Author Topic: CHIEFS  (Read 722298 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ChiCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 15263
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18400 on: October 16, 2020, 10:29:24 AM »
The only way this is a "bad" signing by the Chiefs is if they try and force him the ball and not let Mahomes do his thing.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk



If we're not doing that to Hill or Kelce, I don't see us doing it to a midseason acquisition
Neither of those players are RBs.  I'm talking about how they tried to force CEH into TDs in that first game, rather than just letting Mahomes take 2 or 3 cracks at it.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk



Yeah, I can see the goal to go situations being a different animal.  We've had to get pretty creative down there so far

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 33453
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18401 on: October 16, 2020, 10:45:52 AM »
i'm more talking about what they do on first down.

2018 1st & 10:
421 total plays
191 rushes
223 pass attempts + 7 sacks taken
= passing 55% of the time

2019 1st & 10:
417 total plays
195 rushes
215 pass attempts + 7 sacks taken
= passing 53% of the time

2020 1st & 10:
127 total plays
65 rushes
62 pass attempts + 0 sacks taken
= passing 49% of the time

Online 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 17707
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18402 on: October 16, 2020, 11:19:23 AM »


10/71 of the first down runs have been Mahomes (25 all last season). That accounts for a couple of the extra runs.  It has not been some drastic shift in early down running overall.



Source:
https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/play-selection---first-down-rate--off-.html
:adios:

Offline DaBigTrain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7294
  • stuxnet, meltdown, spectre, Bitcoin, ffChamp
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18403 on: October 19, 2020, 04:01:19 PM »
LFG
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"

https://blockstream.info/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f

Offline Spracne

  • Point Plank'r
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *
  • Posts: 12380
  • Distinguished Scholar/Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18404 on: October 19, 2020, 04:17:05 PM »
Random Monday afternoon Chiefs football? I'm into it...

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 54819
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18405 on: October 19, 2020, 06:43:31 PM »
let's go pringle  :ksu:
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline DaBigTrain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7294
  • stuxnet, meltdown, spectre, Bitcoin, ffChamp
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18406 on: October 19, 2020, 07:00:13 PM »
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"

https://blockstream.info/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f

Offline SkinnyBenny

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15641
  • good time rock-n-roll plastic banana FM type
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18407 on: October 19, 2020, 10:03:28 PM »
Just your classic Monday mid-afternoon slopfest.
"walking around mhk and crying in the rain because of love lost is the absolute purest and best thing in the world.  i hope i fall in love during the next few weeks and get my heart broken and it starts raining just to experience it one last time."   --Dlew12

Offline Pete

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 24209
  • T-Shirt KSU Football Fan
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18408 on: October 20, 2020, 08:06:01 AM »
See what happens when the OL gives CEH a little bit of room.  :fatty:

Offline WildcatNkilt

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5810
  • Had the worst birthday ever on Dec. 5th of '98.
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18409 on: October 20, 2020, 08:24:41 AM »
They ran a decent amount of draws, which is what people were saying they should do given how often they get blitzed.  I loved watching our run game have success.  Add Le'Veon to the mix and safeties will creep up so Patrick can go long! 
Kansas City Blue Barbecue fan.

Offline ChiCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 15263
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18410 on: October 20, 2020, 08:30:19 AM »
I appreciate how much patience the Chiefs are showing but miss the long ball.

Online 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 17707
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18411 on: October 20, 2020, 09:09:23 AM »
It’s nice to see when a team continues with a light box that we can punish them, but running that much is dumb. We were damn near perfect, and we averaged 3.25 points per drive, just better than our average 2.95.
:adios:

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 33453
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18412 on: October 20, 2020, 09:21:26 AM »
demarcus robsinson not being terrible was nice. also it's looking like we should be able to afford mecole's 2nd contract!  :excited:

Offline SkinnyBenny

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15641
  • good time rock-n-roll plastic banana FM type
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18413 on: October 20, 2020, 10:15:52 AM »
It’s nice to see when a team continues with a light box that we can punish them, but running that much is dumb. We were damn near perfect, and we averaged 3.25 points per drive, just better than our average 2.95.

Not sure I really understand where you're coming from here...it was pouring rain the entire game.
"walking around mhk and crying in the rain because of love lost is the absolute purest and best thing in the world.  i hope i fall in love during the next few weeks and get my heart broken and it starts raining just to experience it one last time."   --Dlew12

Online 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 17707
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18414 on: October 20, 2020, 10:17:36 AM »
It’s nice to see when a team continues with a light box that we can punish them, but running that much is dumb. We were damn near perfect, and we averaged 3.25 points per drive, just better than our average 2.95.

Not sure I really understand where you're coming from here...it was pouring rain the entire game.
You’re right, and that made passing the ball next to impossible :blank:

:adios:

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 31992
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18415 on: October 20, 2020, 10:34:51 AM »
If we are averaging more points per drive than average, why complain about the offense running the ball too much?

