Originally Posted by Bearcat:
It's a well known thing the team plays vanilla for many games in the regular season... players have said it, coaches have said it. Kelce has made comments about how hard it is to focus during the regularly season because all they want to do is get back to playoff football.
I thought it was glaringly obvious at the end of the season... they went from playing unfocused and pulling games out of their ass to using the Raiders as a playoff warmup game where they were in sync and in playoff mode.
To answer your question, you don't take anything away from those games, except they don't matter and have no bearing on anything as long as they win (oh shit, I said it).
Insert retarded megatron96 wall of meaningless text here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Lol, so my takeaway from the LAR and SEA games is that we didn’t really want to score TDs in the RZ, eh? The plan was to kick FGs, because we didn’t want to give away anything?
Like I said, “a win is a win.” There’s your mentality.
They pretty clearly save cool new red zone stuff for the playoffs when you get to the second half/late half of the schedule. So yes, they are situationally OK with putting up FGs in games where a TD is less critical. You've been watching long enough to know this is the case. Remember all the concern heading into the 19 playoffs about red zone TD percentage late in the year?
But let's look at those games in context.
Possessions against Rams:
Punt
TD
FG (after TD pass was called back due to penalty on 1st and goal)
FG (with 16 seconds left on the clock and zero timeouts, not a "Red Zone failure")
TD
INT in end zone on 3rd and Goal
FG (after an interception with a 10-pt lead and 8 minutes left in the game set up 1st and goal at the 9; run... run... safe pass)
FG (after an interception with a 13-pt lead and 5:17 left in the game set up 1st down at the 27; run... run... run... run... run... run... run... run... FG)
Possessions against Seahawks:
Punt
TD
Punt
Punt
TD
FG (not in red zone, now lead 17-0 and Seattle has 22 yards of total offense)
Punt (leading 17-3, Seattle has 112 yards of total offense)
Punt (leading 17-3, Seattle has 116 yards of total offense)
Punt (leading 17-3, Seattle has 164 yards of total offense)
TD (leading 17-3, Seattle has 216 yards of total offense, now have 24-3 lead with less than 5 minutes left in game)
So yeah, the Chiefs had control of that game the whole way. A bad 3rd quarter when they had a commanding lead and Seattle was doing nothing on its own end, and then a long TD drive when Seattle had shown life on back-to-back drives.
They were vanilla in that game.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the Chiefs playing vanilla in games they have well in hand late in the season (especially outside the division like these two). Let teams like the Ravens and Bills empty the playbook to continue making blowouts worse. How has that worked out for them in the postseason? [Reply]
It's pretty blatantly obvious the Chiefs feel they can win 12+ games every year without pulling out all the stops and the real games don't start until playoff time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
So yeah, the Chiefs had control of that game the whole way.
I think some are seriously blind to this for whatever reason... pre-Mahomes PTSD (STILL), bias towards the rare times teams make a wild comeback, some kind of fetish for point differential, whatever. :-)
Yeah, every once in a while they fuck around and find out, but the vast majority of the time you can tell they're in complete control even if they aren't up by 4 touchdowns in the 4th. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
I would use a multifaceted metric, or I would compile multiple stats/metrics to better describe the offense. Because those metrics above just don't. I mean, I get it; they sound cool. But they lack any precision.
If they did, they'd explain what happened in the IND, BUF, CIN, TEN, LAR, DEN and HOU games. In one of the JAX games. In the first half of the SB.
You know, when they kind of sucked in those games.
The ones that are particularly concerning are obviously both the BUF and the CIN games. But let's skip that for now. In fact, we'll just put this right here:
[INSERT STANDARD EXCUSE VS. BUF/CIN HERE]
But where was this number one offense vs. TEN?
8/19 3rd downs
2-13 scoring drives. 15% efficiency.
Against a team that didn't even make the playoffs. They didn't earn a W over their last 7 games.
The Rams. Sorry, the practice squad of the Rams
5-11 on 3rd downs
2-8 scoring drives
1-6 in the RZ
Maybe that score/performance would've been acceptable if the Rams had actually been the Rams. But they were a practice squad wearing Rams colors.
And somehow "the number one scoring offense in the world" managed just two TDs against a defense that only could play 5 players of their SB defense vs. KC.
Went 1 TD in SIX TRIPS inside the RZ.
Good thing Stafford wasn't healthy. And our kicking unit was on point.
Had to go to OT vs. DEN and HOU. [Insert standard "they're a Division rival" excuse here for DEN.]
Scored just 24 vs. SEA
3rd down efficiency was ass again, 3-11
Scored just 3 TDs in 10 drives
But the most concerning thing shouldn't be the individual games themselves, but should be that some of those games were late in the season, when the offense was supposed to be gelling into playoff form. But obviously, when you take a little deeper look into the stats, past "MOST EXPLOSIVE OFFENSE EVAH," or whatever non-contextualized metric of the day is, there were problems. Chronic ones. There were even games where one could make the argument that KC won in spite of the offense, not because of it.
But whatever. I've posted this argument in much more complete detail a couple three times already. Obviously it's way more fun to throw "We're the number one offense ever" out there, than to be more analytical. I get it.
There's not an offense ever that didn't occasionally get out of synch. Have a bad day, or have key people out or whatever.
There is no metric to use in which this offense was not the number one offense in football. It's a hard game, and a league designed to create parity.
Nobody blows every opponent out, and nobody goes undefeated. That's the way the league is designed.
All you've done for months now is lay it on about how we really weren't that good, and we're in real trouble and blah blah but you never place anything in context. It's a bunch of hooey.
In fact, now go pick over the worst games for the Eagles, Bengals, and Bills and see what's what.
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
There's not an offense ever that didn't occasionally get out of synch. Have a bad day, or have key people out or whatever.
There is no metric to use in which this offense was not the number one offense in football. It's a hard game, and a league designed to create parity.
Nobody blows every opponent out, and nobody goes undefeated. That's the way the league is designed.
All you've done for months now is lay it on about how we really weren't that good, and we're in real trouble and blah blah but you never place anything in context. It's a bunch of hooey.
In fact, now go pick over the worst games for the Eagles, Bengals, and Bills and see what's what.
This is stupid.
Won’t lie, but we have a chance to be even better this year as long as the offense isn’t decimated by injuries. Smith=Brown Jr right now. Taylor >>>>Wylie. If these receivers take the next step as expected then they will be far better than what was lost in JJSS and Hardman. The running game will be fine as well. The defense will be a year older and much better as they lost no one of significance (unless you consider CP favorite Clark a huge loss). [Reply]
The Chiefs were statistically the best offense in football in almost any metric you want to look at. Does that mean they were perfect? No, of course not. There's a reason why there's a saying like "any given Sunday".
From that team, we're missing Juju, who while being a seasoned pro, was not spectacular in any way. Just a good, solid, professional receiver.
And Hardman, who didn't play much the second half of the year, and never really developed beyond a jet sweep and gadget guy.
In their place, we have a '21 first round pick, a '22 second round pick, and a '23 second round pick. You have to actually play the kids to develop them, you know. And two of those are in year two and should have a good grasp of the offense now. Judging them by last year's stats is stupid; we've been told they're to play bigger roles, and so they will.
And we have veteran insurance policies in James and Watson, for just in case.
All of this hand wringing is a bunch of hooey. This is what you have to do to stay on top, you have to draft well, and you have to PLAY THE KIDS when you're paying your QB 20% of your damned cap. It's a must.
This is going to be a really fun season, where we see the next group of stars revealed before our eyes. It's going to be a blast, no matter what Billay and Megatron want to say.
Keep bitching, boys, and both of you don't get a spot on my bus. You can both walk behind. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
It's a well known thing the team plays vanilla for many games in the regular season... players have said it, coaches have said it. Kelce has made comments about how hard it is to focus during the regularly season because all they want to do is get back to playoff football.
I thought it was glaringly obvious at the end of the season... they went from playing unfocused and pulling games out of their ass to using the Raiders as a playoff warmup game where they were in sync and in playoff mode.
To answer your question, you don't take anything away from those games, except they don't matter and have no bearing on anything as long as they win (oh shit, I said it).
Anyone that knows anything about any sport can easily see games where purposely do just enough to win.
They use the weaker teams as a glorified practice. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
They pretty clearly save cool new red zone stuff for the playoffs when you get to the second half/late half of the schedule. So yes, they are situationally OK with putting up FGs in games where a TD is less critical. You've been watching long enough to know this is the case. Remember all the concern heading into the 19 playoffs about red zone TD percentage late in the year?
But let's look at those games in context.
Possessions against Rams:
Punt
TD
FG (after TD pass was called back due to penalty on 1st and goal)
FG (with 16 seconds left on the clock and zero timeouts, not a "Red Zone failure")
TD
INT in end zone on 3rd and Goal
FG (after an interception with a 10-pt lead and 8 minutes left in the game set up 1st and goal at the 9; run... run... safe pass)
FG (after an interception with a 13-pt lead and 5:17 left in the game set up 1st down at the 27; run... run... run... run... run... run... run... run... FG)
Possessions against Seahawks:
Punt
TD
Punt
Punt
TD
FG (not in red zone, now lead 17-0 and Seattle has 22 yards of total offense)
Punt (leading 17-3, Seattle has 112 yards of total offense)
Punt (leading 17-3, Seattle has 116 yards of total offense)
Punt (leading 17-3, Seattle has 164 yards of total offense)
TD (leading 17-3, Seattle has 216 yards of total offense, now have 24-3 lead with less than 5 minutes left in game)
So yeah, the Chiefs had control of that game the whole way. A bad 3rd quarter when they had a commanding lead and Seattle was doing nothing on its own end, and then a long TD drive when Seattle had shown life on back-to-back drives.
They were vanilla in that game.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the Chiefs playing vanilla in games they have well in hand late in the season (especially outside the division like these two). Let teams like the Ravens and Bills empty the playbook to continue making blowouts worse. How has that worked out for them in the postseason?
STs score FGs. That happens when the offense can't do their job and score TDs.
And I never said anything about who controlled the game. In fact, if we went back to the actual GDTs we'd find that I said repeatedly that we controlled the game, but that the offense couldn't score in the RZ.
And Andy really shouldn't have to 'empty the playbook' vs. teams as thin as last year's Rams were. The fact of the matter was, our WRs failed to execute, repeatedly. Calling vanilla offensive plays shouldn't have been that big a deal.
But like I said, people will choose their own facts for comfort's sake.
Hopefully the WRs can be more effective in 2023, because unlike some, I have serious doubts the Chiefs can continue to win at the same rate when they fail to score for multiple weeks in a row. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
STs score FGs. That happens when the offense can't do their job and score TDs.
And I never said anything about who controlled the game. In fact, if we went back to the actual GDTs we'd find that I said repeatedly that we controlled the game, but that the offense couldn't score in the RZ.
And Andy really shouldn't have to 'empty the playbook' vs. teams as thin as last year's Rams were. The fact of the matter was, our WRs failed to execute, repeatedly. Calling vanilla offensive plays shouldn't have been that big a deal.
But like I said, people will choose their own facts for comfort's sake.
Hopefully the WRs can be more effective in 2023, because unlike some, I have serious doubts the Chiefs can continue to win at the same rate when they fail to score for multiple weeks in a row.
Yeah, people certainly will believe whatever they want to. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
STs score FGs. That happens when the offense can't do their job and score TDs.
And I never said anything about who controlled the game. In fact, if we went back to the actual GDTs we'd find that I said repeatedly that we controlled the game, but that the offense couldn't score in the RZ.
And Andy really shouldn't have to 'empty the playbook' vs. teams as thin as last year's Rams were. The fact of the matter was, our WRs failed to execute, repeatedly. Calling vanilla offensive plays shouldn't have been that big a deal.
But like I said, people will choose their own facts for comfort's sake.
Hopefully the WRs can be more effective in 2023, because unlike some, I have serious doubts the Chiefs can continue to win at the same rate when they fail to score for multiple weeks in a row.
I mean, it's baloney. You're moving goal posts, man.
They didn't fail to score multiple weeks in a row. That's a fiction whether you allow yourself to see it or not.
But yes, I hope the WR room can be more effective in 2023 than 2022. And please note that the WR room in 2022 was BETTER than the WR room in 2021 in some key regards. Namely, yards per reception and yard per target, with a slightly worse but almost identical reception/target rate. [Reply]
