His theory is because when defenses are playing the Chiefs, they change up their tendencies completely.
Teams normally do not play two-high shells like they've played against the Chiefs and other teams this season. So ultimately, when they face up against the Chiefs, they are trotting out a new look that the Chiefs simply don't have on tape. Certain players are playing in certain areas that they normally don't, so it's hard to tell in certain circumstances whether this player or that player will play shallow or deeper or bite on certain routes and whatnot. It's simply not on tape.
He mentions this because of the games where the offense has rolled. In particular, the Raiders played a lot of single-high, which they've done all season. Andy Reid's extensive scouting meant the Chiefs had a counter for everything they did and ended up dominating.
The Chargers played us in a two-high shell, but they normally play in a two-high shell anyway, so Andy Reid had that on tape, and had a counter for everything they did and the offense ended up dominating, even though we lost the game.
Otherwise, we're facing two-deeps from teams that simply don't play two-deep and they can only gameplan against what they think the scheme may end up -- all the defensive tape leading up to the game is not very helpful.
It's a plausible theory that we obviously can't prove at this point, but we can certainly keep an eye on it.
Does anybody know what defense Denver usually plays? Any Denver fans among us? [Reply]
I think it's more of the Chiefs being their own worst enemies on offense with dropped passes, penalties, bad execution, etc., than anything opposing defenses are doing to them at this point. [Reply]
Absolutely stupid. This has nothing to do with dropped open passes flying straight to the defender and fluke fumbles. The team has moved the ball up and down the field ALL year. Stop shooting themselves in the foot and points will follow. The team gas been the best at getting first downs on drives and on 3rd down. These looks aren't stopping shit. [Reply]
I'm confused... if cover 2 is so good at taking away the big play and forcing teams to take small chunks and larger number of plays which increases the chances of a penalty or mistake, why would teams do anything else against anyone?
Or is this a better strategy against teams like the Chiefs and Bills who don't have the skill players to sit back and run the ball down their throats? Brady has made a career out of having a solid running game, good short passing game and occasional over the top play with a smothering defense.
Part of the problem is that the Chiefs don't have the running threat nor the mentality to keep running the ball. And other than Kelce and Hill, who have made their fair share of mistakes, the Chiefs have no one that Mahomes trusts in crucial situations. Teams would be stupid to not play the Chiefs in a cover 2 shell. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I'd buy this argument more for the Titans and Bills games, where it seemed like we just couldn't find any space to work at all.
But the Giants, Packers and Cowboys games were games where we were leaving points all over the field by just committing unforced errors. And the problem has been that it's been wholesale. It's not just one or two guys committing errors in predicable situations. It's EVERYONE having 2-3 mistakes/gm that kill off plays and ultimately drives.
Every game seem to have 10+ instances of just bad mistakes. Drops, bad passes, wrong routes, fumbles, unnecessary penalties. You have to expect a handful of those every game but we're just doing it too much and too consistently.
When 3-5 drives seem to die each game due to an error that just didn't have to happen, that's a hell of a limiter on your offense.
It's true but it's all by design at this point. If I was a scout evaluating the Chiefs, they're the most dangerous offense on the planet and they can drop 28 points in a quarter on you easy. But, they cannot repeatedly extend drives. They need to get some quick strike TDs. If you force them to go 12 plays every drive you're going to neuter them because they aren't disciplined enough to do it. At this point in the season it's clearly who we are.
It's just like all the interceptions that people blame on bad luck, going off WR's hands. No that's exactly the design. Look at really good Cover 2 teams like Lovie Smith when he was with the Bears, they made a living keeping the game in front of them, then when you made a mistake they were in position to make you pay. If you execute you torch them, but most offenses just aren't flawless enough to do it, especially when you increase the number of plays they have to run you increase the opportunities for error. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tk13:
It's true but it's all by design at this point. If I was a scout evaluating the Chiefs, they're the most dangerous offense on the planet and they can drop 28 points in a quarter on you easy. But, they cannot repeatedly extend drives. They need to get some quick strike TDs. If you force them to go 12 plays every drive you're going to neuter them because they aren't disciplined enough to do it. At this point in the season it's clearly who we are.
It's just like all the interceptions that people blame on bad luck, going off WR's hands. No that's exactly the design. Look at really good Cover 2 teams like Lovie Smith when he was with the Bears, they made a living keeping the game in front of them, then when you made a mistake they were in position to make you pay. If you execute you torch them, but most offenses just aren't flawless enough to do it, especially when you increase the number of plays they have to run you increase the opportunities for error.
I just remember the last time one of those vanilla defenses went into the playoffs with the plan of keeping everything in front and trying to be opportunistic.
It was the Colts in the '18 playoff game at Arrowhead (it was probably played in Jan 19; the snow game). That game was over by halftime because the Chiefs executed.
Those schemes are so passive. Teams that run them are just completely at the mercy of their opponent. They're not creating mistakes - they're just waiting for them and capitalizing on them. That approach depends almost entirely on the other guy cutting his own throat.
And maybe that's what you'll have to do to KC and hope to catch them on a bad day in the post-season. But I can't see talking myself into doing that against a focused Chiefs offense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by crayzkirk:
I'm confused... if cover 2 is so good at taking away the big play and forcing teams to take small chunks and larger number of plays which increases the chances of a penalty or mistake, why would teams do anything else against anyone?
Or is this a better strategy against teams like the Chiefs and Bills who don't have the skill players to sit back and run the ball down their throats? Brady has made a career out of having a solid running game, good short passing game and occasional over the top play with a smothering defense.
Part of the problem is that the Chiefs don't have the running threat nor the mentality to keep running the ball. And other than Kelce and Hill, who have made their fair share of mistakes, the Chiefs have no one that Mahomes trusts in crucial situations. Teams would be stupid to not play the Chiefs in a cover 2 shell.
Some coaches literally do execute this strategy every time. Dungy and Lovie Smith made a living with it. But even coaches who don't, it's not really a new strategy, Belichick used to do this to Peyton Manning frequently, even in Denver.
That mentality is why it's tough, it's forcing an all-time great QB to read the defense and see "run" and stay disciplined to it. It's hard to take the ball out of your best player's hands. And even here you'd find fans who'd have a real problem with running the ball too much. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Those schemes are so passive. Teams that run them are just completely at the mercy of their opponent. They're not creating mistakes - they're just waiting for them and capitalizing on them. That approach depends almost entirely on the other guy cutting his own throat.
Sure.
But the Chiefs have been cutting their own throat all season. Therefore, it's working. And even when the Chiefs win we're still seeing the same kind of shit that's led to losses. The Chiefs are 11 games into the season and are STILL making the same mistakes.
We keep saying shit like, "oh we're gonna get right, oh they're gonna pay for playing us that way!"
11 games later and its still the same shit. Even the win vs Dallas was another Mahomes scramble fumble and another INT off the receiver's hands and another paltry score of 19 points. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I just remember the last time one of those vanilla defenses went into the playoffs with the plan of keeping everything in front and trying to be opportunistic.
It was the Colts in the '18 playoff game at Arrowhead (it was probably played in Jan 19; the snow game). That game was over by halftime because the Chiefs executed.
Those schemes are so passive. Teams that run them are just completely at the mercy of their opponent. They're not creating mistakes - they're just waiting for them and capitalizing on them. That approach depends almost entirely on the other guy cutting his own throat.
And maybe that's what you'll have to do to KC and hope to catch them on a bad day in the post-season. But I can't see talking myself into doing that against a focused Chiefs offense.
It definitely gives the Chiefs that power. But they've yet to show they can consistently do it. Instead we're 3/4ths into the season and still talking about all the fluke INTs. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tk13:
It's true but it's all by design at this point. If I was a scout evaluating the Chiefs, they're the most dangerous offense on the planet and they can drop 28 points in a quarter on you easy. But, they cannot repeatedly extend drives. They need to get some quick strike TDs. If you force them to go 12 plays every drive you're going to neuter them because they aren't disciplined enough to do it. At this point in the season it's clearly who we are.
It's just like all the interceptions that people blame on bad luck, going off WR's hands. No that's exactly the design. Look at really good Cover 2 teams like Lovie Smith when he was with the Bears, they made a living keeping the game in front of them, then when you made a mistake they were in position to make you pay. If you execute you torch them, but most offenses just aren't flawless enough to do it, especially when you increase the number of plays they have to run you increase the opportunities for error.
This theory would work against every single team in the NFL if it were that simple.
I mean doesn't every defense try to limit big plays and make teams dink and dunk?
Alex Smith should have 10 SB rings if executing a dink and dunk offense was all thats needed. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tk13:
It definitely gives the Chiefs that power. But they've yet to show they can consistently do it. Instead we're 3/4ths into the season and still talking about all the fluke INTs.
True - but we have seen some progress there, haven't we?
I mean its still happening too often, but we're down quite a bit from the appalling levels of them early in the year.
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
This theory would work against every single team in the NFL if it were that simple.
I mean doesn't every defense try to limit big plays and make teams dink and dunk?
Alex Smith should have 10 SB rings if executing a dink and dunk offense was all thats needed.
The distinction being that all Smith (and most other offenses) can do is dink/dunk. So you can go into a single-high, cut down the effectiveness of the dink/dunk and not have to worry about them going over top of you.
Those 'planned' underneath offenses can be neutered. And those guys who can't be are guys like Brady and Brees, who would pick you apart with the short passing game. Hell, that's who Manning eventually became.
There's nothing harder to defend than a perfectly orchestrated short-passing game. We just aren't orchestrating it terribly well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
This theory would work against every single team in the NFL if it were that simple.
.
Well, it kinda does. The thing is, most teams don't require this sort of treatment. You can play single high against a lot of NFL offenses and they'll never punish you for it. So D's can play more aggressively w/o the worry of Teddy Bridgewater going over the top of you. Sure, they may get a deep pass from time to time but that's the gamble you take. It allows D's to just squat on their underneath stuff. Like they'd do to Alex....because Alex couldn't/wouldn't punish you over the top if you squatted on the short stuff.
With Mahomes, he aint gonna just punish you. He'll drop 28 on your ass in a single quarter. If teams play a 2 high shell, sure, we'll get 5-6 yard runs. Hell, they may take 12 plays and drive downfield for the TD. That's the risk you take. Defenses have decided that they'll take it, because its better than the alternative. And we've seen that the Chiefs have rewarded D's for their patience.
But if you're taking a calculated risk, you'd rather risk a 12 play drive than Mahomes just chunking you as he pleases. [Reply]
While I agree that 10-12 play drives have a greater chance for error, those same drives do a couple of things to help us. First, the other guys' O is sitting on the pines not scoring and their D is getting worn out chasing Hill, PMII, and Kelce. Second, our D is sitting on the pines, drinking Gatorade, and getting a rest. A fresh D is a better D than one that has to play 35-40 min. of the game. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pasta Little Brother:
Absolutely stupid. This has nothing to do with dropped open passes flying straight to the defender and fluke fumbles. The team has moved the ball up and down the field ALL year. Stop shooting themselves in the foot and points will follow. The team gas been the best at getting first downs on drives and on 3rd down. These looks aren't stopping shit.
There have definitely been some games in which the offense struggled to move the ball. [Reply]