Right, and the vast majority of the time KC's weapons and Mahomes are such that they ought to be throwing. But we're in strange times that a little bludgeoning might be useful.
It's almost like everyone who's ever played or coached football knew what they were talking about when they talk about how important running the ball is.
Not exactly. They could accomplish the same thing with the short passing game. The Chiefs are currently already over halfway to passing their rushing yards total in the 2019 season when they won the SB.
I mean, it has different importance at different levels, and I don't think there's much debate left as to how much more the passing game is. But schematically, it can matter at a certain extreme, and that MAY be where we're at.
Did someone kidnap Seth? Is this his cry for help lol? They kinda were running the ball against TEN until the game was way outta hand. First drive: were running then stalled because of a false start penalty. 2nd drive: had an incompletion on first down, run for no gain (!) on second down, drive stalled. 3rd possession: INT on first play. They've been moving the ball all year. They really just need to stop turning it over, so Seth won't go losing his mind saying they need to run the ball more, haha! We're probably not having this conversation if CEH doesn't fumble against BAL or that DPI isn't called against LAC, and we're 5-2.
Second down draw plays are not situation I want them running the ball, because they don't take advantage of the numbers in the box and the safeties being over the top. It gives the defense more time to react to the play if they recognize it.
I would say that regardless of the outcome of games, I would still be pushing for taking advantage of what teams are doing schematically. That said, the turnovers are by far the bigger issue!
Another added benefit of establishing the running game early is allowing the offensive line to establish a mindset and attitude of physical dominance which pays dividends as the game progresses, and the Chiefs have the fellas to make it happen. As opponents dare them to run, it's a no-brainer to take advantage. The only way to get their opponent out of these exaggerated looks to defend to the passing game is to make them pay for it. Doing so will inevitably open up the passing attack as the defense adjusts.
This all seems so obvious which makes it particularly frustrating that the game plan doesn't place an emphasis on it. If the defense is content to give away these yards, it's up to the offense to take them.
They can utilize the short passing game to punish teams as well, but yes, you have to force teams to try something else if you're being frustrated by their current approach.
Great analysis as usual. This supports the on going narrative of how Andy Reid doesn’t like to run the ball. In one of his first seasons in KC, he ran our best player Jamaal Charles like 3 times. When asked about it, Andy said he kind of forgot about Charles. Eagles fans said the same thing about him. I’m convinced Andy would outlaw the running game if he had his way. I like Andy and everyone is talking about Patrick needing to take what the defense gives him, but Andy needs to do the same
He's generally absolutely correct that utilize the short passing game over the Run game, as it's almost always more efficient. This is a very particular situation that maybe calls for him to look away from what he usually does
If our defense continues to make every other team's offense look like the Chiefs (2019) then our offence is in the position that teams back then were. Taking too much time to score is a net negative when the opponent is going to race down and score every time.
Basically, we need to score. However it best happens. I believe that taking advantage of what teams are doing to force them to adapt is one way to do so!
After reading this, I really hope we come out and play like we did in the first Buffalo game last year. I think the O-line is much better suited for that type of game than they were last year and we had solid results. And I hope they get everyone involved with running it including Hill and Hardman, maybe even Kelce and Gordon. Maybe we can be that team that can also wear a team down. Bring in Niang as a sixth lineman if needed. At this point I'm ready to try anything to get the whole team jump started. Hopefully the bully attitude will carry over to the defense as well
I hesitate for them to alter their scheme/personnel to the extent of bringing on an extra OL, because the point of all this is to force defenses to alter stuff schematically against their regular usage guys (as well as to attack a weakness temporarily.
I’m not disagreeing about this right now, but I’ve also argued that if we had an elite RB (by reputation, that is), teams would have to respect the run a bit more anyway. In any case, can you imagine a really dynamic RB getting to take a handoff with 2 high safeties that far off the ball and a LB backpedaling when he receives the handoff? Jamaal Charles would be getting Derrick Henry yards on a fraction of Henry’s carries.
No, I mean Jamaal Charles for sure. With his speed, it would be like getting shot out of a cannon. It would be JC vs the safety one-on-one on many plays.
Oh I totally agree. Just I was thinking guys actually playing now, and the fact we had a guy like Hunt on the roster not that long ago who still plays at a high level.
HOF worthy. May not have the total stats that someone with more longevity would have, but the best runner I've had the privilege to see in my lifetime.
It is really unfortunate that he wasn't honest with the team. I am assuming he thought he got away with it, and probably would have had the video not been leaked to the media.
I think if they'd been utilizing CEH appropriately (knock it off with the IZ/OZ/stretch stuff, stick with mostly gap/power) and he'd stayed healthy there would be much the same issue in terms of defenses operating a certain way.
I don't know that I agree. Usually, it is not the best strategy to do what the opponent is begging you to do. This defensive strategy is that if forced to take 10, 12, 15 plays a drive, somewhere along the line the offense will make a mistake and get behind the sticks or turn the ball over. And let's be honest: that is the right gamble to make against the Chiefs offense this season.
The thing is though, it won't take a 10 play drive if they're gaining 10 yards a pop (and notice how they're gaining 10+ yards a pop on most of the runs)
It's not like teams are daring the Chiefs to run for 4 yards a play. They're daring them to run for 6+ yards a play and the Chiefs should take advantage.
Especially because, as Seth mentioned near the end. If the Chiefs are running for 6+ yards a play, teams are going to come out of 2 high, and that's when they can go back to throwing 50 yard TD passes to Hill.
And you don't have to take my word for it, the Eagles game is proof!
The Eagles suck. Using that game as an example of what to do is flawed by that. Almost any offensive game plan would have worked.
The Ravens used this formula, against their usual strategy. Mahomes was excellent except for his first bone-headed interception. But in the key drive of the game, up 35-30 with 10 or so minutes to go, CEH gets stuffed on first down against a light box, which led to an incompletion and a punt. It was first down when CEH fumbled, and even if he held onto the ball, this play would have put us behind the sticks.
I don't want to relitigate every play of the season, but Baltimore played exactly the strategy that Seth is talking about here. It was all the more dramatic because the Ravens are always in the Harbaugh era towards the top of the league in blitzing. Nobody was calling for running the ball after that game.
The Ravens didn't blitz at all, but they weren't as committed to light boxes, etc as teams have been since then by my eye (of course, I'd need to chart to be sure).
I'd also note that KC was still running (for some reason) IZ/OZ/stretch stuff against BAL, which is a terrible idea. I was all for them switching to power after that game (and prior).
I think taking advantage of schematic and Personnel advantages is a pretty tried-and-true way of having success at the NFL level. Of course, when going against something that is generally statistically favored it has to be done in reason. My terminology of teams begging them to do it perhaps makes it seem like I'm suggesting otherwise then just taking advantage of schematic advantages!
I get it. From a fan's perspective, I want them to run as long as it works every play. Because the first time a defensive end knifes through and makes a play that puts them at second and 11, I am muttering to myself about "You have Patrick Mahomes!!!" They can average six yards a carry, but if they do so by getting 8, 9, 10, -2 on four first downs, then that time they are stuffed, they get themselves forced into a bad situation.
It's sort of like hitting into the shift in baseball. Teams are begging us to bunt down the third base line and take a single so that we don't park balls in the fountains. I'm not a chick, but I still dig the long ball.
Every analysis I’ve read about the two high shell favored by the Fangio defensive tree agrees that the best way to beat it is to keep running the ball until they come out of it. The Packers have had a lot of success against teams that run that system (the Rams, for instance) by being patient, running for the cheap yards, then taking the shot plays when they open up.
It isn’t about going back to Martyball. It’s a contest of willpower with the defense. Whoever loses their patience first loses.
I am surprised they are not running more. I thought the way they built the line they were planning on running the ball more but even when there has been six in the box they still pass more than run
A corollary to this: when they win the toss, they need to stop deferring the opening kick-off. They should take the kick-off and open the game with a methodical, balanced, and TIME CONSUMING drive.
Or they can continue to kick-off and turn the ball over to the offense halfway through the 1st quarter already a TD behind, a bad situation for methodical, balanced, time-consuming drives.
That would be an interesting, and aggressive, approach. It's worth noting that even when the defenses have gotten stops early there have been those same problems on offense with turnovers.
And I really don't want them to shift their entire approach to a more methodical one. I just want them to force defenses to stop cheating towards the pass to such an extreme.
100% agree with this. Take what they give you and make them pay. Be versatile at it all.
Right, and the vast majority of the time KC's weapons and Mahomes are such that they ought to be throwing. But we're in strange times that a little bludgeoning might be useful.
You make me a smarter Chiefs fan, each and every time. Thank you, sir.
That is one of the nicest compliments I can possibly receive doing this job, and I'm so glad you subscribe!
It's almost like everyone who's ever played or coached football knew what they were talking about when they talk about how important running the ball is.
Not exactly. They could accomplish the same thing with the short passing game. The Chiefs are currently already over halfway to passing their rushing yards total in the 2019 season when they won the SB.
I mean, it has different importance at different levels, and I don't think there's much debate left as to how much more the passing game is. But schematically, it can matter at a certain extreme, and that MAY be where we're at.
Get your resume into that front office, ASAP. You c could be the "Common Sense Coach"
Ha!
Did someone kidnap Seth? Is this his cry for help lol? They kinda were running the ball against TEN until the game was way outta hand. First drive: were running then stalled because of a false start penalty. 2nd drive: had an incompletion on first down, run for no gain (!) on second down, drive stalled. 3rd possession: INT on first play. They've been moving the ball all year. They really just need to stop turning it over, so Seth won't go losing his mind saying they need to run the ball more, haha! We're probably not having this conversation if CEH doesn't fumble against BAL or that DPI isn't called against LAC, and we're 5-2.
(Blinks twice)
Second down draw plays are not situation I want them running the ball, because they don't take advantage of the numbers in the box and the safeties being over the top. It gives the defense more time to react to the play if they recognize it.
I would say that regardless of the outcome of games, I would still be pushing for taking advantage of what teams are doing schematically. That said, the turnovers are by far the bigger issue!
Also, I won't be happy if I don't see more matriculating down the field
Classic.
Another added benefit of establishing the running game early is allowing the offensive line to establish a mindset and attitude of physical dominance which pays dividends as the game progresses, and the Chiefs have the fellas to make it happen. As opponents dare them to run, it's a no-brainer to take advantage. The only way to get their opponent out of these exaggerated looks to defend to the passing game is to make them pay for it. Doing so will inevitably open up the passing attack as the defense adjusts.
This all seems so obvious which makes it particularly frustrating that the game plan doesn't place an emphasis on it. If the defense is content to give away these yards, it's up to the offense to take them.
They can utilize the short passing game to punish teams as well, but yes, you have to force teams to try something else if you're being frustrated by their current approach.
Great analysis as usual. This supports the on going narrative of how Andy Reid doesn’t like to run the ball. In one of his first seasons in KC, he ran our best player Jamaal Charles like 3 times. When asked about it, Andy said he kind of forgot about Charles. Eagles fans said the same thing about him. I’m convinced Andy would outlaw the running game if he had his way. I like Andy and everyone is talking about Patrick needing to take what the defense gives him, but Andy needs to do the same
He's generally absolutely correct that utilize the short passing game over the Run game, as it's almost always more efficient. This is a very particular situation that maybe calls for him to look away from what he usually does
If our defense continues to make every other team's offense look like the Chiefs (2019) then our offence is in the position that teams back then were. Taking too much time to score is a net negative when the opponent is going to race down and score every time.
An alternative take would be the longer the offense takes, the less our Defense is on the field and that's a net win, no?
Basically, we need to score. However it best happens. I believe that taking advantage of what teams are doing to force them to adapt is one way to do so!
After reading this, I really hope we come out and play like we did in the first Buffalo game last year. I think the O-line is much better suited for that type of game than they were last year and we had solid results. And I hope they get everyone involved with running it including Hill and Hardman, maybe even Kelce and Gordon. Maybe we can be that team that can also wear a team down. Bring in Niang as a sixth lineman if needed. At this point I'm ready to try anything to get the whole team jump started. Hopefully the bully attitude will carry over to the defense as well
I hesitate for them to alter their scheme/personnel to the extent of bringing on an extra OL, because the point of all this is to force defenses to alter stuff schematically against their regular usage guys (as well as to attack a weakness temporarily.
I’m not disagreeing about this right now, but I’ve also argued that if we had an elite RB (by reputation, that is), teams would have to respect the run a bit more anyway. In any case, can you imagine a really dynamic RB getting to take a handoff with 2 high safeties that far off the ball and a LB backpedaling when he receives the handoff? Jamaal Charles would be getting Derrick Henry yards on a fraction of Henry’s carries.
You mean Kareem Hunt? (Just imagine….)
No, I mean Jamaal Charles for sure. With his speed, it would be like getting shot out of a cannon. It would be JC vs the safety one-on-one on many plays.
Kareem would be fun, but not as much as JC.
Oh I totally agree. Just I was thinking guys actually playing now, and the fact we had a guy like Hunt on the roster not that long ago who still plays at a high level.
Ah, speed in a running back! We haven’t had that since…Damien Williams?!😭. Why did they let him go?
Obligatory: Jamaal is one of the greatest runners in history!
HOF worthy. May not have the total stats that someone with more longevity would have, but the best runner I've had the privilege to see in my lifetime.
It is really unfortunate that he wasn't honest with the team. I am assuming he thought he got away with it, and probably would have had the video not been leaked to the media.
I think if they'd been utilizing CEH appropriately (knock it off with the IZ/OZ/stretch stuff, stick with mostly gap/power) and he'd stayed healthy there would be much the same issue in terms of defenses operating a certain way.
I don't know that I agree. Usually, it is not the best strategy to do what the opponent is begging you to do. This defensive strategy is that if forced to take 10, 12, 15 plays a drive, somewhere along the line the offense will make a mistake and get behind the sticks or turn the ball over. And let's be honest: that is the right gamble to make against the Chiefs offense this season.
The thing is though, it won't take a 10 play drive if they're gaining 10 yards a pop (and notice how they're gaining 10+ yards a pop on most of the runs)
It's not like teams are daring the Chiefs to run for 4 yards a play. They're daring them to run for 6+ yards a play and the Chiefs should take advantage.
Especially because, as Seth mentioned near the end. If the Chiefs are running for 6+ yards a play, teams are going to come out of 2 high, and that's when they can go back to throwing 50 yard TD passes to Hill.
And you don't have to take my word for it, the Eagles game is proof!
The Eagles suck. Using that game as an example of what to do is flawed by that. Almost any offensive game plan would have worked.
The Ravens used this formula, against their usual strategy. Mahomes was excellent except for his first bone-headed interception. But in the key drive of the game, up 35-30 with 10 or so minutes to go, CEH gets stuffed on first down against a light box, which led to an incompletion and a punt. It was first down when CEH fumbled, and even if he held onto the ball, this play would have put us behind the sticks.
I don't want to relitigate every play of the season, but Baltimore played exactly the strategy that Seth is talking about here. It was all the more dramatic because the Ravens are always in the Harbaugh era towards the top of the league in blitzing. Nobody was calling for running the ball after that game.
The Ravens didn't blitz at all, but they weren't as committed to light boxes, etc as teams have been since then by my eye (of course, I'd need to chart to be sure).
I'd also note that KC was still running (for some reason) IZ/OZ/stretch stuff against BAL, which is a terrible idea. I was all for them switching to power after that game (and prior).
I think taking advantage of schematic and Personnel advantages is a pretty tried-and-true way of having success at the NFL level. Of course, when going against something that is generally statistically favored it has to be done in reason. My terminology of teams begging them to do it perhaps makes it seem like I'm suggesting otherwise then just taking advantage of schematic advantages!
I get it. From a fan's perspective, I want them to run as long as it works every play. Because the first time a defensive end knifes through and makes a play that puts them at second and 11, I am muttering to myself about "You have Patrick Mahomes!!!" They can average six yards a carry, but if they do so by getting 8, 9, 10, -2 on four first downs, then that time they are stuffed, they get themselves forced into a bad situation.
It's sort of like hitting into the shift in baseball. Teams are begging us to bunt down the third base line and take a single so that we don't park balls in the fountains. I'm not a chick, but I still dig the long ball.
Completely agree on the frustration that gets felt on that first loss, and that math is the precise reason I'm not in favor of constant running.
It's a matter of probing to see how long teams will actually try to do what they're doing snap after snap.
Every analysis I’ve read about the two high shell favored by the Fangio defensive tree agrees that the best way to beat it is to keep running the ball until they come out of it. The Packers have had a lot of success against teams that run that system (the Rams, for instance) by being patient, running for the cheap yards, then taking the shot plays when they open up.
It isn’t about going back to Martyball. It’s a contest of willpower with the defense. Whoever loses their patience first loses.
That's everything I've read on it as well.
I am surprised they are not running more. I thought the way they built the line they were planning on running the ball more but even when there has been six in the box they still pass more than run
And generally speaking, they still should. But with teams playing as they currently are I'd like to see them mix it up a bit.
A corollary to this: when they win the toss, they need to stop deferring the opening kick-off. They should take the kick-off and open the game with a methodical, balanced, and TIME CONSUMING drive.
Or they can continue to kick-off and turn the ball over to the offense halfway through the 1st quarter already a TD behind, a bad situation for methodical, balanced, time-consuming drives.
That would be an interesting, and aggressive, approach. It's worth noting that even when the defenses have gotten stops early there have been those same problems on offense with turnovers.
And I really don't want them to shift their entire approach to a more methodical one. I just want them to force defenses to stop cheating towards the pass to such an extreme.
There will have to be some Giants talk this week of course, but will there be a temptation to jump right to the Melvin Ingram trade implications?
I'm curious to read how the Seth readers react to the win over the Giants and to this trade.
I'm going to write about Ingram first, then once the all-22 of KC/NYG is out we'll write about that.