicide. It's not even about winning TOP, it's about limiting the total number of possessions. You'd rather Mahomes had the ball 9 times instead of 14, because the more chances you give him the more you're playing with fire. You're hoping to limit possessions and hope that he screws up on half of them, and even then he can still get you at the end. (Just ask the Niners)
The only other option is to have someone like Aaron Rodgers or some other QB playing out of his mind.
Exactly. More possessions, more scores. It’s simple. The fewer the possessions,
the lower the margin for error. A turnover or dropped pass on 3rd down is more damaging.
All the article seems to point out is that teams haven’t had much success in general at limiting the Chiefs’ possessions. Not that it isn’t effective when they do. [Reply]
I see the Time of possession thing differently. As a Browns fan, i want the Chiefs to have long sustained drives. I can deal with that. What i cant deal with is 1 play 70 yard tds. That puts too much pressure on the Browns offense.
You arent going to have a shoot out with Mahomes and the Chiefs weapons. if they dink us to death, thats preferable to watching Hill flashing us peace signs. [Reply]
Here’s the real key to beating Mahomes and the Chiefs:
Get a defensive score or set up an easy score with a turnover.
Mahomes has 9 losses as a starter. 6 of them feature one of those events above.
The others are:
Loss in 2019 AFC championship. Greatest coach and current greatest QB ever for New England, and they still needed an inexcusable mistake from Bitchmade Dee to win it.
Loss to Colts: Put Mahomes on one leg, take away his two best WRs and starting LT, and force a turnover in the red zone, and maybe you have a chance!
Loss to Chargers in 2018: This is the one game where you can actually just say it was the other team. No big turnovers. Chargers went for 2 to win it with no time on the clock and pulled it off. [Reply]
TOP is a non-issue in this game, although I agree with Mav -- as a Browns fan I would prefer the Chiefs burn some clock.
Raiders are a team that controlled the clock against both of Sunday's opponents. They were nearly 2-1 vs the Chiefs but still needed 16 points in the 4th to pull out the win.
They were 2-1 vs the Browns and there was never a feeling the Browns would win.
The Chiefs managed 11 possessions... Cleveland managed six... SIX! It was like going on a date and the chick smiles through the whole thing then suddenly asks you to take her home at 9:15. WTF just happened??
Why? Well, the 50 MPH winds are a valid excuse, no Nick Chubb - yep, that hurts... but we're not talking about the Browns, we're talking about the impact of TOP.
TOP killed the Browns because they could not score, be it the Gods or the lack of Nick Chubb, doesn't matter. If you can't score, every possession by the opponent is damaging, whether they score or not.
KC has never had a problem scoring since Mahomes has been under center, TOP means absolutely nothing. [Reply]
I feel like "you need to win TOP" is going to be the next "punt it on 4th down." People are slowly starting to figure out that it's bullshit, but it definitely is going to hang around for a long time.
The ONLY way it matters as far as I can tell is that, if you lose TOP horribly, your defense might end up pretty gassed at the end of the game, and that could lead to a late game surge. Beyond that...bullshit. [Reply]
Really bad article. If you are the worse team the best chance you have is to get lucky. Limiting possessions is the best way to do that. The less possessions the Chiefs have the more influence a lucky bounce or unlucky fumble or tipped ball can impact the game. [Reply]
They really need to start differently. The Browns suck when they get down.
How about we don’t run a basic run play on 1st down. Then a play designed for 3-5 yards. Then a tipped ball or dropped pass we are off the field. How many times have we saw that sequence of plays to open a game?
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
They really need to start differently. The Browns suck when they get down.
How about we don’t run a basic run play on 1st down. Then a play designed for 3-5 yards. Then a tipped ball or dropped pass we are off the field. How many times have we saw that sequence of plays to open a game?
Reid needs to change that up.
Dont run the ball one time in the first half IMO. Unless its 2nd and 1 or 3rd and 2 or something like that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
They really need to start differently. The Browns suck when they get down.
This right here. If the Chiefs get off to a quick start IT'S OVER EARLY. Baker is NOT a come from behind QB in the NFL especially against Mahomes. You don't want to get in a track meet with Pat because we all know what happens if you do.:-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
In any possession-based sport such as football or basketball, having fewer possessions in a game is better for the worse team. The more possessions there are, the more opportunity there is for the superior team to come out on top.
It's not a solution or anything to the Chiefs, but it is a pretty basic analytics strategy for an underdog.
How does this even make sense to you?
So two Players get 10 shots from the Free Throw line. Player A is a 80% shooter and Player B is a 95% shooter. Whether they shoot 100 at the line or 10 at the line- Player B will still be the more accurate shooter.
Chiefs and Browns both get 10 possessions- Chiefs will still have more talent and better odds to score. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Halfcan:
How does this even make sense to you?
So two Players get 10 shots from the Free Throw line. Player A is a 80% shooter and Player B is a 95% shooter. Whether they shoot 100 at the line or 10 at the line- Player B will still be the more accurate shooter.
Chiefs and Browns both get 10 possessions- Chiefs will still have more talent and better odds to score.
Because the smaller the sample size, the less you can rely on true percentages playing out.
Steph Curry shoots 90%. In a comp for a million dollars, would you rather shoot against him best of five or best of 100? [Reply]