Offline wetwillie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21926
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18416 on: October 20, 2020, 10:47:32 AM »
Winning is not good enough, we need to win with style.
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline ben ji

  • Senior Moderator
  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 8663
  • Alot of people dont hit on an 18
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18417 on: October 20, 2020, 10:47:49 AM »
It’s nice to see when a team continues with a light box that we can punish them, but running that much is dumb. We were damn near perfect, and we averaged 3.25 points per drive, just better than our average 2.95.

Not sure I really understand where you're coming from here...it was pouring rain the entire game.
You’re right, and that made passing the ball next to impossible :blank:



I remember the Bronco's game last year in the snowstorm and before the game I was thinking about how we were going to have to pound the rock because it would be too hard to throw.  :lol:

Mahomes went 27/34 with 340 yards and 2 TDs

If we needed to pass yesterday we could of but we just kept handing the ball off for 7 yards a carry which is pretty good I think.

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 33453
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18418 on: October 20, 2020, 11:10:07 AM »
the thought is that the chiefs are the better team no matter the opponent. therefore it is advantageous for the chiefs to have as many possessions as possible, because more possessions means more time for what's supposed to happen to actually happen (the chiefs scoring more than their opponent). so when the chiefs run the ball 40 times it shortens the game / limits possessions quite a bit. it's why you can rush for 400 yards in a game and look up in the 4th quarter and it's still a one score game. fewer possessions favors randomness, which favors the worse team. do you guys ever watch bruceketball?

the bills strategy actually worked because they baited the chiefs into running way more than they normally would, and sure enough it was 23-17 in the 4th quarter, with the bills only needing one stop to get the ball back, which they almost did! about as good a chance as any team could hope for vs the chiefs.

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 33453
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18419 on: October 20, 2020, 11:13:21 AM »
last week, the chiefs rightly baited the raiders into throwing the ball all over the place, just betting on the fact that derek carr is terrible, and knowing more throwing = more possessions for mahomes. it backfired bc mahomes had his career worst completion % and pocket bail % (i made that one up), and derek carr played out of his mind

Online kitten_mittons

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 4501
  • Clawing at your furnitures.
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18420 on: October 20, 2020, 11:15:16 AM »
the thought is that the chiefs are the better team no matter the opponent. therefore it is advantageous for the chiefs to have as many possessions as possible, because more possessions means more time for what's supposed to happen to actually happen (the chiefs scoring more than their opponent). so when the chiefs run the ball 40 times it shortens the game / limits possessions quite a bit. it's why you can rush for 400 yards in a game and look up in the 4th quarter and it's still a one score game. fewer possessions favors randomness, which favors the worse team. do you guys ever watch bruceketball?

the bills strategy actually worked because they baited the chiefs into running way more than they normally would, and sure enough it was 23-17 in the 4th quarter, with the bills only needing one stop to get the ball back, which they almost did! about as good a chance as any team could hope for vs the chiefs.
Yes, shortening the game is the play vs the Chiefs.  The almost CEH fumble shows why that would work.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


Offline ChiCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 15263
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18421 on: October 20, 2020, 11:59:29 AM »
I understand more possessions can correct for more randomness and benefit the chiefs.  However, we had the lead and were very successful running the ball.

Offline Pete

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 24209
  • T-Shirt KSU Football Fan
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18422 on: October 20, 2020, 01:46:29 PM »
the thought is that the chiefs are the better team no matter the opponent. therefore it is advantageous for the chiefs to have as many possessions as possible, because more possessions means more time for what's supposed to happen to actually happen (the chiefs scoring more than their opponent). so when the chiefs run the ball 40 times it shortens the game / limits possessions quite a bit. it's why you can rush for 400 yards in a game and look up in the 4th quarter and it's still a one score game. fewer possessions favors randomness, which favors the worse team. do you guys ever watch bruceketball?

the bills strategy actually worked because they baited the chiefs into running way more than they normally would, and sure enough it was 23-17 in the 4th quarter, with the bills only needing one stop to get the ball back, which they almost did! about as good a chance as any team could hope for vs the chiefs.
Yes, shortening the game is the play vs the Chiefs.  The almost CEH fumble shows why that would work.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I'm not worried about CEH fumbling after he is clearly down, as much as I am worried about Robinson holding the ball in one dangling hand like he's Sweetness.  Robinson scares the crap out of me.

Offline Pete

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 24209
  • T-Shirt KSU Football Fan
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18423 on: October 20, 2020, 01:53:27 PM »
John Ross, anyone?  He's only 5'11"  I was thinking he was bigger than that.  I have a wish in my heart to give Patrick a tall WR to go along with Kelsey.

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 33453
    • View Profile
Re: CHIEFS
« Reply #18424 on: October 20, 2020, 04:47:46 PM »
John Ross, anyone?  He's only 5'11"  I was thinking he was bigger than that.  I have a wish in my heart to give Patrick a tall WR to go along with Kelsey.

he was the player drafted one spot previous to mahomes

 :Keke: